Last Wednesday evening, during the discussion time with the youth at my church, I wrote the simple sentences on the dry-erase board. "I am individual. I am community. I am a Christian."
Then I spoke about the difference between community and conformity, and explained that much of the "community" expressed in Christian circles and churches is not true community at all, but conformity.
I have read a lot of blogs lately that have been calling out the American Church on everything from its exclusivity to its politics to its legalism. There are people, Christian and non-Christian, who are fed up with the cliques, the seemingly close-minded acceptance of policy, and the hypocritical standards, to name a few things. Regarding all these issues, I wonder if our view of sin and mercy is deeply skewed, so that the above things are natural outputs from our churches today.
In my youth group (and more broadly, in my church as a whole) growing up, there were several things that could open a chasm between you and other people. The first, and most obvious, was sin, especially committing a sin that was popularly spoken against and avoided. To associate with someone who tripped and fell below the standard became much more difficult - it was almost impossible to view them in the same holy light as you had before. Another way to drive a wedge between yourself and others was to question things - anything from the existence and/or actions of God, to the historicity of Jesus and the science behind his resurrection, to the certain code of morality supposedly upheld in Scripture. To question such things meant you were doubting something, and doubting something meant lack of faith, and wavering faith, in any arena, was yet another way to plummet beneath the standard. Therefore, association with those struggling to accept carte blanche was just as difficult. A third way to divide yourself was to simply be a part of a family that held an overall different political, social, or denominational outlook. The size of this division varied depending on how radically different you family was from the standard, but woe to you if you were on the extreme - you might as well have been living in a leper colony.
The fourth fool-proof way to drive a wedge was to suggest the offering be taken up at a different time or that the pulpit might not be necessary.
I explained to my youth that part of being a Christian - of following Jesus - means that you have come to a place where your individuality should perfectly meet with a community. Hence, becoming part of a church should never challenge who you are as an individual, but you should be able to bring all of who you are - talents, ignorance, resources, questions, skills, fears - to the group without worry that you will be forced to change the way you are and how you think about one thing or another. After all, Jesus never seemed to demand a change of individuality in a person, but simply how they act and associate with others. A friend of mine said it best once: "God glories in diversity." And, I believe, the church is at its healthiest and most loving when it has learned to accept everyone as different - people who are at different places in their journey, struggling with different issues and situations, seeking the best way to personally connect with the God in whom they have placed their trust.
Conformity, on the other hand, is losing your individuality for the sake of the group. Shaving off the parts of you that don't gel with the group so that there are no hiccups, no speed bumps as you cruise to where you're going (even if you're actually going nowhere in particular). Unfortunately, there was a lot of conformity in some of the churches I grew up attending, and it is a deep-rooted problem that pervades many churches today. That is why it is so easy for me to think up the things that would be certain to drive a wedge between a person and the rest of the group.
That is not to say that, growing up, there were not people who lived above such things, who cherished community and did everything they could to preserve it. And I'm sure there are people that are the same way in your church communities as well. But, I wonder, how often do you find yourself working and living toward conformity rather than true community, whether because it is easier, less stressful, or is less likely to cause problems of a foreign nature.
Don't read me wrong - I am not arguing against behavioral, moral change. Salvation does spark change within every part of us, but my understanding of individuality goes much deeper than this. We are the persons God made us, with personalities all our own. The last thing we want to do is bring all of who we are to a group only to have them squint at us as if they are gazing at us from an insurmountable distance, confused or shocked and peering back at us from the other side of their road to eternity.
In third grade we made fun of a kid because he spoke different, had a bit of a mean streak, smelled funny, and didn't socialize in the normal way. He grew up right alongside me and some of my friends, and to this day I struggle to see him for who he is rather than who I once determined him to be.
Showing posts with label Injustices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Injustices. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Good Neighbors?
Good fences make good neighbors...
In the opinion of Robert Frost, this was not true. However, lately I wonder if such a statement might actually be true for the Church. There are those in America who think so. There are also a large number of Christians who do not agree, who think the existing fences should be torn down and kept down if we are to achieve a safe, free, moral country. I am referring, of course, to the debate-inspiring issue of separation of Church and state. While not necessarily a hot-button issue (except in some organizations and in some churches), it is one that always rests under the surface of political and religious disputations, and normally works its way to the center of the argument eventually in everything from abortion, school prayer, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and other fiery discussions.
A spirited debate has been taking place on my friend, John's, blog. The entries and comments, including my own, has gotten me to thinking a bit more about this issue. Hence my proverbial hat tossed into the ring, my two cents being spent.
Growing up, what little I knew about the establishment and point of the separation of Church and state led me to think it an unfortunate thing. I grew up in a predominantly Republican, predominantly Christian world (and the truth as to whether or not it was actually this way never would have made it passed my naivety). I understood the central struggle of Church and government to be that the government thought the Church irrelevant and its morality worthless. Therefore, if the Church could affect the government in such a way that it would change such a view, respect the institution ordained by God, and go ahead and start upholding the Church's standard of morality, so much the better. Today, I realize there's really nothing wrong with the first part, or even the second (though Christians shouldn't determine their worth by what their government thinks of them). However, the third part is backwards, at least as far as I understand Scripture and the teachings of Christianity's central figure, Jesus the Christ.
There are two problems with the separation of Church and state, one falling on either side of the issue. For those who are against it, the problem becomes that, to marry the two, you come to two scary outcomes. Scary outcome number one, the government relegates the Church. Even scarier outcome number two, the Church relegates the government. We have pictures in history of both things happening in different countries, and the lines are so blurry between the two it is hard to tell how anyone got any kind of worshiping, humility, or missions work done. It could not have been easy.
For those that are for Church and state being separated (as it is now, as broadly addressed in the First Amendment), the outcome is not quite as scary, but it is dangerous. What is bred from such strong support of the separation, both in the Christian and non-Christian, is an us vs. them mentality. Now, there are a lot of things in our society that can spark such a disparaging outlook upon the world, and this issue, unfortunately, is one of them. It is easy for the proponent of the separation to maintain a relieved joy in the respective autonomy of the Church and the state, but, if not held in check, the proponent can eventually pull back from any kind of involvement in the other. "I have no business affecting change within the government," says the Christian. "After all, I'm a Christian. My allegiance lies only with the kingdom of God." "I'm not going to church," mutters the statesman. "It has nothing to do with who I am and what I do."
The Book of Romans addresses both problems quite pointedly - though in a slightly indirect way - in the thirteenth chapter. "Everyone must submit himself or herself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established ... Consequently, he or she who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted..." Anti-separation people - this means, like it or believe it or not, God has some purpose for whatever government you want to be assimilated into (or, rather, let's be honest, whatever government you want to assimilate). Pro-separation people - this text flies in the face of your us vs. them mentality as well. Did you notice the word "submit?"
"Submit." Serve. Affect. Work with. Get involved.
But what about Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, even the Roman Empire during it's persecution of Jews and Christians and other third-class religions of the time? How can we possibly subject ourselves to such authority and still maintain a clear conscience?
This is why the text does not use the phrase "bend over and take it." Here in the verse, "submit" is not a state of being, just as it is not in Ephesians 5 (speaking of hot-button issues in the Church). It is a word of action. It means to get involved, to desire what is best for both parties, to see another's desire as just as valid as - if not more than - your own, and to work toward such ends to the best of your ability.
Maybe I'm reading into the text. Some might accuse me of this. Others might call me out on the text itself, saying it is not exactly relevant to the issue. Still others might take offense that I used the phrase, "bend over and take it."
But I think of Robert Frost. I think of the phrase, "Good fences make good neighbors..." and I wonder if maybe it is possible to build a fence and still know your neighbor to be good. Perhaps, instead of insisting on the fence, or seeking to tear it down, we should invite our neighbor to join us between the posts. Maybe, together, we can work on it, repairing it, and in doing so, learn more about each other, what makes each other tick. Maybe I can show my neighbor where the gate is, simply so, if he were ever so inclined, he might take an innocent stroll in my lawn and take notice how I tend my garden, how I maintain my home. Maybe I can stroll in his as well.
Hey, it beats standing judgmentally at my window, peering out across the razor wire through binoculars.
In the opinion of Robert Frost, this was not true. However, lately I wonder if such a statement might actually be true for the Church. There are those in America who think so. There are also a large number of Christians who do not agree, who think the existing fences should be torn down and kept down if we are to achieve a safe, free, moral country. I am referring, of course, to the debate-inspiring issue of separation of Church and state. While not necessarily a hot-button issue (except in some organizations and in some churches), it is one that always rests under the surface of political and religious disputations, and normally works its way to the center of the argument eventually in everything from abortion, school prayer, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and other fiery discussions.
A spirited debate has been taking place on my friend, John's, blog. The entries and comments, including my own, has gotten me to thinking a bit more about this issue. Hence my proverbial hat tossed into the ring, my two cents being spent.
Growing up, what little I knew about the establishment and point of the separation of Church and state led me to think it an unfortunate thing. I grew up in a predominantly Republican, predominantly Christian world (and the truth as to whether or not it was actually this way never would have made it passed my naivety). I understood the central struggle of Church and government to be that the government thought the Church irrelevant and its morality worthless. Therefore, if the Church could affect the government in such a way that it would change such a view, respect the institution ordained by God, and go ahead and start upholding the Church's standard of morality, so much the better. Today, I realize there's really nothing wrong with the first part, or even the second (though Christians shouldn't determine their worth by what their government thinks of them). However, the third part is backwards, at least as far as I understand Scripture and the teachings of Christianity's central figure, Jesus the Christ.
There are two problems with the separation of Church and state, one falling on either side of the issue. For those who are against it, the problem becomes that, to marry the two, you come to two scary outcomes. Scary outcome number one, the government relegates the Church. Even scarier outcome number two, the Church relegates the government. We have pictures in history of both things happening in different countries, and the lines are so blurry between the two it is hard to tell how anyone got any kind of worshiping, humility, or missions work done. It could not have been easy.
For those that are for Church and state being separated (as it is now, as broadly addressed in the First Amendment), the outcome is not quite as scary, but it is dangerous. What is bred from such strong support of the separation, both in the Christian and non-Christian, is an us vs. them mentality. Now, there are a lot of things in our society that can spark such a disparaging outlook upon the world, and this issue, unfortunately, is one of them. It is easy for the proponent of the separation to maintain a relieved joy in the respective autonomy of the Church and the state, but, if not held in check, the proponent can eventually pull back from any kind of involvement in the other. "I have no business affecting change within the government," says the Christian. "After all, I'm a Christian. My allegiance lies only with the kingdom of God." "I'm not going to church," mutters the statesman. "It has nothing to do with who I am and what I do."
The Book of Romans addresses both problems quite pointedly - though in a slightly indirect way - in the thirteenth chapter. "Everyone must submit himself or herself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established ... Consequently, he or she who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted..." Anti-separation people - this means, like it or believe it or not, God has some purpose for whatever government you want to be assimilated into (or, rather, let's be honest, whatever government you want to assimilate). Pro-separation people - this text flies in the face of your us vs. them mentality as well. Did you notice the word "submit?"
"Submit." Serve. Affect. Work with. Get involved.
But what about Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, even the Roman Empire during it's persecution of Jews and Christians and other third-class religions of the time? How can we possibly subject ourselves to such authority and still maintain a clear conscience?
This is why the text does not use the phrase "bend over and take it." Here in the verse, "submit" is not a state of being, just as it is not in Ephesians 5 (speaking of hot-button issues in the Church). It is a word of action. It means to get involved, to desire what is best for both parties, to see another's desire as just as valid as - if not more than - your own, and to work toward such ends to the best of your ability.
Maybe I'm reading into the text. Some might accuse me of this. Others might call me out on the text itself, saying it is not exactly relevant to the issue. Still others might take offense that I used the phrase, "bend over and take it."
But I think of Robert Frost. I think of the phrase, "Good fences make good neighbors..." and I wonder if maybe it is possible to build a fence and still know your neighbor to be good. Perhaps, instead of insisting on the fence, or seeking to tear it down, we should invite our neighbor to join us between the posts. Maybe, together, we can work on it, repairing it, and in doing so, learn more about each other, what makes each other tick. Maybe I can show my neighbor where the gate is, simply so, if he were ever so inclined, he might take an innocent stroll in my lawn and take notice how I tend my garden, how I maintain my home. Maybe I can stroll in his as well.
Hey, it beats standing judgmentally at my window, peering out across the razor wire through binoculars.
Monday, November 20, 2006
It Takes All Kinds
Thank you all for responding to the questions I posed in the previous entry. Please keep commenting if you would like, either on this entry or the one underneath. Every once in a while on this blog, I veer into an area of introspection or analysis that might run some people the wrong way, but I feel it's important to the greater theme of this, the search and continual discovery of the stuff of wonder, that we all take time to consider those things that detract from true faith or make an outright mockery of it.
To that end, before I give my (certainly misguided) two cents regarding the subject of the last post, I wanted to share something that initially seems funny but in reality is quite offensive and tragic, at least in my opinion. Yesterday I was driving down (or up, depending on where you are on it) San Felipe with Leigh on our way to an evening church activity when my eyes wandered to the right to read the latest marquee message of another church that I pass at least twice a day. In the past, this church has posted cutesy, mostly shallow messages, such as "What's missing from this ch ch?" However, on this week, the church sprinted past cutesy to downright offense. The latest marquee read:
Try Jesus. If you don't like him, the devil will always take you back.
My mouth fell agape immediately. In one simple statement, this church was purporting, to hundreds who would pass, a galling statement that is both poor theology and a perpetuation of an "us vs. them" mindset. I felt like calling the church and asking if they would tell all the insulted people that might call in to come to my church instead, where it seems we are slightly more careful in how we refer to those who have not professed a relationship with Christ.
I suspect that an us vs. them mindset pervades a majority of our thinking in churches today. This is not surprising, because, on the surface, Scripture itself often seems to read this way, whereas a deeper, more patient reading of Scripture gives us a more compassionate and gracious understanding of those "outside of Christ." I do not claim to always succeed in the latter kind of reading. However, I do think such a mindset affects many church decisions, from evangelistic strategies, to membership requirements, to church discipline.
I do not think this girl (introduced in the previous entry) is outside of Christ. Some may look at her lifestyle and suspect a Christian would not live the way she has, but then again, such an ideal Christian certainly wouldn't live the way I have either. The truth is, we all stand in need of great grace. And this is the one kink in my understanding that keeps me from agreeing whole-heartedly with those of you who commented in affirmation on the process of discipline described in the previous entry. I'm with Grayson in this respect. Where, then, is grace? It seems expulsion upholds a limited love, and though there is much Scripture that lays out somewhat specific disciplinary rules, I have trouble reconciling expulsion with being the body of Christ, which simply means to love as the Savior loves, unconditionally, unceasing...
If such a thing were to take place in my own church, I suspect I would find myself between a rock and a hard place, and therefore would have to make a decision, because, sadly, the above paragraph seems to be no real decision at all. But expulsion? I like Chris' and Natalie's comments (on this blog's Xanga doppelganger) regarding why this girl and her new husband should not be allowed to continue to attend regular worship and weekly bible studies, as long as they are no longer counted on to teach. We wouldn't keep out others with acute problems with sin, so why them? Is not separation of leadership enough?
I suppose bad company corrupts good character, but if there is any community that should remain unafraid of this, I think it should be the Church, of which Jesus once said, "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
To that end, before I give my (certainly misguided) two cents regarding the subject of the last post, I wanted to share something that initially seems funny but in reality is quite offensive and tragic, at least in my opinion. Yesterday I was driving down (or up, depending on where you are on it) San Felipe with Leigh on our way to an evening church activity when my eyes wandered to the right to read the latest marquee message of another church that I pass at least twice a day. In the past, this church has posted cutesy, mostly shallow messages, such as "What's missing from this ch ch?" However, on this week, the church sprinted past cutesy to downright offense. The latest marquee read:
Try Jesus. If you don't like him, the devil will always take you back.
My mouth fell agape immediately. In one simple statement, this church was purporting, to hundreds who would pass, a galling statement that is both poor theology and a perpetuation of an "us vs. them" mindset. I felt like calling the church and asking if they would tell all the insulted people that might call in to come to my church instead, where it seems we are slightly more careful in how we refer to those who have not professed a relationship with Christ.
I suspect that an us vs. them mindset pervades a majority of our thinking in churches today. This is not surprising, because, on the surface, Scripture itself often seems to read this way, whereas a deeper, more patient reading of Scripture gives us a more compassionate and gracious understanding of those "outside of Christ." I do not claim to always succeed in the latter kind of reading. However, I do think such a mindset affects many church decisions, from evangelistic strategies, to membership requirements, to church discipline.
I do not think this girl (introduced in the previous entry) is outside of Christ. Some may look at her lifestyle and suspect a Christian would not live the way she has, but then again, such an ideal Christian certainly wouldn't live the way I have either. The truth is, we all stand in need of great grace. And this is the one kink in my understanding that keeps me from agreeing whole-heartedly with those of you who commented in affirmation on the process of discipline described in the previous entry. I'm with Grayson in this respect. Where, then, is grace? It seems expulsion upholds a limited love, and though there is much Scripture that lays out somewhat specific disciplinary rules, I have trouble reconciling expulsion with being the body of Christ, which simply means to love as the Savior loves, unconditionally, unceasing...
If such a thing were to take place in my own church, I suspect I would find myself between a rock and a hard place, and therefore would have to make a decision, because, sadly, the above paragraph seems to be no real decision at all. But expulsion? I like Chris' and Natalie's comments (on this blog's Xanga doppelganger) regarding why this girl and her new husband should not be allowed to continue to attend regular worship and weekly bible studies, as long as they are no longer counted on to teach. We wouldn't keep out others with acute problems with sin, so why them? Is not separation of leadership enough?
I suppose bad company corrupts good character, but if there is any community that should remain unafraid of this, I think it should be the Church, of which Jesus once said, "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Disciplinarians
Last night, I was catching up on life and all its beautiful absurdity with my friend back home. In the midst of informing me of all the new engagements, marriages, pregnancies, etc., he shared with me the story of a young woman whom I know and have been privy to some of her headstrong mistakes and misjudgments. For privacy sake, I won't divulge any names.
It seems that this girl (several years younger than me) has been struggling with issues of purity and relationships since she hastily married in her early college years and was divorced soon afterwards. Following this, she returned to her hometown and commenced to serial dating. Added to her dating outlook was the practice of sleeping with the guys she was dating. This was not merely for the enjoyment of it, but, she insisted then and still does today, a necessary act to make sure the guy was right for her.
After several relationships lived out by this standard (a few that emotionally hurt some friends of mine when she grew tired of being with them), she has finally settled down with another guy (who seems quite nice), and is now pregnant with his child. They have lived together for some time, but only recently got married. She is in her third trimester with the child.
The question I would like to raise on this blog is not about her, but about what has transpired in my home church since all of this came to light (and it was not all at once, as many people knew of her outlook and her activity for quite a while). Unashamed of her promiscuous ways while dating and living with a man she was not yet married to, she has shared many times with many girls that none of this is a sin or against Scripture. Recently, it came to a point where, after several conversations with her alone as well as with her and her new husband, the leaders of the Singles/Young Couples group at the church (a long-time married couple) have asked them to leave the church. The leaders are taking quite seriously the statutes of 1st Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18:15-20, which lead them to expel the young woman and her husband.
My question is this: Do you feel this is the right move, as much as it matches with Scripture? Do you think the leaders and the church are right in expelling them from fellowship? My concern is that church discipline isn't what it used to be, when only one church existed in every city. Separation from fellowship might have worked well back in the early church, but today it seems that this couple could simply church hop and eventually find a community that looks the other way to any and every little thing they've done. And would that be so bad to look the other way?
Let me know what you think...
It seems that this girl (several years younger than me) has been struggling with issues of purity and relationships since she hastily married in her early college years and was divorced soon afterwards. Following this, she returned to her hometown and commenced to serial dating. Added to her dating outlook was the practice of sleeping with the guys she was dating. This was not merely for the enjoyment of it, but, she insisted then and still does today, a necessary act to make sure the guy was right for her.
After several relationships lived out by this standard (a few that emotionally hurt some friends of mine when she grew tired of being with them), she has finally settled down with another guy (who seems quite nice), and is now pregnant with his child. They have lived together for some time, but only recently got married. She is in her third trimester with the child.
The question I would like to raise on this blog is not about her, but about what has transpired in my home church since all of this came to light (and it was not all at once, as many people knew of her outlook and her activity for quite a while). Unashamed of her promiscuous ways while dating and living with a man she was not yet married to, she has shared many times with many girls that none of this is a sin or against Scripture. Recently, it came to a point where, after several conversations with her alone as well as with her and her new husband, the leaders of the Singles/Young Couples group at the church (a long-time married couple) have asked them to leave the church. The leaders are taking quite seriously the statutes of 1st Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18:15-20, which lead them to expel the young woman and her husband.
My question is this: Do you feel this is the right move, as much as it matches with Scripture? Do you think the leaders and the church are right in expelling them from fellowship? My concern is that church discipline isn't what it used to be, when only one church existed in every city. Separation from fellowship might have worked well back in the early church, but today it seems that this couple could simply church hop and eventually find a community that looks the other way to any and every little thing they've done. And would that be so bad to look the other way?
Let me know what you think...
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Politicians
Whatever happened to, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?" Whatever happened to being the "bigger man" and responding nobly to idiotic statements and verbal attacks by simply saying nothing at all? It's that whole turn-the-other-cheek thing - I don't think it ever really caught on.
It is interesting how John Kerry is trying to sound nobler by insisting he was attempting to make a joke about the president, not the troops, as if this would make him less childish. It is interesting how the White House has jumped upon Kerry's idiocy like a starving man on the last doughnut in the box. It is interesting how each political person's criticism or support of the statement sounds manufactured and condemnatory rather than honest - sounds focused on polls rather than human dignity and troop conditions.
It is bitterly amusing how much I act like these pathetic, rival bullies. I misspeak, then defend, then misspeak again even worse. I rail against others, other people and other churches, for having a completely skewed idea of the kingdom of God, and later I get the feeling I am no closer to understanding it than they are. No matter what, I rarely know when to shut up, stop grappling for leverage, and simply be still.
Woe is me, a politician of the faith.
"I pledge allegiance to a country without borders,
without politicians,
watching for my sky to get torn apart.
We are broken, we are bitter, we're the problem,
we're the politicians,
watching for our sky to get torn apart."
- Jon Foreman (Switchfoot)
It is interesting how John Kerry is trying to sound nobler by insisting he was attempting to make a joke about the president, not the troops, as if this would make him less childish. It is interesting how the White House has jumped upon Kerry's idiocy like a starving man on the last doughnut in the box. It is interesting how each political person's criticism or support of the statement sounds manufactured and condemnatory rather than honest - sounds focused on polls rather than human dignity and troop conditions.
It is bitterly amusing how much I act like these pathetic, rival bullies. I misspeak, then defend, then misspeak again even worse. I rail against others, other people and other churches, for having a completely skewed idea of the kingdom of God, and later I get the feeling I am no closer to understanding it than they are. No matter what, I rarely know when to shut up, stop grappling for leverage, and simply be still.
Woe is me, a politician of the faith.
"I pledge allegiance to a country without borders,
without politicians,
watching for my sky to get torn apart.
We are broken, we are bitter, we're the problem,
we're the politicians,
watching for our sky to get torn apart."
- Jon Foreman (Switchfoot)
Thursday, October 19, 2006
There's Racism, and Then There's Absurdity
The following is a bit lengthy, but I think it is quite interesting...
I'm diverting from my normal, journal-like post structure to report a grave injustice. I normally do not choose to call people out very often on my blog (though I notice I am doing so more lately - maybe I'm the one with issues), but such a despicable act has been committed that I couldn't keep from making the conflict known.
Comedian Chris Rock's mother, Rose, who lives in South Carolina, is planning to sue Cracker Barrel restaurants (based in Lebanon, TN) for racial discrimination after she and her daughter were seated for a meal but service was then neglected. Ms. Rock claims everyone else in the Georgetown, SC restaurant was being served, but no one even came to check on them. (Not even to bring over some of that delicious cornbread, Ms. Rock? My, what a travesty!) Surely this is an injustice ... but on the part of Ms. Rock (and her legal financier, the incorrigible "Rev." Al Sharpton, who jumps on racial discrimination suits like Paris Hilton on diet pills).
First of all, if you check the above link, make sure you watch the video excerpt from Larry King Live. Now, it is quite possible that racial discrimination did find Ms. Rock (you mean someone in South Carolina might be prejudice?! That's crazy!). However, part of living graciously is to give people the benefit of the doubt. Ms. Rock and her daughter went for a meal at 4:00-ish in the afternoon, neither considered to be the lunch hour or dinner hour, and traditionally the time when wait-staff shifts change. Ms. Rock admits she did not try to summon any of the wait-staff's attention. Apparently she just sat and brooded and immediately drew the conclusion that the staff must hate black people. (Then why did they seat you in the first place, Ms. Rock?) Instead, after about a half hour of keeping to herself, she sought out the manager, already incensed at the way she had been treated (or "not treated" might be a better way to put it). She recounts how the manager apologized and asked her if she would have a seat and he would make sure their order was expedited and their meal be on the house. Ms. Rock claims by then she and her daughter had lost their appetite at the injustice of it all. (One bite of that cornbread could probably cure that, you know.)
She sought out the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, filed a report, and now complains they never did anything. The HAC claims they get thousands of such complaints (in South Carolina?! No!) each year, and it takes a while to mobilize an investigation. They have since finalized the request and have begun an investigation as of early August. Before this time, Cracker Barrel sent a formal apology, a care basket, and vouchers for two free meals to Ms. Rock. When asked about this, she and her hero, Sharpton, scoff at the gesture of supplication. They want to file suit, in the name of all minorities everywhere.
Now, there's racism, and then there's plain absurdity. Ms. Rock, I know your son has built a career on racially-motivated comedy, but that doesn't mean every inconvenient thing that happens to you is a devious act by some close-minded, prejudice jerk. If this is about money, why do you need it if your son is a star? If this is about principle, why don't you find a more blatant discrimination instead of following the country's bandwagon of blaming all insulting instances on oppression? I got lousy service in a burger joint the other day, and my order was botched, but I didn't chalk that up to the waiter hating me because I'm a Christian (though, if I did, I'm sure I could get Falwell or some other jump-the-gun religious personalities to take up my cause). Ms. Rock, don't be one of those people. Nobody intelligent respects Al Sharpton. If Martin Luther King Jr. were still alive, he'd probably have to contain himself from punching the guy in the nose.
Aren't we all getting a little too touchy. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, Ms. Rock, nor do I claim to know what it feels like to be on the short end of that stick. But I do know how to forgive and forget once in a while, and, if I can squeeze some advice in past Sharpton's husky, hulking, protective frame, I'd say this instance is definitely a time for doing so.
I'm diverting from my normal, journal-like post structure to report a grave injustice. I normally do not choose to call people out very often on my blog (though I notice I am doing so more lately - maybe I'm the one with issues), but such a despicable act has been committed that I couldn't keep from making the conflict known.
Comedian Chris Rock's mother, Rose, who lives in South Carolina, is planning to sue Cracker Barrel restaurants (based in Lebanon, TN) for racial discrimination after she and her daughter were seated for a meal but service was then neglected. Ms. Rock claims everyone else in the Georgetown, SC restaurant was being served, but no one even came to check on them. (Not even to bring over some of that delicious cornbread, Ms. Rock? My, what a travesty!) Surely this is an injustice ... but on the part of Ms. Rock (and her legal financier, the incorrigible "Rev." Al Sharpton, who jumps on racial discrimination suits like Paris Hilton on diet pills).
First of all, if you check the above link, make sure you watch the video excerpt from Larry King Live. Now, it is quite possible that racial discrimination did find Ms. Rock (you mean someone in South Carolina might be prejudice?! That's crazy!). However, part of living graciously is to give people the benefit of the doubt. Ms. Rock and her daughter went for a meal at 4:00-ish in the afternoon, neither considered to be the lunch hour or dinner hour, and traditionally the time when wait-staff shifts change. Ms. Rock admits she did not try to summon any of the wait-staff's attention. Apparently she just sat and brooded and immediately drew the conclusion that the staff must hate black people. (Then why did they seat you in the first place, Ms. Rock?) Instead, after about a half hour of keeping to herself, she sought out the manager, already incensed at the way she had been treated (or "not treated" might be a better way to put it). She recounts how the manager apologized and asked her if she would have a seat and he would make sure their order was expedited and their meal be on the house. Ms. Rock claims by then she and her daughter had lost their appetite at the injustice of it all. (One bite of that cornbread could probably cure that, you know.)
She sought out the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, filed a report, and now complains they never did anything. The HAC claims they get thousands of such complaints (in South Carolina?! No!) each year, and it takes a while to mobilize an investigation. They have since finalized the request and have begun an investigation as of early August. Before this time, Cracker Barrel sent a formal apology, a care basket, and vouchers for two free meals to Ms. Rock. When asked about this, she and her hero, Sharpton, scoff at the gesture of supplication. They want to file suit, in the name of all minorities everywhere.
Now, there's racism, and then there's plain absurdity. Ms. Rock, I know your son has built a career on racially-motivated comedy, but that doesn't mean every inconvenient thing that happens to you is a devious act by some close-minded, prejudice jerk. If this is about money, why do you need it if your son is a star? If this is about principle, why don't you find a more blatant discrimination instead of following the country's bandwagon of blaming all insulting instances on oppression? I got lousy service in a burger joint the other day, and my order was botched, but I didn't chalk that up to the waiter hating me because I'm a Christian (though, if I did, I'm sure I could get Falwell or some other jump-the-gun religious personalities to take up my cause). Ms. Rock, don't be one of those people. Nobody intelligent respects Al Sharpton. If Martin Luther King Jr. were still alive, he'd probably have to contain himself from punching the guy in the nose.
Aren't we all getting a little too touchy. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, Ms. Rock, nor do I claim to know what it feels like to be on the short end of that stick. But I do know how to forgive and forget once in a while, and, if I can squeeze some advice in past Sharpton's husky, hulking, protective frame, I'd say this instance is definitely a time for doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
