Why I Don't Like the Emphasis on White Privilege

Any system of social change that focuses on demonizing what the haves have instead of lamenting what the have-nots lack risks contenting itself with the equitable distribution of oppression and misery, rather than with actually amending the social ills it deplores. For this reason, I am disturbed at the focus on white privilege. Such a focus makes the benefits whites enjoy the problem, rather than the oppression from which nonwhites suffer. If white privilege is ended, and whites are also subjected to being gunned down by the police, being overlooked for hiring and promotions, having to attend substandard schools, and being unjustly and inaccurately stereotyped, the job will be far from over. Such a state of affairs will be no better than the current one, and I doubt it is anyone’s goal. Yet I fear that popular philosophies will lead to such a conclusion. Demonizing other people’s benefits provokes envy and resentment, sentiments that are more apt to cause destruction of others’ benefits than construction of one’s own freedom and happiness. 

Take the story of Solomon and the two prostitutes arguing over a baby. While we usually focus on the affection which prompts the mother of the live baby to be willing to give up her child rather than see him killed, there is another streak in this story. Note the other woman’s reaction to the suggestion that the baby be cut in half. She consents readily, greedily. Her baby is dead, and it is enough for her that they both have dead babies, although the killing of the live baby does not make hers any less dead. 

Consider also this Ukrainian joke. An angel came to this one man and said to him, “I will grant you one wish, but, whatever I give you, I will give twice over to your neighbor.” The man thought a bit, then said, “Take out my eye.” The joke ends here, but you can guess the rest, and the moral. The man saw gain to himself in having more than his neighbor, even if that meant losing something. This is not to say that we should not desire equality in society, but an equality achieved by taking away the benefits of one group without changing the circumstances of the oppressed helps nobody. It is not enough to make everybody equally miserable. The problem in our society is not that whites enjoy certain freedoms. It is that these freedoms are not given to all.

Follow-up

This is a follow-up on my last blog. Last time, I said I believed that religious neutrality is impossible, even in politics, and that I do not think Christians have a duty to surrender cultural power. The next question is whether Christians ought to try to set up a theocracy. I am hesitant to say so. Again, when Christianity has had, or sought, that degree or kind of cultural power, things can get ugly. I no longer believe that this ugliness is inevitable, or that Christians ought to relinquish power unless that is the only way for abuses to end. However, I am wary of any efforts to seek power, as these efforts can suffer from the pitfalls common to Transformationalism. 

Transformationalism is the idea that Christians have a duty to transform this present world. What differentiates it from ordinary political involvement? Transformationalism puts high hopes on what can be accomplished before Jesus comes back, even to the point of denying, or minimizing, any notion of the final destruction of the world and expecting that something almost akin to the New Heavens and the New Earth can be created without any such catastrophe. It usually takes one of two forms: liberal or conservative. Liberal Transformationalism focuses on alleviating poverty, and inequality, encouraging education and other social programs, and generally trying to make society and government more just and fair. Conservative Transformationalism is, I would suspect, growing rarer, but I may be wrong. At any rate, Conservative transformationalists focus on such efforts as abolishing abortion, encouraging sexual morality, and keeping Christianity in the public sphere. 

My main problem with Transformationalism is its minimizing of the notion of a final destruction of the world. While there may be legitimate interpretations of the Bible that allow for no end-of-the-world destruction, I fear people may get into Transformationalism without understanding that such a philosophy entails a particular eschatology.

My other problem is Transformationalism’s tendency to overemphasize temporal, secondary matters. Although justice and morality are both important, they are signs of bigger changes. Faith in Christ, not abstaining from abortion or refusing to participate in injustice, saves a person. However great a society human efforts can manage to produce, perfection can never be achieved as long as there are those in that society whose hearts are unchanged. Injustice and immorality both stem from a broken relationship with God, a problem which even the best laws and the most sophisticated social programs cannot fix. Conversion to Christianity is the only solution. 

I do not mean to say that Christians should not be involved in politics. I only am saying that our hope is not in any earthly government or society. We do well to improve the country where we live, but we do not put our hope in the fortunes of that country. Jesus is already King, whoever may sit in the White House. If we follow in the footsteps of Kim Davis, let us do so not to place Jesus on His throne, but to point out to our governors that Jesus is on His throne, and that doing as He says is usually a good idea.

The Ultimate Heresy

I have come to a terrible realization. It started when I was in college, particularly when I considered the intense conflict that ensues over gay rights vs. religious freedom. At first, the only thing I would admit to anyone other than myself was that religious diversity is not an ideal, that its benefit was in its preventing the problems of other ages, things such as the inquisition. I was always taught that church-state entanglements were the bane of Europe, and that the separation of church and state was, at worst, a necessary evil. But now, I'm not sure it even works. You got that right. We've been bamboozled, tricked, sold a false bill of goods. 

See, freedom of religion doesn't work. Here's why. In order to determine what to allow and what to forbid, to decide what programs to enact and which not to, and to make a myriad of other decisions, a government must have certain values. For instance, in America, we don't allow people to take what belongs to somebody else. Such a law seems elementary, obvious, but even this law relies on the notion of material ownership. We believe that people's property rights trump the needs and desires of even the most resourceful thief. Note, however, that not all religions have the same values. It only stands to reason that certain religions will be more in line with the national ideology than others. In such a situation, religious conflicts are inevitable.

As I tried to trace back the problem, to see what went wrong, allowing the present conflicts between cake bakers and certain couples, I came to see that the flaw goes to the very roots of our national foundation. We thought we could do something we couldn't. And now we are reaping the fruits. Here's why we did it: Europe had just undergone numerous conflicts over religion, specifically, over which expression of Christianity would be allowed and would have cultural power. Many people came to America to get away from laws that forbade them to worship as they saw fit. To these settlers and their descendants, religious freedom meant they could set up their own churches without restrictions.

Perhaps the first sign of trouble for the new nation came when polygamy was made illegal. Note that polygamy violates nobody's rights, provided the parties involved are all willing. It does not harm anyone. It is simply contrary to our sensibilities, to politicians at the time, downright repugnant. In a landmark case, the judge ruled that the government, if it were to govern at all, cannot accommodate everybody's conscience. Using the example of human sacrifice, he said that there are certain religious acts that the government simply cannot allow, things that cannot be allowed in a free society. Now, let us ask ourselves, why can't we allow human sacrifice in America? Because it violates an individual's right to life (unless the victim were to submit voluntarily). Even then, the idea of somebody being killed to appease a god strikes the average American as barbaric and backwards. Can a nation that calls any religious practice or belief "backward" or "quaint" or "sick" really embrace all religions?

Another blow at the notion of religious diversity was the government's venturing out into the business of children's education. While it may be possible, in theory, to govern a country with no other guide than a skeletal understanding of human rights as laid out in our foundational documents, (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.)it is not possible to run a school that way. Perhaps the most obvious manifestations of the impossibility of running a school without any governing ideology are the various conflicts over religion in public schools. While prayer in public schools is something of a side issue, controversies such as abstinence only sex education versus "safe sex" and Creation vs. Evolution, as well as the question of Intelligent Design show that the problem runs deeper. As an acolyte of the grand tradition of Reformed, Christian education, I understand that everyone has a worldview. That worldview comes out in all subjects, math, science, language arts, even foreign language studies. Education in any subject must be conducted from a broader understanding of where that subject fits into the broader scheme of the world, the universe, and everything. A historian who believes God had a hand in what happened in the world teaches history differently from one who teaches it from the premise that it is the story of human progress towards the perfect society as the most evolved beings on the planet, similar as these perspectives may seem.

Present controversies over the observance of cultural holidays with religious roots shows the impossibility of a truly cultureless society. It is much more fun to celebrate Christmas when at least eighty percent of your town is doing so, too. Holidays are perhaps the most obvious sign that religion is not, and was never meant to be, a private matter. Holidays have just that public, communal character that demands the participation of many. For example, here, in Ukraine, our family celebrates Easter when the rest of the country does, according to the Orthodox calendar. That is the day our church celebrates it, the day the rest of the city celebrates it.

While the Civil Rights Movement brought necessary changes to America, it also underscored the impossibility of ideological neutrality in a country that wants to be just, and to do right by all its citizens. The idea that certain people were not eligible for equal rights would simply not be tolerated. Justice demands it.

Now, we come to the present case. In recent times, cake bakers have refused to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. While it is important to note that the bakers are refusing to offer a service to a couple because they are doing something only gay people do, not because they are gay, the situation is a bit complicated. The very existence of bakers who refuse same-sex couples wedding cakes testifies to the fact that some people in this country still believe same-sex marriage is wrong. Now, if religious objection to same-sex marriage were just as bad as racism (something I don't believe), then tolerating such an objection would be quite a concession to make, if such a concession can even be condoned. It seems many gay-rights activists would have religious objection to homosexual practice relegated to the same rubbish bin to which we have, for the past fifty years, trying to relegate racism. In the case of racism, such efforts are commendable, (provided they are characterized by a charitable mien towards those one is trying to correct). In the case of objection to homosexual practice, I cannot say the same. On the one hand, we have people who see as an injustice moral objection to same-sex marriage, while, on the other, we have people who feel they must maintain the position that such marriage is wrong if they are to be faithful to their creeds.

The issue has again come up in the furor over Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and her preventing others in her office from issuing such licenses. While objection to the extent of her civil disobedience is understandable, while disagreement with her interpretation of the Bible is understandable, many of the things people on the internet are saying about her go beyond simple disagreement. The vibe I sense is contempt, contempt for this woman's principles automatically translating into contempt for her decision about how to live by them.

What we must ask ourselves is this: Is there room for both parties in the same country? I don't know. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't, but I don't know what to do about it. Seizing political power at the expense of other religions does not seem a very Christian thing to do, yet surrendering power in favor of lies merely because of a political dogma that has proved faulty looks just about as bad.

Free book promotion!

Get the Book

Exciting news! Tell everybody! My book, The Opal Necklace, will be offered for free starting this Friday! The promotion will run for five days. Although this book is only offered in electronic format, you do not have to have a kindle if you want to read it. Amazon offers a free kindle app suitable for most modern computers, tablets, and various other devices. Since the book is free, you don't have anything to lose. If you don't like it, you've lost nothing. 

Sophie's freshman year at college in New England is anything but boring. Some of what she experiences is positive. She makes new friends and finds herself enjoying the picturesque setting of her new home. Something is wrong, though. Here and there, she faces hints of a mysterious past, a mysterious past connected with her and her family. Can she and her friends win out before it's too late? Find out for FREE this weekend!

P.S. Reviews would be greatly appreciated!

My salad-dressing conditioner recipe

He folks. If you've ever been dissatisfied with the conditioner you find in the store, or be out of it, or had a burst of creativity, you may have experienced the same problem I have. You went to trusty old Google and looked up recipes for diy conditioner. This is what I found when I did that. I found plenty of recipes for deep-conditioning treatments that had to be left in the hair for hours, then washed out with shampoo, maybe followed by regular conditioner. I guess not too many people are that into making a replacement for their bottled conditioner from a recipe including ingredients easily obtained. In addition, many recipes for this sort of thing call for expensive, exotic ingredients.

So, I invented my own recipe. Here it is. It contains very few ingredients indeed, and they should be obtainable without any detective work, and without a trip to the more obscure parts of the health food store (or the market in Timbuktu). This conditioner is intended to be used as an ordinary part of your  hair-care routine. You don't have to keep it in your hair for three hours for it to do you some good. I will warn you, though, that it can leave your hair looking unusually shiny, like you've used gel. It may even look greasy. The greasy look can be reduced if you use ordinary conditioner afterwards, but don't feel you have to. This whole prejudice against greasy hair is a modern invention. Time was when people oiled their hair.

So, here's the recipe. Make a fresh batch for every wash, or keep the extra in the refrigerator. Take a generous spoonful of honey, and 1/4 of a teaspoon of a hair-friendly oil (I usually use olive) Add a cup or so of hot water. Use hot water so the ingredients will dissolve better.

In the shower, gather your hair and dip it into the conditioner, or pour it over your hair and catch the drips, then pour them over your hair again. You can get your hair wet first, or you can put it in the conditioner first thing. Don't put it on your scalp unless you have very short hair. I don't have a set time for leaving the hair in the conditioner, just keep it in as long as you would keep your ordinary conditioner in your hair before rinsing it out. Then, rinse out the conditioner and wash your hair.

Feel free to experiment with this recipe. You may find that using a different amount of oil or a different kind works best for you. You can add other ingredients if you like, such as essential oils, herbal infusions, aloe vera, etc. Do research and find out what your hair might like. If you come up with something really good, please do write about it in the comments section. 

Why be modest?

"We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up."
Romans 15:1,2

I've heard it a lot, and I bet you have too, that telling women to dress modestly is sexist, is a form of body-shaming, sexualizes women, or undermines male responsibility for lustful thoughts. I have wondered about this issue myself. I must admit that I have sometimes worn things that weren't really modest, and have wondered if it matters. I once read an article stating that Paul's injunction to dress modestly was actually a command against showing off one's wealth through sumptuous clothes. I must confess that such linguistic matters are somewhat beyond me. However, I think there are good reasons to be modest, reasons from the Bible.

Modesty is a concession we make to men's weakness, a way we express love. There is a lot of talk nowadays about preserving one's rights, about standing up for oneself, etc. There is little talk about conceding one's rights for the good of others, but the Bible upholds doing so. Giving to the poor is an example of such a concession. While it would be wrong for a person in need to steal from somebody, it is perfectly fine for that person to give to the person in need. The command not to steal respects people's right to property while the command to give enjoins giving up that right for the good of others.

Another example, one inspired by the passage quoted above, is that of avoiding presenting temptation to people with certain weaknesses. For instance, if you have an alcoholic friend and were planning to invite that friend to a get-together, it would be kindest for you not to serve alcohol, even if you did not offer any of it to your friend. Even though you might argue that your friend should have the gumption to not drink even when alcohol is available, even if you are confident he can, it is still kind to avoid presenting him with temptation. It is a way you can be considerate towards your friend's weakness.

Now, most men have a weakness. (Note that I said most men, not all men.) It is hard for them not to lust when they see a woman dressed in a way that would be described as "scanty" from the point of view of your culture. That standard, will, of course, differ in different contexts, but the standard exists. In our culture, there is a certain tolerance for a degree of immodesty, a degree seen as sexy, but not taboo. By avoiding dress that makes things hard for men, we women can show love. We can help our brothers in Christ do their duty. I admit, it is a sacrifice. Do men deserve it? No. Jesus also made a sacrifice for you, even though you do not deserve it. Modest dress is a way for us to imitate Jesus and sacrifice for the good of others.

Note that I do not discount the problems many women have with male immodesty. However, I think female immodesty is much more prevalent in formal situations. For men, in general, the more formal the occasion, the more a man will be wearing. For a woman, things are not so simple. Outside of business wear, the fancier the occasion, the more likely a woman will have bare shoulders, etc. Our society permits women greater variety in dress, and greater immodesty.

There is an important warning I must issue here. Whenever people concede their rights for the good of others, abuse is possible. How can we avoid it? I don't pretend to be an expert, but I will offer a few words to men on having a proper attitude. Men, don't demand modesty, request it. Listen to women and make sure what you are asking is practical. We women are used to wearing less than you do, and may find ourselves uncomfortable wearing a lot of clothes in the summer. Bras can be difficult to hide, and may act as though they want to be seen. Women who are "gifted" may find it hard to find tops high enough without looking like old maids. Besides everything, remember that our fashions do not cater to modesty, cater less to modesty than yours, so dressing modestly and fashionably can be harder for us than for you. Bear with us, and forgive our failings. Never use immodesty as an excuse for lust, rape, exploitation, catcalling, or humiliation. You are responsible for yourselves.