Black Lives Matter

(This article is not about the “Black Lives Matter”ORGANIZATION, but it is about theTRUTHthat black lives matter).

In 2013, when the “Black Lives Matter” slogan started being used, I took offense.I immediately rebutted with, “All Lives Matter.” I felt that such a statement elevated one race above another, rather than acknowledging that everyone has worth.

I was wrong.

I have done a lot of reflection since then and have come to realize that to bring emphasis to one truth does not mean you’re discounting another truth.In affirming “Black Lives Matter,” no one is suggesting that “All Lives Don’t Matter.” Rather, it is an attempt to bring attention to the fact that one of the injustices of our culture is that some have not treated “Black Lives” as if they mattered.

Upon further reflection, I have discovered that we have a difficult time recognizing many truths without feeling compelled to offer a caveat along with those truths.When brethren respond to “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter,” it isn’t necessarily a “racist” reply, but a genuine, though misguided, attempt to “balance” complementary truths.I say it’s not “racism” because, upon reflection, I have come to realize we do the same thing with many truths that have nothing to do with race.For instance:

  • Let a brother preach or teach a lesson on “salvation by faith,” and watch how quickly it will be challenged if it doesn’t involve a discussion of baptism.我们经常觉得有必要提供一个对比,一个d say something like, “but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to be baptized.” Can we not allow the true statement, “salvation is by faith” stand, without complimenting or trying to balance that truth with another truth?
  • Have you ever heard a sermon on the thief on the cross without it involving a discussion of baptism?Is the story of the thief on the cross really about baptism, or is it about the scope of God’s grace?Why must the truth about the scope of God’s grace always be moderated by his truth about baptism?
  • Let a brother preach on “the role of women” and watch how he will be challenged if he does not develop what isn’t her role.In fact, I’ve heard sermons on the “role of women” that did not even touch on her role but simply expounded upon what her role was not.

The list could go on, but these might be sufficient to help us recognize that we can affirm a truth without needing to, at the same time, offer complimentary truths.

I can say, “Black Lives Matter” (period).It’s true.I needn’t complement that with another truth that affirms, “All Lives Matter.” In a time when many in our culture act as though black lives don’t matter, can we not affirm the truth that “Black Lives Matter” without diluting that truth with other truths?Let it stand as is!There’s a time and a place for injecting the worth of all people, “red and yellow, black and white,” but there may also be a time to affirm, individually, the worth of each (Ecclesiastes 3:1).

I believe now is such a time.Black lives matter!

print

Comments20

  • Thank you!

  • I agree with most of your post.The part I do not agree with is “salvation by faith”.Although It is critical, but if I do not allow others to know there are other things also, It could lead them astray by not knowing the entire message.Example you may have used before you need flour to make a cake and then you just stop there and say well that is truth.Sure it is but it will not get you the final thing you desire.

    The example of the woman and a lesson on what her role does not consist of.What if you applied the argument “I needn’t complement that with another truth”.Well I think what you are saying is the best way to have the message.And that would be to also tell what here role as a member of the body is and how important it is.

    In closing I believe the black lives matters can stand on its own but I must be careful in using”I needn’t complement that with another truth” on other subjects.

    Thanks

  • But what if the slogan represents more, and things with which you disagree?What if you believe it promotes a false narrative, and that, as an organization, BLM stands for things that you cannot abide?Then I will refrain from using such slogans.Thank you for the article.

  • Thank you, Steve.Keep preaching truth in love with courage.

  • Thank you for opening our eyes ❤️

  • Black Lives Matter is a terrible group that only cares about black lives when killed by whites.They don’t care when blacks kill blacks, which is over 90% of black murders in this country.They don’t care about the real reason blacks are being murdered, men growing up without father’s, breakdown of the black family, and a victim mentality that blames others verses taking responsibility for their action.This is not in line with Christ teachings.

  • Thank you for this.

  • Rick, thanks for taking the time to express your concern.However, I believe the root of your concern is in failing to see that I am not supporting the black lives matter “ORGANIZATION,” the the “TRUTH” that black lives matter.I don’t support the organization.It stands for things that are unbiblical.But my article didn’t once mention the organization, but was focused on the truth of the statement.Hope that helps.

  • Thank you for your comments, Angelo, but I would ask you to re-read my article and find where I endorsed or even mentioned the black lives matter “ORGANIZATION.” I didn’t.I wrote about “TRUTH” that black lives matter.This seems to be the root of your disagreement.In the same way that I should be able to affirm God loves homosexuals without being accused of supporting a homosexual “ORGANIZATION,” I should be able to affirm the truth that black lives matters without being accused of supporting the black lives matter “ORGANIZATION.”

  • Jim, thanks for your reply, and while I appreciate your comments and your desire that all men know all of God’s truth, I think your reasoning is flawed here.One need to affirm all truth on any topic at the same time.For example can we find a single, all-inclusive verse in the Bible that tells one what he must do to be saved?No.We put it together.有些文章提到信仰但不提及repentance.Some passages mention baptism, and don’t mention love for God.These inspired men were not wrong in their approach.

    Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and didn’t mention repentance, baptism, or love for God.One would be incorrect in concluding that Paul didn’t affirm the essentially of all these things because he didn’t mention them in that particular context.

    God loved the Jewish nation.He affirmed his love for them many times in Scripture.Did such affirmations need a counterpart reminder saying, “and remember, God loves all men too?” He could affirm his love for one people without having to, in the same breath, affirm he also loves all men.

    Thanks for taking time to reply.I hope you can see my point.God bless.

  • 史蒂夫,

    This took some courage and I appreciate what you said.The church does not always have the cleanest record when it comes to race matters.Some of our colleges allowed POC only after secular schools did.We too often conflate fighting racism with left-wing politics, so our hands are tied and we say nothing.It shouldn’t be that way!We need to shine a light in the darkness, no matter how we might be labeled or criticized.All of us white brothers and sisters should listen to our Black brothers and sisters, and we need TALK LESS and LISTEN MORE.

    Thanks again for the article, it will have a positive impact.

  • Making a specific statement such as ‘white men are smart’, gives the implication that others aren’t.A statement that is a partial truth, is a lie by omission.Doing an entire sermon on being saved by faith and leaving out baptism is also a lie by omission.Partial truths that are group specific by their logical statement exclude those not included in the statement.If the statement ‘black lives matter’ is a valid statement without qualification of others also mattering, then my statement ‘white men are smart’ also would be valid.Logically, a statement about a specific group, by definition, excludes all others not named in the statement.For the statement to be true, just as saying ‘we are saved by faith’, a modifier can be added to remove the narrowness of the group named.‘Black lives matter, too’ becomes not only true, but does not leave anyone out even though the statement omits them.Similarly, ‘we are saved by faith, too’ removes the possibility of someone hearing one sermon about being saved by faith, and not hearing the whole truth since it implies other requirements.Making any statement that is specific in scope automatically removes those not named as being worthy of the description in the statement.The simple addition of a word that makes the group specified as part of a bigger group is all the difference.Black lives matter, too.

  • Richard, thank you for your interest in this topic and for taking the time to reply.While I appreciate that, I must ask that you reconsider your reasoning.It’s flawed.Can I ask you to consider how it is flawed by putting it to the test?

    You said, “A statement about a specific group, by definition, excludes all others not named in the statement.”
    You also said, “Making any statement that is specific in scope automatically removes those not named as being worthy of the description in the statement.” Thus you suggest we should add the modifier, “too.”

    Let’s test this.So let’s imagine you’ve taken your wife out on a date and at some point in the evening, you say, “Honey, you’re beautiful.” Does that therefore exclude all other women from the category of beautiful?If not, should you qualify your statement to you wife and say, “Honey, you’re beautiful, too?” I’d suggest you don’t.

    Jesus loved the church (Eph.5).Does that exclude the world from being in the category of those Jesus loves?Should we modify that statement to say “Jesus loves the church, too?”

    I could go on.I might say, “My children are thoughtful and kind.” Did I just exclude all other people in the world from being thoughtful and kind?Of course not.

    I think you can see the flaw in your proposition.One can affirm that black lives matter without excluding others, and without the need of a modifier.

  • Good article.Excellent food for thought.Recent events have caused me to re-examine my thoughts on racism in our country.Especially after some of the stories I heard from two wonderful elders who are black.I never would of dreamed they and their families would have been subjected to some of the things they described.

  • 史蒂夫,

    Thank you for this excellent and important post.I have seen similar statements from many younger ministers in their 20s and 30s, but not nearly as many from those who are somewhat older, which, to me, makes your statement all the more important.

    I deeply appreciate you sharing these thoughts.

  • 什么是不符合基督教学采取了一种男人/女人,使之成为一个奴隶,同时他的妻子或女儿强奸他们,甚至强奸男人刹车他们行。这是基督像?由萨零了他们对其他奴隶贩子破坏他的家庭。是它的真实存在是黑色人种的问题,但它的所有设计和重建的斗争也是由设计。我们有些人使它成为相当成功,但并非没有责备。黑商人,警察,甚至政府官员受到虐待和警察等人根本不尊重,由于自己的肤色。多少次有一个白人或儿童走进一家商店,并围绕跟着看他是否会窃取或白色的女子拉她的钱包关闭只是因为你是步行。我们的人民做出了尝试自足很久以前,并会见了暴力和仇恨与黑华尔街的轰炸甚至到了今天,我们必须区别对待比大多数至于我们的信用评级,薪资等级,我们肩负着犯罪,等等的方式..所以,是这个国家仍然有很多怪,当涉及到我们的自由和成功。美国;拿低收入,不公正,不公平的做法,种族主义,不正确的教育和正确的链仅仅是人类的,也许我们就可以开始改革我们的比赛,我们的社区。我们只是想生活的权利以及安全的,就像你,当你明白,那么你就会明白,这是基督喜欢生活也让别人活。

  • 史蒂夫,
    我竭诚与您在说什么的“经验事实”同意并完全同意黑生命物质;我也明白,世界的99%,他们个人的“感知真相”,即工作我们相信,基于个人经验,偏见和品牌是真实的(即广告),我们已经遇到过。由于涉及到信仰的人的例子,当美南浸信会通过了其年度会议的口号是‘重生基督徒’我会回到中期/末期70年代。之前我们中的任何一个十年有家用电脑,或手机到“#anything”,“重生基督徒”成为了美南浸信会教堂的井号标签。这可能是前10年的任何其他受洗的信徒可以使用经验,真正的短语来指代自己没有服用四段解释:“不,我不是美南浸信会,但我是一个重生的基督徒,因为。。“。
    有一些伟大的时刻教学的话,因为可能有今天“黑生命物质”,但总体“真理”的99%的人口是,这句话就会与该品牌它的运动。鉴于我们今天的世界正在更加专注于包括hashtag报价,即时的满足感,微波爆米花(和其他任何我们移动到下一个任务之前,可以快速完成)比我们45年前,很少有人会花时间 to digest the explanation and truth behind the statement.不知道,你可以可以搞某人听/看你的逻辑的时候,我怕你/我们在不知不觉中自己与运动,通过他们的行动,是支持的想法,只有某些黑人的命也是命和组关联 of people are categorically evil.
    感谢您的文章。

  • 奇妙的真理表示史蒂夫。

  • 史蒂夫,
    我想提出关于这篇文章的一些意见。首先,短语,“黑人的命也是命”不会对自己的立场作为一个基本的事实。你认识到,当你从黑色物质生活的组织,是反基督教的许多信仰撇清自己这个事实。在博客文章你的开场白是进一步真理,阐明你的这句话的意思是“黑色的生活问题。” This statement is your caveat.因此,你有矛盾你自己。自我矛盾是肯定的伪命题,“所有的真理是经得起本身”并没有需要进一步的真相澄清它的结果。只有那是不言而喻的(例如老生常谈)有些道理的说法。如果你停下来想一想,都在他的话语所给予的上帝揭示的真理在一份书面的上下文中给出。这方面涉及到的直接背景以及远程上下文。不是圣经的单一通道“代表一个人。” When we lift a passage of Scripture out of context, it becomes a “prooftext.” This violates hermeneutical principles.你已经解除了那句“黑人的命也是命”了原来的背景下(文化,社会),并给了它新的含义。原来的背景是黑色物质生活的组织,品牌图形和口号识别自己的其他组织相区别的一种手段。为了做到这一点,你必须给予澄清tatements to separate yourself from this organization and redefine the phrase “black lives matter” for a Christian audience.When you redefine the phrase and disassociate it from the organization, only then can you affirm it in good conscience.It takes “other truths” to accomplish this and you do this in your blog.

  • Hi David, Good to hear from you.Hope you’re doing well.I appreciate you taking time to comment on this article, but I’ve read your comments and must disagree.I think you’re taking my comments farther than I ever intended and whether that is my fault or not, I can say that I think we’re missing each other.

    First of all, I do believe the truth that black lives matters can stand without caveats.I do not agree that this statement doesn’t stand on its own.The fact that I might offer clarification that I am not talking about the organization called, “Black Lives Matter” does not mean it doesn’t stand on its own.That caveat is a matter of preference.Depending on the situation, I may or may not feel the need to clarify.Same thing with the thief on the cross.I can preach from Luke 23 about the thief on the cross and expound upon God’s grace.The fact that I might choose to clarify some matters depending on the situation, does not mean that the truth that the thief was saved by grace doesn’t stand on its own.I don’t believe I’ve given a “new definition” to the words “black lives matter.” When a grandmother is grieving over her 2 year old boy who has been physically abused, and in tears says, “I don’t know why anyone would treat him this way.He’s such a good and innocent little boy.” I don’t think it would be compassionate, kind, or necessary to respond by saying, “Excuse me ma’am, all two-year-old boys are good and innocent little boys.” Can we not let that woman’s statement stand and show her compassion without reminding her that all two-year-old boys are innocent?That’s all I’m trying to say.

    In a day and age when a group of people have experienced injustice, we should allow them to express their worth, and show compassion toward them for having to endure actions that don’t respect their worth without having to remind them the complimentary truth, “Well, all lives matter.” Such a response seems to be terribly calloused.Not because those who say it are wanting to be, but they haven’t realized how it comes off.

%d博客 like this: