Here to cheer you on, Dr. Tisby. It must take great discipline and discernment to participate in discussions like this. Keep up the kingdom work!
By the way, do you know or know of Heather Cox Richardson? She is another historian, publishes frequent letters on Facebook. She had a lengthy interview with President Biden about a month ago.
Thanks for sharing this, Jemar. It’s definitely true that a certain subgroup of white evangelicals is quick to confirmation bias an understanding of history that makes them feel better - and that a much larger population of white evangelicals lets them do it without more than a shrug or side-eye. Fits into a larger anti-intellectual mindset in American evangelicals that promotes “common sense” AKA “what feels like good sense to me right now”
Jemar, respectfully, I find that you traffic in the very same tactics as those you rail against. I have read and listened to a lot of your work and find that there is some really important and devastating information you bring to the conversation, but it quickly gets overshadowed by a clear and heavy bias of your own and actually leads to a place where you are so sure of yourself that you are unwilling to believe that there are any level-headed people that may disagree with you.
Actually, one of my first experiences listening to you was a talk you gave at a church. I thought your talk was good and useful information, but then came the Q&A portion...a young lady in the crowd asked you what was clearly a racist question. Thinking you would respond with some form of pushback, I was quite surprised when you actually cheered her on and said she had "skipped over the 101 class all the way to the 401 class", or something in that vein. My first experience with you was actually tinged with a disappointment of your willingness to celebrate racism, as long as it lined up with your preferred narrative. It did not line up with the label of truly being anti-racist, just anti-some-racism. I have listened to and read much more of your work since then and see this same theme running through much of your work.
"Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly." Deuteronomy 25:13-16
I’ll also say, I learned this information--both the history and the reactions to it--the hard way. Through betrayals and broken relationships and devastating revelations. It gives me no glee to point out these things. But I highlight this information because I wish I had known sooner.
You have leveled some heavy accusations with ZERO evidence. You can disagree and my perspectives can make you feel bad. Neither of those means what I’m saying is untrue.
In your opinion, when I see people walk in the doors of a church, is it a good thing for me to immediately judge them based on race or ethnicity and feel a need to "vet them out" to make sure they are "safe"?
I definitely didn't hear any concern from you with this approach. Actually, you explicitly said she was "on the right track".
This was my first experience with your work and honestly gave me pause right off the bat. I just want to encourage you not to become what you are fighting against.
The experience of people who are in the minority is always one of wariness that they will be steamrolled in various ways by the culture of the majority group. In particular, if you are Black in a majority white Christian setting, these concerns are well-founded. In any event, you see. To be subscribing to the idea of “reverse racism” which pays MK attention to these majority/minority dynamics and imbalances.
I totally get your premise here, and it sounds reasonable, don't get me wrong. But, is it at all possible that racial or ethnic identity can become an idol which leads to growing impulses and actions of the sin of ethnic partiality? Honestly, I hear it in both her and you in this conversation. When in James 2 Scripture says, "show no partiality," do you see a contextual footnote in that command? I do not.
Her words sound like she is picking and choosing who gets to sit in the seat of honor. When this happens in the illustration in James, verse 5 comes in pretty hot asking, "have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?", followed up by verse 9, "But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."
How do you personally wrestle with the natural instinct towards ethnic partiality as a Christian knowing that the flesh is so prone to reject God's commands? Is ethnic partiality allowable as long as the right cultural context is in place?
I see her comment as one of a person under threat - an active, real, current threat - that affects her life every day. This isn’t about partiality but about staying alive. Would that we lived when “partiality” was our biggest issue! Our issue is Dylann Roof!
Frame of reference: white person raised in evangelicalism.
Camille, her exact quote was, "as I saw Asian looking people coming to the church, I was growing wary of them. Because I wasn't sure what kind of Asian they were."
My mom always told me I came by my thick skull genetically. Accordingly, I am totally lost as to how we got to Dylann Roof from there.
I had a more recent example as well that I would love to hear directly from you on. In your recent piece titled "Trayvon Martin's Murder and the Death of the Evangelical Racial Reconciliation Movement", you used some very intentional language. Two times, immediately succeeding paragraphs in which you are specifically discussing white Christians you say;
"Then THEY killed Trayvon Martin."
"Then THEY killed Mike Brown."
You are an excellent writer and not one to use words in an unintentional manner. Why did you specifically use "they" in these two sentences? Who is "they"?
I personally came to a certain conclusion after reading your piece, but I'd love you hear directly from you as to your word selection.
“They” references the fact that Trayvon Martin’s murder is part of a long and sordid tradition of the racial profiling of Black people, especially young Black men. While one man pulled the trigger we would be mistaken to ignore the broader history and culture that makes a Black teen in a hoodie seem like a threat.
So by your non-answer, I am left to assume that you are leaving interpretation up to the reader here. A choose your own adventure of sorts.
Here is my interpretation, and please don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong. That is the case more often than not.
When one uses a pronoun, it is most typically used to refer to something previously mentioned and easily identified. In your article, both of these sentences came directly after a paragraph in which you were discussing your interactions with white Christians. Thus, the best I can do in my interpretation is assume that the "they" is referencing the white Christians you were specifically discussing or white Christians more generally. Is this correct?
So, would it be an accurate interpretation of your language to restate the sentences accordingly:
Then the white Christians, who had previously enthusiastically supported me, killed Trayvon.
and
Then the white people, whom I had stayed with in their spaces, killed Mike Brown.
Are these rephrases accurate to your authorial intent? I want to extend charity and give the benefit of the doubt, but this was my honest first impression of what you wrote.
Do you see the lethal poison that is being imbibed here?
Look no further than our other comment chain above in which Camille has been convinced that a "white person raised in evangelicalism" serves as a synonym of sorts to Dylann Roof and is an ever present threat.
I hear your vile distaste with the idea that a black teen in a hoodie is automatically viewed as a threat. I share your hatred for this perspective in the depths of my soul. But, doesn't Camille's response above echo the same sort of view? (White evangelicals are a threat because any one of them could be another Dylann Roof) Or, when Ms. Park at your talk sees an Asain walk through the doors of her church and her initial (and celebrated) instinct is one of wariness and fear instead of charity and hospitality. Or, even what I have seen in so much of your recent work, warning people to constantly be on guard against the growing threat of the white Christian nationalist sitting in the pew next to them (but black Christian nationalism should be celebrated, per your recent senate testimony, right?).
Race is a fake concept, it is not real (on this point I excitedly agree with the CRT scholars), let's put it to bed. The racial identitarianism game is toxic sludge in a broken cistern. It is a spitting in the face of the Dei of the Imago Dei. It doesn't matter who plays it, it will lead to suffering and death (both physical and spiritual). Even if we are utterly convinced we're using it for a just cause this time around, it is still poison. I am pleading with you as a fellow Christian, let's all call it out for the evil that it is, put it to death in our own hearts, and stay as far away from it as we possibly can.
That is all.
While you don't know me from Adam, I pray you are able to hear the genuine care I have for you as my brother in Christ. Peace be with you brother.
Ive often head the argument that every race has been a slave at one time or another,or that the Irish were also slaves when they came to America. So they are basically saying “Get over it”.,SMH.
They cannot cope with the fact that slavery came in different forms over the centuries, and also can’t seem to grasp the difference between indentured servitude, and the dehumanization of chattel slavery.
Yes. Historians have persuasively shown that very early on slavery in North America was racialized against people of African dissent in a way that was not typically true with other racial and ethnic groups.
“Christians were against slavery.” They were referring to Quakers that were involved in the Underground Railroad. Never mind that the Quakers were a very small minority of Christians.
Here to cheer you on, Dr. Tisby. It must take great discipline and discernment to participate in discussions like this. Keep up the kingdom work!
By the way, do you know or know of Heather Cox Richardson? She is another historian, publishes frequent letters on Facebook. She had a lengthy interview with President Biden about a month ago.
Thanks for sharing this, Jemar. It’s definitely true that a certain subgroup of white evangelicals is quick to confirmation bias an understanding of history that makes them feel better - and that a much larger population of white evangelicals lets them do it without more than a shrug or side-eye. Fits into a larger anti-intellectual mindset in American evangelicals that promotes “common sense” AKA “what feels like good sense to me right now”
Jemar, respectfully, I find that you traffic in the very same tactics as those you rail against. I have read and listened to a lot of your work and find that there is some really important and devastating information you bring to the conversation, but it quickly gets overshadowed by a clear and heavy bias of your own and actually leads to a place where you are so sure of yourself that you are unwilling to believe that there are any level-headed people that may disagree with you.
Actually, one of my first experiences listening to you was a talk you gave at a church. I thought your talk was good and useful information, but then came the Q&A portion...a young lady in the crowd asked you what was clearly a racist question. Thinking you would respond with some form of pushback, I was quite surprised when you actually cheered her on and said she had "skipped over the 101 class all the way to the 401 class", or something in that vein. My first experience with you was actually tinged with a disappointment of your willingness to celebrate racism, as long as it lined up with your preferred narrative. It did not line up with the label of truly being anti-racist, just anti-some-racism. I have listened to and read much more of your work since then and see this same theme running through much of your work.
"Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly." Deuteronomy 25:13-16
I’ll also say, I learned this information--both the history and the reactions to it--the hard way. Through betrayals and broken relationships and devastating revelations. It gives me no glee to point out these things. But I highlight this information because I wish I had known sooner.
You have leveled some heavy accusations with ZERO evidence. You can disagree and my perspectives can make you feel bad. Neither of those means what I’m saying is untrue.
Minute 44:15 of the talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwz-Gt4Hkqg&t=2735s
In your opinion, when I see people walk in the doors of a church, is it a good thing for me to immediately judge them based on race or ethnicity and feel a need to "vet them out" to make sure they are "safe"?
I definitely didn't hear any concern from you with this approach. Actually, you explicitly said she was "on the right track".
This was my first experience with your work and honestly gave me pause right off the bat. I just want to encourage you not to become what you are fighting against.
The experience of people who are in the minority is always one of wariness that they will be steamrolled in various ways by the culture of the majority group. In particular, if you are Black in a majority white Christian setting, these concerns are well-founded. In any event, you see. To be subscribing to the idea of “reverse racism” which pays MK attention to these majority/minority dynamics and imbalances.
I totally get your premise here, and it sounds reasonable, don't get me wrong. But, is it at all possible that racial or ethnic identity can become an idol which leads to growing impulses and actions of the sin of ethnic partiality? Honestly, I hear it in both her and you in this conversation. When in James 2 Scripture says, "show no partiality," do you see a contextual footnote in that command? I do not.
Her words sound like she is picking and choosing who gets to sit in the seat of honor. When this happens in the illustration in James, verse 5 comes in pretty hot asking, "have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?", followed up by verse 9, "But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."
How do you personally wrestle with the natural instinct towards ethnic partiality as a Christian knowing that the flesh is so prone to reject God's commands? Is ethnic partiality allowable as long as the right cultural context is in place?
I see her comment as one of a person under threat - an active, real, current threat - that affects her life every day. This isn’t about partiality but about staying alive. Would that we lived when “partiality” was our biggest issue! Our issue is Dylann Roof!
Frame of reference: white person raised in evangelicalism.
Camille, her exact quote was, "as I saw Asian looking people coming to the church, I was growing wary of them. Because I wasn't sure what kind of Asian they were."
My mom always told me I came by my thick skull genetically. Accordingly, I am totally lost as to how we got to Dylann Roof from there.
I had a more recent example as well that I would love to hear directly from you on. In your recent piece titled "Trayvon Martin's Murder and the Death of the Evangelical Racial Reconciliation Movement", you used some very intentional language. Two times, immediately succeeding paragraphs in which you are specifically discussing white Christians you say;
"Then THEY killed Trayvon Martin."
"Then THEY killed Mike Brown."
You are an excellent writer and not one to use words in an unintentional manner. Why did you specifically use "they" in these two sentences? Who is "they"?
I personally came to a certain conclusion after reading your piece, but I'd love you hear directly from you as to your word selection.
“They” references the fact that Trayvon Martin’s murder is part of a long and sordid tradition of the racial profiling of Black people, especially young Black men. While one man pulled the trigger we would be mistaken to ignore the broader history and culture that makes a Black teen in a hoodie seem like a threat.
So, again, who is "they"?
So by your non-answer, I am left to assume that you are leaving interpretation up to the reader here. A choose your own adventure of sorts.
Here is my interpretation, and please don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong. That is the case more often than not.
When one uses a pronoun, it is most typically used to refer to something previously mentioned and easily identified. In your article, both of these sentences came directly after a paragraph in which you were discussing your interactions with white Christians. Thus, the best I can do in my interpretation is assume that the "they" is referencing the white Christians you were specifically discussing or white Christians more generally. Is this correct?
So, would it be an accurate interpretation of your language to restate the sentences accordingly:
Then the white Christians, who had previously enthusiastically supported me, killed Trayvon.
and
Then the white people, whom I had stayed with in their spaces, killed Mike Brown.
Are these rephrases accurate to your authorial intent? I want to extend charity and give the benefit of the doubt, but this was my honest first impression of what you wrote.
Do you see the lethal poison that is being imbibed here?
Look no further than our other comment chain above in which Camille has been convinced that a "white person raised in evangelicalism" serves as a synonym of sorts to Dylann Roof and is an ever present threat.
I hear your vile distaste with the idea that a black teen in a hoodie is automatically viewed as a threat. I share your hatred for this perspective in the depths of my soul. But, doesn't Camille's response above echo the same sort of view? (White evangelicals are a threat because any one of them could be another Dylann Roof) Or, when Ms. Park at your talk sees an Asain walk through the doors of her church and her initial (and celebrated) instinct is one of wariness and fear instead of charity and hospitality. Or, even what I have seen in so much of your recent work, warning people to constantly be on guard against the growing threat of the white Christian nationalist sitting in the pew next to them (but black Christian nationalism should be celebrated, per your recent senate testimony, right?).
Race is a fake concept, it is not real (on this point I excitedly agree with the CRT scholars), let's put it to bed. The racial identitarianism game is toxic sludge in a broken cistern. It is a spitting in the face of the Dei of the Imago Dei. It doesn't matter who plays it, it will lead to suffering and death (both physical and spiritual). Even if we are utterly convinced we're using it for a just cause this time around, it is still poison. I am pleading with you as a fellow Christian, let's all call it out for the evil that it is, put it to death in our own hearts, and stay as far away from it as we possibly can.
That is all.
While you don't know me from Adam, I pray you are able to hear the genuine care I have for you as my brother in Christ. Peace be with you brother.
Ive often head the argument that every race has been a slave at one time or another,or that the Irish were also slaves when they came to America. So they are basically saying “Get over it”.,SMH.
They cannot cope with the fact that slavery came in different forms over the centuries, and also can’t seem to grasp the difference between indentured servitude, and the dehumanization of chattel slavery.
Yes. Historians have persuasively shown that very early on slavery in North America was racialized against people of African dissent in a way that was not typically true with other racial and ethnic groups.
“Christians were against slavery.” They were referring to Quakers that were involved in the Underground Railroad. Never mind that the Quakers were a very small minority of Christians.
Ahh. Yes. We often like to claim the Positive historical exception as the rule.