"Proud Boys, Stand Back and Stand By"

Those seven words should be all that anyone needs to know.  

They should send a chill down the spine of every American.

They should represent the end of a political career.  There have been campaigns lost because of an over-enthusiastic "Yeehaw," an over-exaggerated sigh, excessive eye rolling.  Those pale in comparison to the statement made above.  

And yet, I have no delusions. 

This won't be the end of President Trump.  It's another tick in a long list of offenses that would have ended the careers of any other politician.  

Instead it merely represents the lowest point in the worst debate in presidential history.  

The debate in and of itself was an awful reflection of modern America society.  It was not a debate.  There was no reasoned discourse.  There wasn't even an opportunity for either side to present their vision for America.  Instead, it was a night of potshots and interruptions, of distortions and outright lies.   - Please don't mistake this for me "both-siding" the debate.   This was an hour and a half of one side repeatedly haranguing the other forcing an outright fight just to keep up.

In what was the worst offense, the President was given an opportunity to knock a softball question out of the fence.  He was given the opportunity to outright denounce alt-right and white supremacist groups.  And he started to indicate that he would. "Sure" he said, then asking for more clarification in the question.  When Wallace offered the Proud Boys as an example, Trump's response was staggering.

"Proud Boys, Stand Back and Stand By."

That's not a denouncement, that's a call to arms.  

And the Proud Boys are certainly taking it as one.  Leadership for the Proud Boys has responded that they are proud of the President's mention and have seen a surge of interest in joining.  Social media was ablaze in mentions, with the Proud Boys enthusiastically joining in.  They've even adopted "Stand Back and Stand By" as a slogan, to the point that Amazon has halted sales of merchandise with the phrases.

If you are unfamiliar, the Proud Boys are a right-wing, neo-fascist group with a dozen chapters in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, where they are particularly known for a readiness to fight Antifa.  They claim to be "Western Civilization Chauvinists," not white supremacists, pointing to their inclusion of some Asian American, African America, and Hispanic members.  "Western Civilization Chauvinists" should be looked at as "Western Civilization Supremacists" - read "White Civilization Supremacists."  And while they may not outwardly proclaim white supremacist beliefs, their ties to white supremacy are hard to ignore.  White supremacists are inextricably lined at their events.  Their de facto uniform, the black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirt, is historically linked to the white supremacists movement in England in the 1970s.  They have been designated as a general hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  

If it walks like a duck.

The sad thing is Trump's language is not as shocking as it should be.  It's part of a pattern of discourse, part of saying there are "very fine people on both sides."  A pattern of repeatedly refusing to call out alt-right groups because they make up a part of his base.  Lincoln appealed to the better angels of our nature.  Trump is appeasing our worst demons.

Trump has attempted to distance himself from his comments at the debate. Yesterday, he lied and said he did not know who the Proud Boys are, but they should stand down.  This might be more convincing if he did not have Proud Boys leadership at his rallies.  They appear in his official campaign videos.  They are the leaders of local Trump groups.

We should all take this as the call to action it should be. VOTE.  Vote them out of power.  Vote early, raise your voice.  Let them know this is not acceptable.

It's sadly going to be a long 34 days.

Willing To Yield

"Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.  But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.  This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

James 3:13-18

This section in the book of James is labeled the Two Kinds of Wisdom for good reason.  It contrasts an earthly, selfish wisdom, one that inflates ego, one that is used to divide, with a higher wisdom.  One that makes peace.  

The illustration was given about the kind of person who is always right.  Always having to show and prove their intelligence.  And then the person who admits how much they don't know.

The Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.    A cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.  Put simply, the less you know, the more likely you are to believe you have a higher ability, a higher intelligence than you actually do.  The more you know, the more likely you are to recognize your flaws and to often undersell your ability or your intelligence.  

We see the effect in a lot of different ways, particularly now on social media.  "Well, actually..."  Mansplaining.  Misinformation and disinfomation campaigns.  Truly fake news being shared on a mass scale.  Sharing single source news.  No matter the issue, there is always an expert ready to comment.  Ready to inform.  Ready to "set the record straight."

A wisdom ready to build up selfish ambition.  Ready to prove how right the person is.  How smart the person is.  Shared to collect likes and loves to stroke the ego.

Or a wisdom shared out of bitter jealousy.  To prove someone else wrong.  To pull support away from someone else.  To shame.  To shun.

What should break our heart, is that it's probably at its worst within the Church.

We share posts, we share information to show how right, how "righteous" we are.  We have the right theology.  We attend the right type of services.  We hang around the right kind of people.  And stay completely separate from everything else.

We share posts and think we are safe because they contain Biblical quotes and information.  We think we have wisdom from above because we are using the Bible.  But how often are we sharing that information for selfish ambition?  To get likes because of our right theology?  To display our bona fides?  How often are we sharing out of bitter jealousy?  To silence our critics?

James shows us that the wisdom from above has very specific characteristics.  It is pure.  It is peaceable - it leads to peace.  It is gentle.  It is full of mercy and good fruits - it is beneficial.  It is impartial, it carries no favor - not to us, not to our "church", not to the exclusion of anyone else.  It is sincere, without hypocrisy.  It is open to reason.

Open to reason.  I love that entry.  Other translations list it as "willing to yield."

That means it's willing to admit when it is wrong.
Willing to concede when someone makes a valid point.
Willing to admit we don't know.
Willing to admit when we question.
Willing to admit what we struggle with.

This seems so antithetical to how we present ourselves.  How we preach our gospel.

How often is our wisdom haughty, presumptive, proud, arrogant, determined to show how the world is wrong?

How often do we sho our wisdom to prove how we alone (or our team) has got it right?

How often do we share an article to prove our wisdom?  To prove our agreement with the "right" side?

How often are our statements meant to be emphatic periods or even exclamation points, designed to end discussion rather than continue the conversation?
"God says it so I believe it..."
"If you have a problem with that you have a problem with God..."
"Somethings you just have to take on faith..."
"The Lord works in mysterious ways..."

Those are all statements with truth in them.   But they are also all statements we use to end conversations.  To side step questions.  To avoid actually struggling with some of the implications of the Bible and our faith.  To avoid wrestling with faith.

How often are we really willing to continue the conversation?  To continue the dialogue with doubters, with strugglers, with the lost, with the hurting, with the un-churched, with the de-churched, with those hurt irrevocably by the church?

How often are we willing to be humble, to admit we don't know, and wrestle, and struggle with them?

That is a meek wisdom.  That is a wisdom from above.

My intent with this blog is always to foster and continue conversation.  It's why I'm more interested in questions than answers.  It's why there are a lot of question marks in this particular entry.  It's why I will play devil's advocate and will take positions unpopular in the modern church.  It's why I'm hardest on the church.

We as followers of Christ should be the most approachable people in this world.  The ones most easily able to have conversations with, especially the hard ones.

In the coming year, may we all make that our resolution.  Our commitment.  Our calling.  To have a meek wisdom that seeks and creates peace.  That fosters continued conversations.  That reaches out.

Lord willing...

False Equivalencies (vulgarity and offensiveness <> racism)

We've really lost the ability to debate, haven't we.

I posted earlier on the Rosanne Barr issue from a slightly different angle.  But in the days since, my feed has been filled with other bad actor and false equivalency arguments.  "But so and so did this."  That kind of argument did not work when I was a child and it still doesn't work today.

So, today I would like to address a few additional thoughts on the controversy and surrounding issues.

It's funny to me the people who are now calling for Rosanne's show to be put back on the air - I remember when her show first aired how many of them thought it was trash and vulgar itself.  Shows how times and political allegiances change.

This was not the first time Rosanne had been in trouble for inappropriate tweets - Rosanne has a bit of a history of tweeting inappropriate things, enraging people, and then leaving the building.  The particular tweet here was part of a larger exchange with Chelsea Clinton regarding conspiracy theories on George Soros.  She had been apparently warned against any future offensive tweets, but had proceeded anyway.  This incident seems to be less a single tweet ending her career than a straw that broke the camel's back.

The particular tweet from Rosanne is inexcusable - The tweet in and of itself is inherently racist.  She compared an African-American woman to an ape, a common derogatory comparison used to demean African-Americans.  Her tweet also assumes Ms. Jarrett's religion and is Islamophobic as well.  Though it is widely assumed Ms. Jarrett is a follower of Islam, her religious beliefs are not truly known.  The meme that has been circulated on Facebook regarding her statement in a Stanford yearbook that she would make the United States follow Islam is, to put it in today's vernacular, "fake news" and false.

Her tweeting had already caused backstage turmoil - Whitney Cummings, co-showrunner left the show on May 18.  Wanda Sykes announced she would not be returning as a producer following the tweet.  Actress Emma Kenney stated that she had called her manager to quit when she found out it was cancelled.  It is likely that ABC was facing a mass exodus in response to the star's actions and the tweet.  Again, a straw that broke the camel's back.

Rosanne's tweet is not equal to The View, to Bill Maher, to Samantha Bee, etc. - This is where we start seeing the false equivalencies.  Everyone wants to point out apparent hypocrisies where shows that feature statements that are offensive to them get to remain on the air.  Certain groups of conservatives* wonder why The View gets to remain on the air when Joy Behar makes statements that show a lack of understanding of Christianity and are potentially offensive or when Whoopie Golberg or Joy Behar make anti-Trump statements.  They wonder why Samantha Bee's show is not canceled when she calls Ivanka Trump a "feckless c**t" in response to Ivanka's tweet as stories of separated immigrant families were coming out.  They do not understand how it is okay for Bill Maher to compare Donald Trump to an orangutan. 

Let's put aside the fact that pointing out someone else's bad behavior never justifies your own.  Put another way, regardless of what others have been able to do on air, Rosanne's tweet was still inexcusable and likely deserved whatever consequences it was going to receive.  Even removing that from the equation, the other situations that are pointed to have marked differences from the tweet at hand. 

To begin with, the three programs mentioned all focus on political commentary and often on political humor.  The View is a commentary and talk show.  It is designed to have a group of women discussing topics from a variety of viewpoints and has generally always had a token conservative or two on the panel (Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Candace Cameron-Bure, Paula Faris, Megan McCain).  The format of The View is specifically designed to bring those opposing viewpoints into collision; they want a conservative and a liberal to go at each other, because conflict brings ratings.  So, it should not be surprising that the most liberal panelists will make "shocking" statements that conservatives will not agree with and might find offensive.  That's the point.  What would be truly shocking to said conservatives is to realize that at least 50% of the population of America agrees with the co-hosts of The View more than they do the conservatives.  In other words, the show has a base that it definitely appeals to.

The analogy falls apart even further when Samantha Bee and Bill Maher are brought into the picture.  These two are comedians whose shows are specifically political satire.  Their flavor is political comedy.  The statements and comparisons they made were made as part of their show and in the vein of political comedy.  The comedy may be offensive and vulgar, but it is still comedy used to make a point.  Though Rosanne's show is a comedy, her tweet was made in her real life.  It was a personal tweet made revealing her inner thoughts and opinions.  If it was an attempt at comedy on twitter, it was not clear.

Further, Bee and Maher both targeted people in the public eye.  We always give comedians, pundits, media, etc. a wider berth when it comes to discussing and even ridiculing people who have placed themselves in the public eye.  While Ms. Jarrett had been an adviser to Obama, her time in the White House has passed and she is by and large a private citizen.  Generally, we recognize that if you have retreated out of the public eye, that privacy is to be respected (or we did).

Finally, vulgarity and offensiveness do not equal or even rival racism. We have reached a point in our society where we have deemed certain things patently unacceptable.  Racism is one of them.  And while we do find racism offensive, not everything that is offensive rises to that level.  Somethings can just be vulgar and offensive.  If we started punishing everything that any person deemed as vulgar or offensive, our televisions would be blank.

* - I'm careful to label this as certain groups of conservatives because I recognize that there are groups of conservatives that found Rosanne's tweet to be unacceptable and are just calling out apparent disparities or biases.  Truly calling out hypocrisy is a noble effort.  But if you are asking for Rosanne to be picked up by another network in one hand, while asking for The View or Samantha Bee to be canceled in another, I'm going to question your true motives.