Churches & COVID

My wife asked me recently why I choose to talk about controversial topics. The reason is based on my motivation for starting my blog. It is both an educational adventure for me and a test to see if I am able to talk about difficult topics in a respectful compassionate manner with no need to trash someone else. I have always hated experiences I observed where we refuse to talk about the elephant in the room, but is it not even worse if we attack the elephant or its caretakers?

Today’s fun topic is how should churches respond to government restrictions placed on their meetings. There have been responses on at least two extremes and many varied responses in between. A couple of very well-known pastors with large ministries have been very public with their responses. I highly respect both of them and have gained growth over the years from both of their ministries.

Disclaimer-as we become more and more aware, government policies and positions of people evolve daily, so please keep that in mind as we walk through this topic. Also, as is stated in my bio–I don’t have an illusion that I am perfect but continue wrestling with life and my choices whether it is following speed limit signs or COVID protocols.

On the one hand you have John MacArthur in southern California whose position is that the government has exceeded its authority and that COVOD-19 is of little danger. He said “I would say to pastors, ‘have church, open up, have church.’ You don’t have to fear someone’s going to die. You don’t have to fear you’re going to get sick, because they’re not going to be able to trace this back. I haven’t seen anything like that anywhere.” He also said “Health mandates and governors orders are not law. I don’t think you have to fear that. You need to open the church because this, of all times, when people fear is where they need to come. I don’t think you have to give a clinical explanation, I think you have to welcome them and not make them follow protocol that you know is pointless.”

On the other hand you have Andy Stanley in Georgia whose position is that the government is doing its best to solve a difficult problem, and that churches aren’t being singled out as the same standards are used for professional sporting events. He announced in July that they would not have in-person church services for at least the rest of 2020. He has said “This was just our way of loving our neighbors and loving our neighborhoods, trying to keep our neighborhoods safe as we get closer to school reopening.”

“So it just seemed like the wisest thing to do as it related to the community and as we wait this thing out and figure out what’s going to happen.”

These different approaches cause me to ask myself a boatload of questions.

  • At what point do I decide to not follow governmental guidelines?
  • What difference does it make if they are guidelines instead of law?
  • What difference does it make if their guidelines don’t appear to me to make sense to me?
  • Does it make a difference if they won’t be able to trace it back to the church?
  • If we follow the governmental guidelines, aren’t we contributing to social isolation which has a toll on the parishoners?
  • Is it more loving to open up services to meet social and spiritual needs or to follow governmental restrictions?
  • What about choosing to follow only some of the governmental guidelines?
  • How does my choice affect the perception of members, non-members and unbelievers?
  • Does that matter?
  • Etc.?–feel free to give me more questions.

As this discussion is based on the response of local churches, I plan to appeal to Biblical writings throughout the discussion.

One passage that can’t be absent from this discussion is Acts 5:17-32. This was the beginning of the Christian church after Jesus had gone back to heaven. Peter and the other disciples became very popular both for their “new message” and for the many healings that took place through their ministry. Their popularity became a sore spot for the Jewish religious leaders who were used to a monopoly. 

There are a lot of exciting details I will omit here but at the end of the day the leaders said–“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

The famous response by Peter and the other apostles was, “We must obey God rather than human beings.”

There is definitely Scriptural basis for the disobedience of government instructions whether it be law–as in the case of Daniel and his companions or with guidelines as in this case just discussed. The big question for me and for each of us is–where do I draw that line of governmental disobedience. Scripture has been used and misused to support many decisions including slavery so the obvious caution is to avoid making it reinforce my position and to seek its teaching instead.

The book of Hebrews is clear that we are to not stop meeting together as some have done and it certainly is plain that we are instructed to sing and participate in worship. If governmental regulations limit those actions, am I free to flaunt their restrictions?

Let’s look at it from a different perspective. Does governmental motive matter? In each case I see in Scripture, it appears to me that the motive of the ruling officials was focused exclusively on stopping believers from doing what believers do–acknowledge only one God, pray to him regularly and tell others of the temporal and eternal good news. If the same action is stopped, does it matter the motive?

Yes, every country, state and governmental entity make tons of different kinds of restrictions making this hard to make a comprehensive statement. But although some Christians claim this is religious persecution, that is not something I have observed. In fact, in Washington state, churches are treated as a special class in that churches are allowed to meet with certain protocols but theaters and attendance at sporting events is banned.

That being said, there are some regulations that can easily be seen as governmental overreach–although it is definitely subjective. I will identify here one regulation with which I violently (figuratively) disagree–the mandate of no congregational singing in church while using masks and social distancing. Isn’t it reasonable if a mask and six feet is sufficient to protect us from a powerful sneeze, the amount of possible contamination from singing in that same context is absent. How do we deal with what are in our perception non-logical regulations? 

I would suggest I can sing internally as loud as my “spiritual” lungs will allow, following the governmental prohibition and remembering God is looking at my heart.

I was very surprised to hear one of the pastors listed above express the thought that it is okay to not follow the regulation because they probably won’t be able to trace it back to you. I heard another friend say, the likelihood of litigation in regards to this disobedience of the guidelines is very small, and the likelihood of a conviction is next to impossible. Those both sound a lot like–if you don’t get caught, don’t worry about it. I was taught growing up and tried to instill in our kids the philosophy that while a fine or jail time might be a hedge to prevent us from breaking a law, if it is our only deterrent, we can find many ways to bend the rules–all just to make our lives more enjoyable–and where does that stop?

One of the best pieces of advice I heard from a pastor was–Don’t pray for the hand of God to bless you on what you started with the arm of the flesh. This has stopped me cold various times in trying to avoid such things as building permits etc.

One of the logical fallacies I mentioned when I started this blog was that of the false dilemma or false dichotomy. When we respond to governmental guidance regarding COVID thinking that we either do what we have always done or we are not following God, can be such a fallacy. That thought process prevents us from looking for creative solutions. No, Zoom and Youtube are not the same as being together in person, but who would have thought a year ago we would have such great options. My wife and I have been a part of a small group–most of us are senior citizens and many have felt very isolated. Using the Zoom technology, we have begun meeting again and the response from the participants has been extremely positive.

I am sure there are many creative ideas we never would have taken the time to think of, were it not for the current restrictions.

While we have talked above about reasoning for disobeying the government, it seems to me that the main focus of scripture as it relates to the citizenry and their response to the government, it is one of honor, respect and obedience. Romans 13 actually says–“whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted”.

Based on Scripture, Christians should be model citizens which is why it kills me that rioters in DC this past week sported such symbols as the Bible, “Jesus Saves” and “Jesus 2020”.

Romans tells us to not let the world shape us into its mold. We are to be different–but different in a good way. I remember a pastor once saying–if you are suffering, before you assume it is suffering for Christ, make sure you aren’t suffering for being a jerk.

I personally believe most governments are doing the best they know how to do to deal with the current pandemic. But just like us, they are flawed and sometimes make stupid, illogical (from my perspective) decisions.

If Christians are viewed by the world as being those who are fighting against masks and other COVID protocols, does that benefit the cause of Christ? I am aware of a couple of churches who were attempting to modify their in-house rules as to how they were dealing with COVID, which was in conflict to the government’s guidelines. The response in both cases was applause from the audience–which kind of sounded like–“in your face, government”. I was appreciative that one of those pastors stopped the applause indicating that was not their purpose.

In conclusion, a friend shared his perspective with me that this might be an opportunity for a Romans 14 moment. That chapter talks about a lot of external practices and how different followers of Christ view them from opposite extremes. On both extremes, the believers think they are doing what God wants. The instruction is for us to not look down on those who see it and act differently from us. It is so easy for us to “be offended” by the choices, words, and beliefs of someone else. Let’s instead extend to them the same grace God freely gives to us.

A final quote from the great theologian Augustine–“A Christian is: a mind through which Christ thinks, a heart through which Christ loves, a voice through which Christ speaks, and a hand through which Christ helps.

Poverty
Is it Systemic?
OR
Is it a Choice?

For most of us, if we are more conservative in our mindset, we typically focus on personal responsibility. If our philosophical leanings are more liberal, we often see the system as being the problem. In my attempt to look for the truth, I have to challenge myself to not look for facts to support my default position, but any facts in conflict with that stance as well.

Let’s start by looking at poverty through the lens of personal responsibility. Someone will introduce the Success Sequence stating, “if you follow these guidelines, in the order laid out below, you can almost be assured you will not end up end poverty.”

  • Finish school
  • Get a job
  • Get married
  • Have children
Studies have shown that if you follow this pattern, there is only a 2% likelihood you will end up in poverty and 75% will advance to the middle class or beyond.
What could be more simple than that–having a proven recipe to keep you out of poverty.

If it is so simple, why is it that we don’t view a mass exodus from poverty. As we discussed last week, the end of 350 years of slavery and laws targeting people of color do not make everything better in a day or even in a generation.

Just because it is illegal to discriminate against someone for housing, that has not caused a wholesale purging of such content in housing covenants. In fact, recently, the University of Washington documented over 500 deeds and covenants affecting over 20,000 dwellings in the city of Seattle that include racial restrictions. Many exclude all but the “white race” while others used code language in advertisements calling the neighborhoods–“Restricted Districts”.

To make this more real, the following is a quote from one of those documents. “That the said lots or buildings thereon shall never be rented, leased or sold, transferred or conveyed to, nor shall the same be occupied by any negro or colored person or person of negro blood, or persons of the Mongolian race”

Imagine that you are looking to buy a house today and you notice such a statement. If you are a part of the excluded group, though you know it won’t be enforced, I think it can’t help but have a psychological impact on you.

The family structure has to be one of the biggest factors influencing how you grow up and how you view life. In our last blog we mentioned “the talk” many black parents have with their children-regarding how to act when stopped by the police. Although the parent is seeking to protect their child, what would be the most natural thought for the child to have?–fear and potentially hatred for white cops.

The concept of a “War on Drugs”, is a bandwagon most of us would be glad to climb onto. However, that program, started by president Nixon apparently had racist motives from the beginning–though some dispute it. Two of Nixon’s aides (Ehrlichman & Haldeman) have stated a purpose of the war on drugs was to use it to arrest Blacks and paint them in a bad light on the evening news-as typically, they were not Nixon supporters. 

Regardless of the original intent, the war on drugs and mandatory sentencing have affected poor Black families more than any other group of which I am aware. Part of that is a result of the longer mandatory prison time for crack cocaine (the cheaper version) compared to powder cocaine. This was true from the 1980’s through 2010. When a father is removed from the home for five or ten years, you can bet that will have an impact on the next generation. Do we need a war on drugs? Certainly, something needs to be done as almost 80% of all minors in the juvenile justice system are under the influence of some mind-altering substance when committing a crime.

The Heritage Foundation did a study as to the barriers to high school completion and economic mobility and found that three groups were most likely to drop out of high school. 1) Males, 2) Minorities, 3) Poor. Fitting into one or more of those categories does not predetermine their outcome as the majority do graduate and there are great success stories. But it certainly can be a weight around the ankle of members of those groups.

If you grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the chances you knew many families who followed the Success Sequence is quite high. But if you grew up in a poor neighborhood, the chance you knew more than one family in your community who followed that sequence is very low. Now that can be used as a club to beat over the heads of those who remain in poverty but I would like to use it as a truth to encourage us to have compassion.

There are those who judge Blacks for playing the victim card. There are two truths we need to face regarding this. First, it is the character of a person and not their race that causes someone to overuse the victim card. Second, we do need to acknowledge there are victims in poverty-the children. Their climb out of poverty requires much more effort than that required by most of us to remain in our comfortable middleclass communities.

Think of it like this for those born into poverty. They are born into a deep pit where there is a ladder to get out of that pit–maybe like the Success Sequence. But every 4th person getting on the ladder receives a strong jolt of electricity knocking them off. Sure we can tell them to be persistant and they will get out, but think of how much more valuable it would be if we would do something about the jolt of electricity.

In the same study cited above, though they state many changes have the power to increase graduation rates and upward mobility, they identify non-cognitive skills as being the most important. If someone hasn’t learned self-control, how can you expect them to be successful in life. If a child doesn’t understand the value of honor and respect, that child is like a carpenter without a saw. Learning skills like willpower and motivation provide an individual with grit–which Angela Duckworth of the University of Pennsylvania defines as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Grit entails working strenuously towards challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity and plateaus in progress.” You need to have the right tools to succeed.

Some excellent programs have been successful in helping children learn these values. One example of such a program is the Teach One to Lead One program founded by Dr. Lori Salierno. They meet in public schools for one hour each week, engaging with the students to model and teach such principles as Responsibility, Integrity, Self-Control, Compassion, etc. Fortunately, they see success stories of graduates of the program who credit their success in life to the principles learned via that program.

Though I am not currently participating in that program, I have had the opportunity to work with them one year and it was encouraging to see how much the students looked forward to that day each week. 

Feel free to share if you know of other programs providing such character-building curriculums.

Is it Racism or Poverty?

In the time I have been researching racism, I have run across many statistics which I find alarming. For the purpose of this blog, we will use the following statistics–remembering that Blacks comprise 13% of the US population. What is the reason for the overrepresentation of Blacks in crime statistics?

Drug usage is roughly equivalent as a percentage of the White and Black populations. 35% of all drug arrestees are Black.

Fifty percent of all murders in the US are perpetrated by Blacks.

A report in 2019 showed that in Multnomah County, OR (Portland) Blacks were 8.3 times more likely than whites to be in jail pending trial, 4.8 times as likely as whites to have a case prosecuted and 4.6 times as likely as whites to have a case resulting in conviction.

What is the reason for these obvious disparities? Some people who argue against the existence of racism in our world state that poverty is the true cause of these disparities. Whether we acknowledge racism or not, poverty does need to be recognized for being a major contributor to crime and by extension to these disparities.

Though the age may vary depending on their development, one of the question that can drive a parent crazy is the recurring “Why?”. Maybe you like me, tried to dodge some of these barrages by providing a “final answer” such as–because that is the way God made it. But then you realized there is no final answer as you heard that word once more–“Why?”.

It seems to me, we would do well to ask that question more frequently than we do. If our answer to the Black overrepresentation is poverty, we need to follow up that question with “Why?”. Why do so many Blacks (over 20%) live in poverty?

Do you know what the poverty threshold is in the United States? It is much lower than I imagined. For an individual, it is $12,784–that is about $6 an hour. For a family of four, the poverty line is at $25,701. As you can see, there is much poverty even over the poverty threshold.

Back to the question, why are so many Blacks in poverty? There is no one answer but many contributing factors.

Some of the laws of science are helpful in identifying  reasons when viewed through the social lense. Newton’s first law of motion, that “an object at rest tends to remain there until acted upon by another force”, is illustrative of our reluctance to change. It is much easier to stay where I am than it is to change. It is much easier to stay where I grew up than it is to move to another town, county or state–it is all I know. We can see how that mindset contributes to the next generation continuing the cycle.

Who would have thought we would mention hysteresis in a discussion about racism and poverty? Wikipedia describes hysteresis as the dependence of the state of a system on its history. That definition seems to me to be an excellent explanation of what has happened in the Black community.

Why are so many Blacks in poverty? When you have 350 years of slavery and institutionalized racism, it doesn’t go away just because laws are changed. Up until 1968, redlining was legal in our country. This was the intentional segregation in housing eliminating the possibility for a person of color to live in certain neighborhoods–and, of course, those neighborhoods were never poor ones. When a person is prevented from home ownership in desirable neighborhoods, consequences include exclusion from one of the most common ways of creating wealth–home ownership, and being stuck with the less desirable.

Newton’s third law of motion can be simplified to say, for every action there is a reaction. It has been true for years across the country, that a disproportionate amount of Blacks are pulled over in traffic stops. Regardless of the reason for this statistic, if you are a part of a group that is more likely to be stopped by a police officer, this will affect both your perception of a police officer and what you tell your kids.

In White families, when someone mentions having “the talk” with their children, they are referring to sex. But when many Black families have “the talk”, they are providing cautions to their children as to how to act when stopped by the police.

I believe in order to get ratings, the media is a big contributor to this narrative. It seems that the tone would suggest a Black’s number one threat would be a police officer but over that last year, while 15 too many unarmed Blacks were killed by police officers, over 8000 were killed by other Blacks.

Is it racism or poverty causing more Blacks to be arrested, sentenced, and convicted of crimes? The answer is not simple and both have played a part.

Some people say time heals, but the truth is what is going on during that time allows for healing to take place. May we be contributors to healing by the way we treat the hurting.

Next week we will talk about institutional racism vs personal responsibility.

Tearing Down Statues

There have been many stories in the past months about people tearing down statues, many of which had been there for decades. Vandalism and destroying of any property without authorization is unacceptable and should not be tolerated in any civilized society.

While I believe destruction of any property belonging to someone else is morally wrong, I do see value in understanding, where possible, the thinking motivating such drastic actions.

I have never taken a serious look at this issue so I am going to attempt to answer the following questions for myself and for those walking with me on this journey.

What statues have been torn down? When and why were the statues originally erected? What is the reasoning behind the desire to remove the statues? Should some statues be removed? If so, which ones?

I had no idea as to the quantity of statues that have been decapitated, defaced or destroyed since the tragic death of George Floyd. The number is, of course, fluid with incidents increasing surrounding events perceived to be racist in nature. As of the 12th of October, 2020, The Daily Signal identified 113 separate statues suffering this fate.

Identifying a single reason for the current attacks on these historical monuments is impossible just as there is no “one reason” for which we voted for our chosen candidates on our last ballot.

From my perspective, some of these destructive actions have no basis in reason but are just the actions of an angry mob to destroy.

One example of this is the burning of the 120-year-old statue of an elk in downtown Portland. It sat atop the David P. Thompson Fountain. Thompson was a former mayor and politician in the Northwest. He must have been at least a Confederate soldier or part of the KKK???

No, although he saw no action, he joined the US Army during the civil war. In fact, in all of the research I have done, I see nothing and have heard nothing from those participants claiming he was a racist. I have an inside source confirming the elk was not a racist either–just against anyone seeking his hide.

While some of these destructions seem to be without purpose, a theme in many of these actions seem to be an attempt to destroy anything honoring someone who promoted white supremacy. We do need to acknowledge that the main reason for the civil war was based on this premise. This does not mean there weren’t other reasons nor does it mean that everyone fighting for the South was doing so to protect slavery. But statements by the leadership of the Confederacy as these below seem quite incriminating to me.

Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy said “African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing”. “We recognize the negro as God and God’s Book and God’s Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him-our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude…You cannot transform him into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.”

Alexander H. Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy stated the following “Our new government is founded upon…the great truth that the negro is not equal to the the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

Having acknowledged the main purpose of the Civil War, I think it is worthwhile looking at the  memorials  which exist today.

In the recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, there were over 1500 symbols of the Confederacy in the public arena including over 700 Confederate monuments and over 100 schools named after prominent Confederates. The majority of the memorials are in the South, six in California, none in Oregon and one in Washington.

According to this same report, the majority of the monuments were dedicated during two time periods in the 20th century. The first spike was during the first two decades of that century, being the time period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans. The second spike was in the 1950’s and 60’s during the civil rights movement. This does seem to be more than just coincidental.

With this acknowledgement in place, we must ask this question. Is it appropriate to display in the public square people whose lives are known for supporting the cause of white supremacy.

Why shouldn’t we have statues or symbols honoring the Confederacy or members thereof removed? 

Some will say it is the heritage of the South and not hate that inspires these memorials. Agreed, it is their heritage. But is it a part of the heritage anyone who believes all men were created equal would want to celebrate?

Others will say, we shouldn’t remove these memorials because someone is offended. True, our first amendment right provides for disagreements which inevitably will be offensive to others. That right, however, is for the citizens, not for the government. It is the government’s responsibility to serve all citizens. That would, in my opinion, exclude endorsing anything representing the oppression of some of its citizenry.

Removing Confederate symbols or statues is erasing history for the purpose of being politically correct. Is this truly intended to erase history, or is intended to ensure that history is recorded for what it was–a stain on the history of our great country. Museums are the perfect place to display history and provide the context.

If you take down the confederate statues, why not take down statues of our founding fathers, most of whom were slave owners? I think that needs to point us back to remember why I am suggesting these memorials honoring the confederacy need to be removed. They fought and in some cases died to protect the supremacy of Whites. There is no leader who doesn’t have his or her blemishes and failures. While it is subjective at some level, I think a question to help us with that decision is-“What did they stand for? What are they known for? What did they fight for?

It is not so simple to identify someone fighting for the South as an evil person. Many like Robert E. Lee saw slavery as wrong but still fought for the South. There is no question that the color of the uniform of the south can be viewed as being symbolic, in some cases, entering a gray area. But even though Lee believed slavery to be an “evil”, he still believed in the superiority of whites. This is not a simple issue and we need to continue the discussion to ensure we eliminate our blind spots.

Please don’t misunderstand me to be saying that the removal of statues will cause racism to go away. But can I agree that Confederate memorials without proper context should be offensive to me and to all freedom loving Americans.

If you agree with the above, I encourage you to consider doing something specific to right these wrongs. If you don’t agree, I am sure I will hear from you soon and look forward to that conversation. It isn’t about being right, it is about pursuing truth, and doing the right thing based on that truth.

The Church and Racism
Part 2

100 years before our declaration of independence from England, racism was alive and sick in the church in North America. In England, slavery of a Christian by another Christian was prohibited. In America, this caused a conflict for plantations which were dependent on slave labor. A slave-owning Christian, feared that if his slaves became Christians, he would lose his means of producing wealth.

In Virginia, the assembly addressed this issue by enacting a law stating “the conferring of baptism, does not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedom.” They even had the audacity to add “Masters, freed from this doubt, may more carefully endeavor the propagation of Christianity…permitting baptism.”

From the beginning, there were church leaders who allowed and even promoted owning slaves using scripture to defend their positions. Then there was Bishop Stephen Elliot (1806-1866) of the Episcopal church in Georgia who used the rationale that, attempts to civilize and Christianize Western Africa had not been very successful,  but through African slavery, millions have “learned their way to heaven”.

At least three different denominations split over the issue of slavery in America-the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and the Baptists. You had people on both sides thinking they were following God and attending church each Sunday. Being completely ignorant of this history growing up, I did not realize the origin of the Southern Baptist Convention which I always viewed in a positive light.

The most important evangelist of the Great Awakening in the 18th Century was George Whitefield. He drew crowds in the tens of thousands and in addition to telling the gospel, he also spoke out regarding the mistreatment of slaves by their masters in the South.

While he was against their mistreatment, he was not against slavery as he accepted slaves from some of his converts, and fought against Georgia’s ban of slavery until it was overturned. He started an orphanage in Georgia, but said that the only way to make it fiscally viable was to use slave labor.

Racism continued in the church during the Second Great Awakening. Charles Finney (1792-1875) was one of its leaders and is commonly referred to as the Father of Modern Revivalism. While he did push for social reforms such as abolition and education for African Americans, he did not believe they were equal and kept black worshippers in his church separate from whites. He also did not allow them to have the same membership rights such as voting, etc.

Then in the Civil War, you have devoted Christians who fought and died to preserve slavery. For those who maintain that the war was primarily over states rights, I would just ask the question–what state right was the focus at the time? Then, following the civil war, the KKK was founded by six former officers of the confederate army. It identified as a Christian organization and only allowed native-born, white protestants to join. In fact, many pastors (40,000 by some estimates) and parishoners were dedicated members of the KKK. Their cited principles were great–“to protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless from the indignities, wrongs and outrages of the lawless, the violent, and the brutal”. In fact, had they truly followed those principles, their mission would have been just the opposite of what it was in practice. 

And this is not just ancient history as the picture above is from a church in Portland, OR in 1921.

Reviewing the work of the white churches, Frederick Douglass had this to say: “Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity…”

It is sad to me that the followers of the book that from cover to cover expresses concern and care for the poor and the powerless has not taken more of a leadership role in addressing such changes. But instead of crucifying the church in the past, I will ask myself, what am I doing to show true compassion to those groups. My wife is always a great reminder for me to not get so filled up with knowledge, it prevents me from getting up off the couch and doing something about it.

The Church & Racism

Though it is hard for me to admit it, along with all of the good America has done, America has a history of racism since its founding. Even though the word wasn’t coined until recent times, racism is as old as the hills and twice as dusty.

I grew up in a family where I heard the Bible from the time I was born, many times each week including Bible clubs, classes, church, Christian camps, Bible studies, memorizing hundreds of Bible verses, attending a Christian High School and even getting a bachelor of theology degree . Yet, in all of that (and because of my age it could be my memory), I don’t recall hearing one message about racism. But racism is identified and condemned throughout the pages of the Bible. Sure, I was aware of the Jewish-Gentile conflict, but I think I internalized that as a difference of belief systems, and not based on different ethnic groups.

As a side note, I am very thankful my parents raised me in a manner in which they demonstrated by their actions, they cared about all people, regardless of race. One way I learned compassion was from my mom who was always for the underdog. It was difficult to watch a game with her though–her loyalty to a team would change throughout the game depending on who was behind.

One of the great things in Christianity is that the personalities in the Bible are shown with their many of their flaws and they are not in any way made out to be superior to others.

A great example of this is when Paul called Peter out for acting racist. Yes, wherever you have people you will have, racism regardless of the racial composition of the group.

It is ironic that the person to whom God provided a special encounter to show him that he should not treat others of a different race as if they were inferior, is the same one called out by Paul as acting racist.

In the early church, which started after Jesus left his disciples, the church leaders had acknowledged salvation was available for all, regardless of race. Peter’s mission was to take the gospel to the Jews, while Paul’s mission was to take the same message to all of the other ethnic groups.

Having acknowledged that, Peter ate and fellowshipped with the other ethnic groups. But he changed when other Jews came from the church in Jerusalem by distancing himself from the non-Jews. His actions even caused Barnabas and other Jews to practice that same racism.

Paul described the actions of Peter and Barnabas as “they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel.” Speaking of irony–these were people who were committed to sharing the message of God’s love that provided a way for man to have fellowship with God–and yet they were acting in an unloving manner and building racial barriers to keep people apart.

Some want to keep the conflict just about food, circumcision and other rituals. But Peter in his summation of the encounter he had with God, he said it was about associating with those who were not of his ethnic group.

Martin Luther King Jr. claimed Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week. Unfortunately, that is largely true still today which has given rise to cultic groups who prey on those who feel disenfranchised. Next week we will look at some of the origins of this segregation.

Cops & Racism-Part 5
Peer Pressure

Is peer pressure a good thing or a bad thing? Yes, it definitely is!–Both! It can be very destructive and extremely helpful. In our society, just saying the phrase “peer pressure”, one assumes it is a negative and hurtful–and it often is.

Although peer pressure is probably most pervasive in our youth, its power in our life never leaves us–for good or bad, we all want to fit in. I have noticed on our country roads up here, that if one car gives a wide berth while passing a bicyclist the cars following the “leader car” all do the same. But if the first one in a line of car drives fairly close to the bicyclist, the rest of the cars typically do likewise. 

No matter where you are in life, it is great to know that someone has your back. They are willing to come and support you whenever you have the need. Is there a point at which this admirable character trait becomes a flaw? How about if that loyalty continues by lying for you, or covering up something you did? 

Peer pressure of different types are built into cultures. When working at any job, you soon learn who appreciates constructive feedback and how the boss will respond when challenged. I work for a company where the “boss” appreciates being challenged if it is beneficial for the stakeholders–employees and customers. But I have also worked for another boss who “encouraged” you to provide feedback. But there, the employees learned asking a question or making a suggestion could also be an invitation for public ridicule. He once told me “the employees think I’m a jackass, but I don’t care. I’m not going to put up with nonsense”. The problem was he never learned how to disagree or correct someone respectfully–so they thought he was a jackass, because that is the way he acted.

Police departments are not immune from such pressures. Officer Malloy pointed out to me from his experience most of the cops are great guys–with some exceptions as in every profession. But the chiefs and deputy chiefs are the ones who set the tone or culture in each police department. There is no policy standard for all police departments and those that exist are created or modified by the police chiefs. One example of a policy difference between police departments is the “when you can shoot” rule. For some departments, you are authorized to shoot as soon as you see a weapon. For others, you must see the weapon being used in a threatening manner before shooting. You can see how big a difference such a policy can make on the actions of the police officers.

Another critical policy that contributes to the culture of a police department is the way in which investigations are handled. Are the actions of the police officers going to be defended at all costs or is finding the truth in each investigation the goal of the department. Just as with any suspect, the presumption of innocence needs to be the starting  place–along with the commitment to vigorously pursue, wherever the facts lead.

Another piece of peer pressure comes into play when one officer observes another police officer stepping over the line. Officer Malloy related an account to me of a time when a fellow officer, stopped a Hispanic young man without any behavioral cause. But when stopped, the youth complained and verbally attacked the officer for stopping him without cause. The arresting officer became abusive to the point of slamming the youth against a wall. Officer Malloy stepped between them and said “I’ve got this”. He was able to calm the suspect down which fortunately, created a good outcome.

What are the hindrances in a police department to address abuses? It depends on the culture of the police department. Some of the factors officer Malloy mentioned  can prevent one cop from doing something about an observed abuse include the rank of the officers, the race of the cop and suspect, and the character of the cop. In Officer Poncherello’s two decades plus on the force, he said he did see many times officers stepping over the line–regardless of the race of the suspect. In his words, “making it about race makes it too simple”.

Officer Malloy said that he did observe at times, one officer addressing another officer for some action he didn’t deem appropriate but he doesn’t recall ever being aware of one officer reporting on a fellow officer for stepping over that line.

Is anyone doing anything to address cultures in police departments? I’m glad you asked. I will just talk about one police department in Utah who is taking this very seriously.

We must take a detour to provide the context. Most drug rehabilitation programs, if they are being honest, have a success rate around 30%. The program that Mimi Silbert started in San Francisco has over a 90% success rate and has over 20,000 graduates who now are contributing members to society. When someone joins one of the Delancey Street locations, there are no fences to keep them in or management teams to keep the residents on the straight and narrow. Silbert says when someone joins, (often a choice between jail & Delancey), there are two major philosophies that need to be changed. The street teaches you to only look out for yourself and to never rat on anyone. The culture she has built, makes you responsible for someone else often within your first week. Second, their culture requires you to report all offenses with the mindset of helping each other succeed.

Joseph Grenny who wrote about Delancey Street’s success in his book “Influencer”, has started another such institution–The Other Side–modeled after Delancey with similar successes.

In what world would you expect the police to sit at the feet of long-time criminals to learn about leadership and accountability? Well, welcome to that world.

In an article addressing policing accountability, Joseph Grenny makes the bold statement that if the Minneapolis police department practiced the kind of accountability lived out at The Other Side, we would not be talking about the case today. There was not just the abuse by the one officer, but the passive consent of three other officers.

At The Other Side, 200% accountability is required–you are 100% responsible for your moral actions and 100% responsible for addressing the actions of everyone around you.

A couple of months ago, the mayor of Salt Lake City, the police chief and several lieutenants attended a gaming session at The Other Side to observe how the residents hold one another accountable. They sat in awe as the residents addressed interpersonal issues with amazing honesty and respect.

The Mayor and Chief of Police are now studying the Academy in order to find ways to build a culture of 200% accountability in the police and other city departments.

Your comments, thoughts and suggestions are always welcome.

Cops & Racism-Part 4
Is it a big deal?

As we discussed in the previous post, the phrase “big deal” can mean several things. Let’s look at it from a totally different perspective. 

There is much disagreement as to the amount of racism that exists in governmental agencies. All of us view it from our perspective, our world, and conclude that if we have or haven’t seen racism, that is the way it is across the country. Even for those who believe that systemic racism exists and is prevalent throughout our society, when it comes right down to it, they admit that white officers shooting a black citizen due to racism is a very small part of the racial problem in America. It gets the airtime because it is much more sensational than addressing other issues that might have bigger consequences.

One of the systems that gets attacked for being racist, is the bail system. The argument goes something like this. “If you are rich, you can afford bail so in most cases, you spend no time in jail.” “The bail system unfairly targets people of color as it is more likely they will not be able to afford bail.”

I took Archery at Cerritos College decades ago but this much I remember. The target was what you were trying to hit–not the innocent bystander.

Just as in my last post, I emphasized that calling something by what is indisputable, is always more helpful than using an inflammatory name or phrase. While I do not believe that the bail system is racist in nature, it does appear to affect people of color in much greater numbers than whites due simply to the economics of it. One could easily argue that this isn’t fair.

As I was easily bailed out when I was arrested for grand theft, I never had a second thought about the justice involved in our bail system.

In doing some research on the current bail system, I was surprised to look in detail at some of the unfortunate consequences of this system

I spent some additional time speaking with Officer Malloy this week who explained from his perspective how the bail system works. The following is a summary of that discussion.

The purpose of bail is, of course, to ensure you show up for your hearing. When you are pulled over for a simple traffic violation, after you are cited, the officer gives you a citation to sign that states–“I promise to appear without admitting guilt”.

As the severity of the violation increases, the likelihood of being arrested and incarcerated increases. If arrested, then the option of “bailing out” comes into play. In many jurisdictions, there is a schedule used to determine the bail amount. The judge often has the option to increase or decrease the bail amount or to eliminate it entirely.

There are certain statutes which state the violation is so serious that bail is disallowed. A judge may also determine that either the flight risk is too high or potential danger to the public is too great to allow the suspect to be freed on bail.

Other factors that can affect whether or not a suspect is offered the bail option is the amount of crowding in the corresponding penal facilities at the time of the offense. Make sure you check with your local jail system as to its occupancy level before committing your next crime:)

In the opinion of Officer Malloy, the system is fair as it provides a standardized bail amount to match the violation with flexibility for the judge to modify it based on a person’s criminal history or lack thereof, their stability in society when looking at such things as housing, employment, civic participation, etc. The ability of the offender to pay is not considered. Per Officer Malloy, that is a social problem which the justice system is not equipped to address.

What are some of the problems created by our current bail system? It is logistically impossible to hold a trial for every person who is arrested–there are just too many. This puts pressure on the prosecution to get plea deals whenever possible. 

Often, if the arrestee is unable to pay the bail, they are given the option to plead guilty and be returned to freedom, or be confined because they can’t afford the bail. But that plea deal can be very costly as it must be stated on job applications for years.

What are the potential consequences to not being able to afford bail even for a minor offense? Loss of employment, loss of housing, sexual assault in jail, etc.

I was shocked to learn that (depending on what statistics you look at) anywhere from 60%-90% of the inmates would not be incarcerated if they could afford bail.

It is easy for me to sit in my comfortable house and say, those are the consequences for breaking the law. But I need to ask this question. Is there a flaw in the system because it ties freedom to the ability to pay? If the bail system is truly intended to make sure the suspect attends their hearing, and that is able to be accomplished by removing the link between one’s economic standing and freedom, who would be against it?–besides bail bondsmen and bounty hunters.

Is there a better way? I was intrigued to read about such groups as the Bronx Freedom Fund which for years provided the bail funds for non-violent offenses along with reminders to appear. According to their records, 96% of the people for whom they provided bail made their court dates. If you think that is surprising, check this out. In 10 years, they bailed out more than 2000 people. Of those, 60% of those had their cases dismissed and less than 2% received a jail sentence. So who would have benefitted had those people not been bailed out? And who would have been hurt with scars that would last a lifetime had they been left in jail?

Another program which was a spin-off of the above organization, is The Bail Project. They don’t just pay the bail but collaborate with the offenders to connect them to social services who work with them to eliminate obstacles–like transportation and childcare which could prevent them from appearing in court.

Do you have any other ideas? I work for a company which one of its constant themes is –“Is there a better way?” I hope the above thoughts encourage us to look for the same when we find injustice in our world.

Cops and Racism-Part 3
Is it a big deal?

The phrase “big deal” has several meanings so depending on how it is meant, the answer might be different. If by “big deal” we are referring to “important to address”, there is no question in my mind, whether that racism is found in a police department, any other governmental agency, or even outside of government, it is always extremely important to investigate and to take steps to prevent it. The amount of racism should never be a test as to whether racism should be addressed.

The phrase “big deal” can also be referring to “how frequent” racism is demonstrated by the acts of cops. While there are so many more interactions that we never hear about, we cannot speak with authority about those. 

However, I did run across a couple of interesting studies done in Oakland, CA. It is important for me, to point out that these studies are only indicative of what was done in the city of Oakland during those specified time periods. I am no way stating that these studies say anything else about any other police departments.

The purpose of the first one, was to use the audio from body camera footage to evaluate whether in traffic stops, the officers treated Blacks differently than Whites.

In my looking at the study, it does appear as if they took every precaution to eliminate any bias. Although there are many factors which influence an interaction, the words the officers use are a very important piece. Their conclusion was that consistently the officers treated white people with more respect. If you question the validity of the research here is a link to the complete report. 

This second reports looks at profiling. A common charge leveled against police officers is that they typically will pull over more Blacks and Mexicans than Whites for traffic stops because of racism.

This study used a comparison between traffic stops during the daytime, when race is typically more visibly apparent, to those done during the hours of darkness. The study found no evidence of profiling as there was no disparity in the traffic stops during the day and the night as to the ethnicity of the drivers.

Let’s get back to talking about the frequency of police racism and especially look at police shootings of Blacks. Although the media, and many citizens who follow the narrative assume that any shooting of a Black by a white officer must be race based, that is a very myopic way to view those tragic incidents. If we choose to be intellectually honest, we must not rush to judgement. Then, when looking at the data, we cannot know what is in the heart and mind of the police officer. I was going to say that you can’t determine if an interaction was racist if you can’t point to specific actions or words which were racist.  But what if that officer has had a pattern of such behavior against one or more ethnic groups? That might point to potential racism.

If there is nothing racist in the interaction when a citizen is abused, we need to label it by only what we know it is–police brutality. This does nothing to diminish the horrific nature of the offense, but let’s call it by what we are sure of instead of making possible assumptions. 

I think if a “martian” came to the US and read the headlines which recently have dominated the news, they would conclude that white cops killing black citizens was an epidemic and that Blacks were being targeted. Continuing to talk about “big deal” as it relates to how frequently Blacks are killed by police officers, let’s look at some numbers. Before we do that, it is only fair to also state that a citizen being killed by a police officer can be justified depending on the situation.

It is in my opinion often disingenuous on both sides when people just cite statistics to prove their point. For example, I have heard people on one side say “More Whites are killed by cops than Blacks which shows it isn’t racism.” I have heard others point out that a larger percentage of Blacks have been killed by cops which proves there is racism. While the data is true in both cases, those conclusions don’t necessarily follow.

Of course, because there are more whites, you would  expect to see more whites killed. In looking at the numbers for 2019, there were 259 Blacks killed, 182 Hispanics, 13 native Americans and 406 Whites. Based on that data, how likely is it that a person of each race would be killed by a police officer in one year? Blacks–3 out of 100,000 or .00003 percent chance; Mexican–2.3 out of 100,000 or .000023 percent chance; White–1.2 out of 100,000 or .000012 percent chance. Using those bare figures is also disingenuous if you don’t also account for poverty level–as most crime (physical theft, gang violence, rape, etc.) and police shootings do happen in lower income neighborhoods. The 2019 statistics that I looked at show that 2-3 times more blacks live below the poverty line than whites which accounts for some of the disparity. 

Mini-conclusion, while it is serious and necessary to research and resolve each incident where there is a violation of one’s civil rights, it is inflammatory to paint it out to be an epidemic. I think all of us would love any of those odds against Covid-19.

Again, if the headlines were your only source of information, you might assume that blacks being killed by cops is a major contribution to the death of Blacks. As of 2017, the number one killer of blacks was heart disease at 23% and number two was cancers at 20% and death by cop was at .00003%.

I do have to acknowledge that these sometimes politically charged headlines have caused many including me to look at racism in a way and intensity that I probably would not have done otherwise. The ends do not justify the means but I am thankful to learn much on this journey.

My goal in citing these statistics is not to in any way minimize the pain and suffering caused by any of these tragic events but to ensure that I don’t use information to support any agenda, but only seek the truth–and then do something about it.

Now I have to confess that nothing I have said in this post is helpful in addressing racism as it expresses itself in our society. But if we allow truths to be misused to push any agenda, we are doing a disservice.

However, in next week’s post, a continuation of “Is it a big deal?”, we will look at one part of our justice system which does have more of an impact on Blacks than Whites. Is there somethign we can do about this disparity?

Cops & Racism Part 2: Relationships & a Bad Cop

It is true to say there are racist cops, just like it is true to say there are racist teachers, racists doctors, etc. However, the more authority someone has, the more effect that racism has on the recipients of the racism.

But to say cops are racists is a generality that is subjective and not helpful. Making such statements contributes to the idea of us vs. them which provides fuel for caustic relationships and a tense environment.

Although there is no simple solution to the current problems, I was interested to hear some of the suggested solutions and successes shared by the police officers I interviewed.

Officer Poncherello said that one of the things that proved very effective was what he referred to as community policing. They attended community picnics, and did walk and talks in various businesses including bars. He saw many successes. Officer Poncherello told me of a time when entering a bar, someone of another race from out of town moved threateningly toward he and his partner. Others of the same race who lived in that town moved between them to defend the cops.

Programs like the one shown above at San Bernardino Police Department, the reading program in LAPD and the Clovis Cops & Kids Sports camp will only contribute to the feeling that a cop is their ally instead of their enemy.

No, bridge building isn’t the answer, as there is no, one answer, but building relationships is one key to address that us versus them mentality. An officer showing they care is so much more powerful than words alone. It is still true that rules, (or in this case police officers) without relationship breeds rebellion. If your only contact with the law is when you are in trouble, it will definitely skew your perspective of law enforcement. This is in no way making police officers responsible for that conflict, but just identifying one component that can and has improved cop-citizen relationships.

I can think of no job that is more challenging than that of a police officer. Their job function is to protect and to serve. But they are put into situations way too often where the decision they make in a split second if wrong, can affect them and others for the rest of their lives.

That being said, there are some actions that have taken place recently which did not involve such split second decisions. It was interesting to hear the take of the police officers who provided me their input in the case of George Floyd. Officer Reed said that “what the officer did was not ok at all.” “He shouldn’t have placed his knee on the neck of Floyd.” He also said that the case wasn’t that simple because “the toxicology report showed that Floyd had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system and there was no trauma to his neck.”

Officer Malloy said when he saw the video of the officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck, it struck him, seeing the face of the officer. He showed no fear nor stress and this was done in the middle of the day in “ideal conditions”. He said there must be something internally wrong with that cop to be able do what he did so calmly while ignoring the pleas of Floyd.

Officer Malloy said that in the case of that officer, there is probably no amount of sensitivity or any other kind of training that would change that officer into a good cop. “A bad cop is a bad cop.” It is the character of the individual which determines how they treat others.

A bad cop must be removed from the police departments at which he works as he is a menace to society and to the reputation of the good cops who are truly there to protect and serve.

Until next week…