America on the Brink

America on the Brink Musings on Politics, Racism, and Religion

Lewis Brogdon

America on the Brink

Musing on Politics, Racism, and Religion

Lewis Brogdon

| 1

Copyright 2023 Institute for Black Church Studies at the Baptist Seminary of Kentucky

2 |

Table of Contents

Introduction Part One: Musings on Politics Chapter 1 The Neglected Dimension of Verbal Violence in Politics Chapter 2 Leading in a Cultural Windstorm: Reflections on Black Political and Community Leadership Chapter 3 The Fight for the Soul of America Chapter 4 America is Not Ready for the Next Crisis Part Two: Musings on Racism and Religion Chapter 5 Why We Keep Talking Past Each Other When It Comes to Racism Chapter 6 We Can’t Stay Here Anymore: The New Era of Racial Estrangement and Separation Chapter 7 Christians Can Be Bad Neighbors: Reflections on Luke 10:25-37 and My Trip to the United Nations Chapter 8 Listening Is Not Enough About the Author

| 3

Introduction There is a debate today about the church’s role in society. Some leaders argue that Christian leaders should not address social and political issues. They also argue that social justice work is antagonistic to the work of the gospel. To them, social and political issues detract attention from the core mission of the church which should be saving souls and nurturing spirituality – worship, prayer, and Scripture reading. On the other side of the spectrum are leaders who argue that God cares for more than souls and personal piety. God cares about bodies and the entirety of the world. They also argue that Scripture gives a lot of attention to injustice and human suffering. One of the most unfortunate products of this debate has been the need to frame this as an “either or” proposition. Why can’t we do both? Why are both aspects not important? Christian leaders can attend to eternal, spiritual, and social issues because they all intersect with human life. Why is that difficult or controversial? I am surprised that we are still having this debate, especially given the problematic history of Christianity in this country. Black people were legally enslaved in this country for over two hundred years, and this was largely done with the sanction of the church. Sanction came in two forms – defending slavery as God ordained and arguing the church should not weigh in on the issue because it is political. The same thing happened in the Jim Crow era. Churches were arguing it is God’s will to separate the races and then there were masses of Christians practicing silence because segregation was a “political” issue. These Christians believed that God did not care about the dehumanizing, exploitative, and violent systems of slavery and segregation that African Americans suffered under for over three hundred years. The only reason systems of slavery and segregation were upended was because God raised up small groups of Christians and people of other and no faith to do it. It is a shameful fact of history that many today have not learned from yet. It is beyond me why leaders employ the same theology that history has shown to be wrong? God calls us to attend to all these matters, including social and political issues. God does this because God loves the world, not just heaven, and God cares about all people. Stories in the Bible repeatedly teach us these dual truths. In one story, God hears blood that was violently shed crying out to him and another story tells us that God hears the cries of the enslaved as they are whipped by taskmasters. When God came to earth in the person of Jesus, the gospels record stories that lift up the plight of people who were robbed and left destitute, people who were hungry, thirsty, naked, and imprisoned. The stories show that God made what we call “social” and “political” issues spiritual issues. This means that we cannot neglect our responsibility to preach a holistic gospel.

4 |

Paul told the Galatians, “But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son born of a woman, under the law to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (4:4-5). While some focus on Paul’s argument about Christ’s work in relation to the law in Galatians, I like to draw attention to the idea of God sending Jesus “in the fullness of time” because the particular moment in history God decided to do this is no small matter. Time and historical moment are neglected theological matters that inform the nature of ministry, preaching, and social advocacy. In this book, I use time and historical moment as theological markers to explore the challenges and promises of ministry and advocacy work today. Pastors and other Christian leaders are living in a unique historical moment that demands understanding and discernment, a moment that commands our attention and best energies. He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? (Luke 12:54-56). And this reveals to us that the most striking thing about the story of Rip Van Winkle is not merely that Rip slept twenty years, but that he slept through a revolution. While he was peacefully snoring up in the mountain a revolution was taking place that at points would change the course of history—and Rip knew nothing about it. He was asleep. Yes, he slept through a revolution. And one of the great liabilities of life is that all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, that the new situation demands. They end up sleeping through a revolution (Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution ). There are two pitfalls to avoid in moments like this: not discerning the moment; and being overwhelmed by the weight of the moment. History reminds us that just because people profess faith in Jesus and work to advance his mission in the earth that these things cannot and do not happen. In fact, it is happening all around us today. Churches and Christian leaders have lost their way and seem unable to respond to the challenges of the moment, which is why I spent so much time writing in magazines and journals over the course of the last two years. In the pages that follow are a compilation of essays speaking to important political and social issues today, including the issue of systemic racism. These essays are a part of work I do with Kelly Mikel Williams at Black Politics Today magazine, Dr. Pat Anderson at Christian Ethics Today , David Bailey at Virginia Capitol Connections Quarterly Magazine and Megan Veda with the Courier Journal . They have graciously granted me permission to republish these articles. I pray you will find them insightful and challenging. Lewis Brogdon

| 5

Part One Musings on Politics

6 |

Chapter One The Neglected Dimension of Verbal Violence in Politics The Descent into Violence America is a violent country in every sense of the word – wars abroad, racial ethnic strife, mass shootings, police brutality, gang violence, hate crimes, rape, and domestic violence are reported daily. I can hardly scroll through my Twitter or Facebook feed without video footage of people fighting or arguing over something. It doesn’t take long before the argument gets personal, sometimes nasty. This is not to mention our insatiable social thirst for violence in sports and entertainment – hit ‘em, kick ‘em, break his neck, kill ‘em. But our problem with violence is not just physical, it is also verbal and emotional. While many of us may not be on the battlefield with a gun or engaged in physical altercations recorded for voyeurs to view on social media, many of us participate in another form of violence we believe is somehow more respectable than these other forms. Verbal and emotional violence is widespread today yet neglected and not thought of as problematic. Why is this the case? Our neglect is rooted in a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of violence. Violence is often defined as the use of physical force to injure, abuse, or destroy in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and Oxford. It is also understood as a form of aggression by the American Psychological Association. The word force is important. Often our understanding of force is physical and that is why we miss the basic and core dimensions of violence. We associate force with physical acts of aggression – pushing, hitting, and or using a weapon to inflict harm or death. But there is more to violence than physical acts. Violence also involves both actions and words. Violence does two things. First, it disregards the basic dignity all persons deserve. Second, this disregard results in actions that we characterize as violent - actions that invade mental, emotional, physical, and social boundaries. Those actions can be physical and verbal. The point I want to make here is that not only can we use force physically, we can also use it in verbal ways to inflict harm emotionally and psychologically. This fundamental aspect of violence has been ignored for too long. My question for readers is “What would it mean to apply this basic understanding of the nature of violence to the ways we talk to one another as citizens?” When I answered this question a few months ago it opened my eyes to the fact that our political discourse has a violent dimension we have missed. On all the major news networks and social media platforms, we have descended into a retaliatory approach of communication as we

| 7

spend our days attacking, insulting, and belittling one another. Today our citizenry follow leaders – Democratic, Republican, Independent, Liberal and Conservative - who have embraced verbal violence and employ it to ground and advance their political careers, campaigns, offices, policies, and public service. Worse yet, they engage in verbal political violence themselves. This is a small part of a broader political crisis others are noticing. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic , waded into these issues in a provocative essay titled “A Nation Coming Apart.” Out of the conversations, and others like it, emerged the idea for the special issue you are now reading, what we have called “How to Stop a Civil War.” We don’t believe that conditions in the United States today resemble those of 1850s America. But we worry that the ties that bind us are fraying at alarming speed – we are becoming contemptuous of each other in ways that are both dire and possibly irreversible (Goldberg, 8). 1 An issue invoking language of a civil war should cause alarm as animosity and division run bone deep in this country. Jonathan Rauch’s article “Rethinking Polarization” in National Affairs examines the dire conditions of polarization today. 2 He begins with a story of a mechanic called to help a motorist but left her stranded because of her political affiliation. Human decency and civility are declining. I found his assessment of our inability to compromise as a rejection of governance incredibly insightful as well as his analysis of the tribal nature of partisanship today and its threat on liberal democratic ideals. Yoni Appelbaum’s essay in the aforementioned issue of The Atlantic “How America Ends” references startling research by Vanderbilt University that show how “both Republicans and Democrats (are) distressingly willing to dehumanize members of the opposite party” (Applebaum, 46). 3 Researchers found that our political rhetoric describes members of the opposite party as lacking basic human traits. This is where we are today. Appelbaum then notes how “overheated rhetoric has helped radicalize some individuals who resort to violence. This is just a small sample of work being done on the condition of our political system today and this work shows just how low we have sunk into the morass of evil all “ in the name of good – God, country, political party, and ideology. ” Verbal Violence and Politics For a citizenry that spends so much time paying lip service to Jesus Christ (remember WWJD – what would Jesus do) and leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., who sought to live by his example, it is evident that we have not heeded their warnings about the temptation to be drawn into evils like retaliatory violence – verbal and physical. Given the moral condition in which we find ourselves as a society, I felt led by God to use this quarter’s article

1 Jeffrey Goldberg, “A Nation Coming Apart,” The Atlantic (December 2019), 8. 2 Jonathan Rauch, “Rethinking Polarization,” National Affairs (Fall 2019), 86-100. 3 Yoni Applebaum, “How America Ends,” The Atlantic (December 2019), 46.

8 |

from The Black Pulpit and Public Square to open our eyes to this with hopes that we will find a different path in 2020 and beyond. We need a better way to take up political work that respects our common destiny while recognizing the many ways we differ on how to get there. While I applaud the passion and care of many fighting to make this country a better place and those who enter public service to make a difference, the retaliatory “eye for an eye” approach is politically impractical and religiously immoral. For one, it is a betrayal of both basic ideals this country was founded upon and a betrayal of the religion of Jesus who taught his followers to resist participating in the evils of retaliatory violence and hate. In fact, Jesus taught that we should not retaliate with violence and that we should we should not curse others, a clear reference to verbal dimensions of violence (Matthew 5:38-48). I am surprised by how many religious leaders participate in verbal violence themselves and encourage others to participate in it. As I conclude the first essay, I hope readers do not employ reductionist thinking such as “ here’s another minister telling us to play nice in a field that requires toughness. ” Such thinking reflects a misunderstanding of the depth of what Jesus is challenging us to do in Matthew 5 by refusing to allow violence to be our common response or to use a term from computer technology our “default” political setting. What Jesus is calling for – a commitment to love and good in the face of evil and violence - speaks to the character, internal strength, discipline required to be a nonviolent leader who can talk and disagree with someone without resorting to verbal violence. I refuse to believe these principles are not appropriate in politics, especially when so many profess to be Christians. The next section will explore the deeper problems with this form of political violence and provide constructive ways to practice “verbal” nonviolence in politics. King on Nonviolence: A Lesson for Political Discourse Today We need a different model of leadership today and an appropriate place to begin the work of developing such models is by revisiting one of America’s great theologians and prophets, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Though often quoted, most Americans do not understand the substance of his thought. One of the most misunderstood aspects of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence was that he encouraged passivity. Nothing could be further from the truth. King believed in resisting oppression and challenging injustice. He stood up for righteousness, truth, and justice. King was not passive at all. He was principled in that he believed that you cannot challenge and dismantle unjust systems employing any form of violence. King modeled what it means to be centered in love and committed to not allowing hate and violence dictate how he chose to respond to injustice. This aspect of his legacy is sorely needed today because leaders today think that verbal and emotional violence should be tools of choice in politics. In the early years of the Civil Rights movement, King explained important aspects of his understanding of nonviolence and made three statements this country needs to hear.

| 9

The Most Durable Power (1956) – Always be sure that you struggle with Christian methods and Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him. Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos. 4 The Power of Nonviolence (1957) – Another basic thing we had to get over is that nonviolent resistance is also an internal matter. It not only avoids external violence or external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. And so at the center of our movement stood the philosophy of love. 5 An Experiment in Love (1950s) – I stressed that the use of violence in our struggle would be both impractical and immoral. To meet hate with retaliatory hate would do nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe. Hate begets hate; violence begets violence…We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love; we must meet physical force with our soul free. 6 His words are clear. There is little need for commentary. However, there are five statements King made that apply to the issue of verbal violence in politics. First, Dr. King reminds us that it is important to use Christian methods and weapons in justice work. His words and his warning teach important lessons for political discourse today. Doing social justice and or political work, work wrongly assumed to fall outside the parameters of religion, is not an excuse to adopt unchristian methods and principles, especially those that warn about the reckless use of the tongue (James 2). There are higher principles rooted in Scripture that guide and ground how we take up this work. Second, he challenges us not allow anyone to pull us into hatred and violence. His sober reminder not to succumb to the temptation to become what you hate is vital today. In debates about issues we must be resist the temptation to give into lesser impulses and passions – name calling. Shouting matches, trading insults, belittling others, and dog whistling. These are all manifestations of a culture of violence that has our seized political discourse today. Third, he draws attention to the violence of the spirit or what I describe as violence within oneself or recognizing one’s capacity for violence. King’s words challenge us to identify the hate and violence within us that fuels these

4 James Washington, ed. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1986), 10.

5 Ibid.,13. 6 Ibid., 17.

10 |

responses and not draw on them in the work we do in the public square. Doing this will require discipline and strength that must nurtured in prayer, meditation, mindfulness, confession, and other spiritual practices that free the soul from the shackles of violence. Fourth, King insists that hate and violence only produces more hate and violence. What this implies here is that what fuels or animates our work can have a positive or negative effect. Dr. King would say that ideas, policy proposals, and analyses saturated in violence will never produce healing and vitality into our republic. Violence’s undergirding influence will always counter attempts to imagine, craft, and pass policies and laws that address the widespread violence tearing at the fabric of society. If we do not stop the cycle, violence will only produce the very thing we are trying to avoid – more verbal, emotional, and physical violence. Finally, he warns if we succumb to the temptation of using violence, it will produce an endless reign of meaningless chaos. Shouting others down, questioning the intelligence of others, and demonizing others as the embodiment of evil is not making your point and advancing your cause. It is participating in violence and only produces an endless cycle of retaliatory violence. That is partisan politics today and endemic of the broader ways we engage with one another as citizens. I worry about the chaos future generations will reap as we nurture a generation of young people on this way of communicating. It bears repeating. Our children are watching us and listening to us and what they are seeing is disturbing. What King argues here requires more than a “playing nice” but instead challenges the character and depth of a person. We need political leaders, commentators, and an electorate with enough character to find constructive ways to have difficult conversations and disagreements without resorting to the politics of violence. My Model of Nonviolent Political Discourse As I conclude, what both Jesus and Dr. King teach model a political form of nonviolence that can infuse civility into our discourse. In fact, I want to offer practical suggestions that inform my work as a scholar, minister, and leader. Paul told a young pastor named Timothy something of importance for my understanding of verbal nonviolence. “God did not give us the spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). You will notice that Dr. King uses the word power when talking about love and nonviolence. The word power is important. When others are exerting the force of their words against you, they are, attempting to use power against you, to overpower you. Like Paul, Dr. King understood that we have power, too. We do not have to be afraid and we do not have to retaliate or “return evil for evil.” We have power not to be overcome by abusive power and we can use power in constructive, not destructive ways. Discernment and Humility The New Testament talks about discernment and humility. Both are an

| 11

essential part of nonviolent political discourse. Discernment in 1 Corinthians 12 is the ability to differentiate the influence of good from evil. Gospel writers record stories that show Jesus was aware of deeper motivations for questions and responded with such an awareness instead of blind engagement (Matthew 9:4; Mark 10:2; Luke 10:25, 11:17; John 8:6). Paul encouraged the Ephesians to remember the deeper spiritual dimensions behind “flesh and blood” interactions (Ephesians 6:12). These stories and teachings remind us of forces and powers influencing verbal interactions so there is a recognition of what is said and why or what’s motivating specific words, which is an invaluable gift. Discernment in the Bible is not just a deeper recognition of motivations, but it also means wisdom, which is ability to rightly utilize knowledge. The implication here is it is one thing to have an awareness of evil and insight but another thing to know what to do with it in each situation. Political nonviolence for me means having discernment that is exercised in two ways. First, it is exercised in debates and discussions about political issues. Discernment equips us not to be drawn into ugly verbal confrontations when respectful dialogue that seeks understanding breaks down. Like an inner warning alarm, discernment enables us to be alert to the turn toward violence so that we do not succumb to the temptation to insult. Second, discernment applies to media platforms we utilize, support, and allow ourselves to be exposed to. Just because media platforms exist and are popular does not mean we are beholden to them and or must support them. Doing this only ensures minimal accountability, which is not a good thing. We need to be measured and discriminating in our support of media platforms and programs that encourage and recklessly promote verbal violence. Discernment must be exercised with humility. Humility is appropriately described as “not thinking too highly of oneself” (Romans 12:3) and is important because it provides a check on personal, partisan, or any form of group arrogance that assumes we are always right and better than others. The belief that we are better than others is an expression of pride, the opposite of humility in New Testament writings, that should always be checked. Yes, we should have our beliefs and convictions, but they should be held with the humble recognition that our best ideas are always riddled with elements of self-interest. Humility should tamp down or check the level of assertion and aggression we employ to make out point. Humility is a check that can prevent one from descending into verbal violence. Composure Composure is a second important aspect of political non-violence I have found helpful. I have studied Martin Luther King Jr.’s behavior in television interviews and learned valuable skills that nurture composure in me as a leader. King did two things that stood out for me. He was a principled communicator who did not allow himself to be distracted by ancillary issues. He also used what I call “strategic pauses” that provide moment to discern both the meaning and tenor or “spirit” of the question. James describes such pauses as being “quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath” (James 1:19). Cultivating the kind of self-control and discipline spoken of in Galatians 5

12 |

and learning skills modeled by King, can build important skills that help you to do three things. First, it can help you to reframe questions in constructive ways. Second, it provides ways to redirect hostile energy so you can remain centered and respond appropriately when dialogue breaks down and turns to violence. Third, it enables you to find points of commonality with people posturing themselves in adversarial ways. In the end, composure helps you keep conversations on issues and ideas and not unprincipled and morally problematic practices like insulting individual persons or groups. Conclusion Discernment, humility, and composure are powerful tools we have at our disposal to practice verbal political nonviolence. Yes, nonviolence must be taught and practiced. It is the only way to build up the spiritual muscles and discipline to do the right thing in the face of violence. In the end, there is a way to salvage the way we talk to one another before even more damage is done to this nation, we all love. The way is by turning to Scripture and writings by leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and committing ourselves as leaders and voters to the long process of changing the way we choose to talk with one another. Only then can we overcome the undercurrent of violence long neglected in political discourse today.

| 13

Chapter Two Leading in a Cultural Windstorm: Reflections on Black Political and Community Leadership The winds of turmoil and change are blowing. In a sense, we are living in a revolutionary cultural moment. There is a global pandemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. Millions of Americans are unemployed and uncertain how they are going to make ends meet. Businesses are in serious trouble and some have already closed. Covid-19 was a perfect storm. It hit America during a time of great social upheaval and fragmentation. The partisan divide is dysfunctional and impairs our ability to function as a healthy democracy. Hate and mistrust are intensifying and spilling into the streets. Our roads, bridges, tunnels, and rail system are antiquated and crumbling. Despite our cultural worship of wealth and affluence, millions of Americans are living in poverty. In fact, poverty in America is such a problem that the United Nations (U.N.) commissioned a special study and issued a stinging report stating millions of Americans are living in Third World conditions. There is the presidential election that could set off another chain of violence and mayhem for what could be a “winter of our discontent” as Shakespeare said in Richard III. As the American crisis deepens, religious and faith-based institutions are becoming increasingly irrelevant and unable to stem the crisis of meaning and rampant nihilism playing itself out on social media, popular media, and in our streets. More Americans are leaving churches and abandoning traditional beliefs unable to make sense of what has become of this country. While America declines, other nations are growing in strength economically, politically, and culturally; what Fareed Zakaria calls “the rise of the rest” in his book The Post-American World . In a sense, the pandemic exposed and exacerbated deeper fault lines, setting off social earthquakes and cultural tsunamis that have engulfed the nation. We are living in a cultural windstorm! Amid such upheaval, black political and community leadership are more important than ever. That is why I want this month’s Black Pulpit and Public Square article in Black Politics Today magazine to bring needed attention to the issue of black leadership. Kelly Mikel Williams always asks us the question: “what’s at stake for black America?” The answer today is: “Everything is at stake for us in this cultural moment.” Covid-19 is killing a disproportionate number of African Americans, the data on depression, hypertension, and obesity rates is alarming, home ownership rates resemble rates during the Great Depression, we own a mere 2.6% of wealth though we represent 13% of the population, and we are still miseducated, overly policed, and incarcerated. Most of us live paycheck to paycheck in a country that values

14 |

black culture - artistic and athletic skill - while hating us at the same time. Black communities and people are left in survival mode while global change and innovation moves at a frantic pace leaving us even further behind. In this storm, black political and community leaders strive to give their best energies and intelligence to helping us navigate these incredible challenges. My purpose for this month’s article is twofold. I want to share a resource that can deepen their understanding of crisis moment we are in. Please get a copy of the book The American Crisis: What Went Wrong How We Recover by the writers of The Atlantic . I also want readers to understand unique challenges for black America because leading in a cultural windstorm requires an awareness of what’s swirling, their impact on you as a leader and our communities. Winds are blowing and too many of us are caught up into reactionary impulses and attitudes instead of providing visionary and strategic leadership. I want to begin by applauding black leaders in congress, our historic black colleges and universities, the NAACP and the National Urban League, The Rainbow Push Coalition, National Action Network, National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), presiding bishops, convention presidents, and congregational pastors, educators and healthcare professionals, state and local government, business men and women, public intellectuals, socially-conscious entertainers, athletes, and media members, emergent groups like the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS), Black Lives Matter, Black Politics Today, and our former president Barack Obama for the dauting task of fighting to make the lives of black folk a little better each day. We do not express our appreciation to them enough for the ways they try to serve and give leadership to organizations, institutions, and communities. In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned the country about the forces of reaction during times of war. I believe his thoughts here apply to times of intense national conflict like we are witnessing today. He said, “It is really much more difficult to arouse the conscience during a time of war. There is something about a war like this that makes people insensitive. It dulls the conscience . It strengthens the forces of reaction and it brings into being bitterness and hatred and violence” (NBC News Interview). As always, Dr. King was correct in his analysis. During times of conflict, emotions run hot and deep. We identify enemies and mobilize to destroy them. More dangerously, during these times, we require family and friends to choose sides. “Are you for us or against us?” Antagonism, contention, and strife fills the air we breathe and foundation for social engagement. This gives meaning to what he meant by the statement “war…makes people insensitive.” In stormy period of controversy, people will do all sorts of things against others because they are caught up by the forces of reaction. Today, our political and community leaders have a profound responsibility to be aware of these forces because they will invariably impair our ability to address the monumental challenges and promises before us. I want to share three forces for our consideration. 1. The Winds of Cultural Deconstructionists A part of the complexity of the current historical moment is our inability to

| 15

understand the difference between telling the truth about our past to build a better future for everyone from our obsession to deconstruct everything. Deconstruction is a technical term in philosophical and religious studies that describes the process of questioning traditional assumptions about truth and identity and is characterized by a tendency to break down to show biases and inconsistencies. Deconstructionism can be healthy and help societies correct beliefs that are deeply problematic. However, deconstructionism can go awry and lead to a destructive questioning and tearing down of everything associated with others. As a society, a dangerous form of deconstructive logic has taken hold that is focused on what I call obsessive problem analysis in others. Many people, including leaders focus only on problems and the problem is almost always in others. Jesus described this flawed logic in Matthew 7. They see sawdust in your eye but not the plank in their own eye. Leaders and people in general can explain what is wrong with institutions, organizations, and ideas. They are skilled and passionate about the need to tear everything a part and discard them but, when it is time to offer solutions and take up constructive aspects of advocacy and public policy work, they don’t have much to say. Social media has given deconstructionists a platform to rant and rave about problems, to deconstruct all things sports, business, politics, religion, relationships, education, and mental health. Deconstructing everything has become a default cognitive setting in us that has poisoned our political and community leaders. Like so many others, they can only tell you what needs to be torn down and not what and how to build. The truth is, there is more to effective leadership than tearing everything down or only explaining the nature of the problem. We have too many deconstructionists in leadership who only know what is wrong with everything and everyone else but cannot galvanize people around the good and organize them to build something. This must change. 2. The Winds of an Unfocused Black Political Agenda It is hard to channel rage into change because some of the rage is rooted in a lack of awareness of what we want and where to begin to do the kind of advocacy and policy work that brings change. Some black leaders do not have a focused and practical black agenda. Some of this is related to the crowd that is telling you everything that is wrong. Deconstructionism as an end to itself traps you in a vicious cycle of frustration and anger because it is focused on the problem. This leaves us locked into a form of social paralysis in the face of the sheer magnitude of issues confronting black communities and explains the small but real faction of our communities that are lashing out and turning to violence, looting. Some of this reflects feeling helpless and hopeless about change. Our problems are so big that it is hard to think incrementally and with specificity about a few areas as if it a disservice to the magnitude of the problem. Righteous anger is healthy but if can become toxic and destructive if it is not channeled in constructive ways. Channeling righteous rage requires focus, or as I like to say, a focused vision that has the breadth to say here is what we need, and the specificity to recognize the steps or process to get us there.

16 |

This kind of focused vision, that understands the increments or steps in a larger process, is rooted in the creation story in Genesis 1. Notice how God creates by bringing order to the chaos described in verse two (now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep). God focuses on specific things each day and recognized the good accomplished for the day, even though more work needed to be done. Imagine using these insights to develop a leadership philosophy for the African American community. God brings order and beauty out of chaos in six days. This means God had a clear vision of what needed to be done on each day. God was not confused about or pressed to do more than was possible for the day. More importantly, God paused to see all that was done and celebrated it in its unfinished stage. This is why I believe the black community needs a focused black political agenda that our various organizations and leaders can focus on for a specific period. For me, the black agenda should focus on the criminal justice system, education, and economic reform. This is one example of an agenda where leaders identify outcomes that we collectively focus to meet in the next twenty-five to forty years. We will also have to create mechanisms and occasions to celebrate progress made despite all that is left to do. We cannot wallow only in what has not been done. As a community, we must pause and celebrate the good and use it as inspiration and motivation to continue the work. 3. The Winds In-Fighting and Cultural Strife There is a lot of in-fighting and strife in black communities. It happens during periods of intense confrontation. For example, during times of war, there is something called friendly fire when a soldier or instrument of war accidentally or recklessly kills a member of its own unit. It is tragic going to fight an enemy but being killed by a friendly. This reminds us that just because we are on the same team or a member of the same ethnicity does not mean we are united or that we cannot be hurt by people we are trying to help. Today there is entirely too much toxic in-fighting in black America. Group unity and solidarity among fellow marginalized people are hard to maintain as there are forces from without and within, tearing at the weak fabric of our communities. But we need some modicum of unity and solidarity as a community. Black people are not monolithic and disagreement and ideological diversity are healthy and good. However, there is a narrowness, a form of sectarianism that insists on allegiances to singular leaders, ideas, or approaches to advocacy and public policy that is vilifying people fighting for the same thing. This mindset played itself out all summer and fall on social media as disagreements over how to protest, where to protest, and why to protest a certain way or disagreement among leaders results in someone being labeled a sellout or an Uncle Tom or not black. Such a mindset keeps groups small and closed off from others and destroys effective communication and partnerships, even those trying to fight the same thing. Such in-fighting is inevitable in a racist context because racism reinforces beliefs that can be internalized and employed by the very people who were victimized by racism themselves – dehumanize, label, separate, oppress, etc. But, in the end, it is counterproductive and when combined with radical deconstructionism and

| 17

an unfocused agenda, hinders our ability to take substantive steps to address inequities. Leaders have to stop participating in this kind of nihilistic work. We have to stop making enemies of each other. Instead, let us take up the hard work of salvaging broken relationships and partnerships that could help

our people. Final Word

Black political and community leaders face the challenge of dealing with external winds affecting the country while being mindful of destructive “more internal” winds that can leave our communities and institutions decimated if they run their course. I hope this article will help you to think critically and creatively about the challenges before us. In the coming months, we need our political and community leaders to stand in face of the wind and navigate the dangers so our communities can not only survive but thrive in this era of upheaval and change.

18 |

Chapter Three The Fight for the Soul of America

During his presidential campaign, Joseph Biden often spoke of the election in terms of a fight for the soul of America. During the Democratic National Convention, Biden said, “This campaign isn’t just about winning votes. It’s about winning the heart and, yes, the soul of America.” It was striking to hear a presidential candidate talk in such ways about an election. It was reminiscent of past presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy who understood the broader spiritual significance of their presidencies. These leaders understood that seminal moments require more than political leadership, more than politics as usual. It requires moral leadership, something he is attempting to provide. In an October NY Times article, Elizabeth Dias noted, “From the start, his campaign message has been one of broader morality, versus specific policy or ideology,” also quoting presidential historian Jon Meacham who said, “When Mr. Biden says this is a battle for the soul of the nation, he is not using it religiously but as a synonym for character.” I agreed with him, and that was one of the many reasons I cast my vote for Biden-Harris last November. Four more years of a Donald Trump presidency would have been disastrous for the country. However, with his defeat, the fight for the soul of America is far from over. The truth is, America was losing its soul years before Donald Trump became president. He only exploited divisions unleashed by an economy that did not work for everyone and the underbelly of racism set off by the continual browning of America and eight years of an African American in the White House. Had America done important soul-work from 2000-2016, Donald Trump may not have ever been president and America would be a different country than it is now. No doubt America is in crisis, but it cannot all be blamed on Trump. The problems run deeper. Biden’s insistence that we are in a fight for the soul of America sought to draw attention to America’s moral character and implicitly suggested a very real possibility that America was in danger of losing its soul. Losing Your Soul The language of losing one’s soul comes from the Bible. In fact, Jesus was the one to talk about this in Gospels such as Mark and Luke where he asked, “ What good is it for someone to gain the whole world yet forfeit their soul” (KJV “ lose his own soul” – Mark 8:36) . I grew up in church hearing this verse quoted and being told that it meant going to hell. What is interesting in the passage is that Jesus is not talking about dying and going to hell. He is talking about how we live. Losing your soul happens in life. In both Mark and Luke, this warning

| 19

is given while Jesus issued one of his calls to discipleship, a call that requires self-denial and cross-bearing, which is sacrificial service, and following his way. His call to discipleship is a life that ultimately seeks to honor God and help others, not oneself. Denying this call and life path to “save” one’s life - have life one’s own way- will prove disastrous. Such a one will gain “the world” but ultimately lose the most important thing, themselves. More importantly, both the call and the warning were given to all who sought to follow him. In other words, Jesus is not thinking in individualistic terms but of the world as his work, universal in scope. I like to think of the soul as who we are at our core and the place in which we struggle to be the best of ourselves. This suggests that losing your soul means, on an individual level, losing touch with who you are ultimately meant to be and losing the struggle to be your best self. On the broader level, it is a community that loses touch with who we are meant to be and our struggle to be our best selves. You see, Jesus’s warning here actually has deeper implications than the fear of hell. People can lose their soul here and now, choosing the easy and selfish path, choosing to be less than their best selves. I think this principle has communal and even national implications because we live in communities and are affected by the actions of others. We have all seen people lost to anger, resentment, or hate who unleash pain and suffering onto those around them. Sadly, we are seeing it entirely too much these days and with an intensity and fervor that brings this language to mind. Darker parts of America’s soul are being exposed, and we are losing the struggle to be our best selves as a nation. Joe Biden saw this back in 2017 with the tragic events surrounding the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and drew on this language to interpret the moment in which we find ourselves. Republican Senator Ben Sasse saw it in 2018 and wrote the book, Them: Why We Hate Each Other and How to Heal . America was in a fight for its soul, for its best self, as its worst parts continue to assert itself on our national life. Some may retort, “When did America ever have a soul?” This is a reasonable question given our troubling history of slavery and genocide. Today seems like the inevitable result of a path taken years ago, but if we go back to the text in Mark, the question ,“Did America ever have a soul” is wrong. Losing your soul is choosing a lesser path and losing the struggle to be your best self. When understood in this manner, America has always struggled with its soul. Movements in history like abolitionism, women’s suffrage, civil rights, and today’s Me Too and Black Lives Matter movements are evidence of a nation that is imperfect but struggling to be better. But today, we are losing ground in the struggle, and there is an embrace of the worst of ourselves that has gained a foothold in this nation. The Soul of America is in Trouble America is in crisis. We have seen a lot in 2020 and 2021 – a global pandemic, record unemployment, protests over police brutality, riots in multiple cities, and the attack on the capitol building by U.S. citizens at the beckon of the outgoing president. America is being exposed in troubling ways laid out in

20 |

today, we are losing ground in the struggle, and there is an embrace of the worst of ourselves that has gained a foothold in this nation. .

the graphic below.

America 2020-2021 An Era of Great Social Upheaval & Deep Social Rifts

Global Pandemic “Covid - 19”

Political system w/ dysfunction & gridlock

Entrenched Racism & Xenophobia

Weakening Infrastructure

Gross Economic

Collapse of Meaning & Declining Influence of Religion

Disparities & Mass Poverty

When we peel the layer back and look closer, we see a more troubling picture of the nature of the American crisis. There is a stubborn refusal to right the wrongs of the past and present around issues of race, political dysfunction in Washington that is more beholden to corporate interests than the people, and a hyper-partisan “tribalistic” two party system that is tearing the country apart. There are also gross economic inequities and poverty that affect mil lions of lives. Then, there is persistent violence at every level of human and social interaction including domestic violence, rape, and mass shootings. In the face of such big and complex social problems, the empty quest for mate rialism and pleasure seeks to fill or give meaning to the rampant nihilism we have unleashed on ourselves and each other. All of this is happening amidst devastating loss of life. For over a year, major news networks tracked the number of Americans contracting and dying from this novel coronavirus. The numbers are staggering. Over 561,000 Americans have died from this coronavirus – more than the deaths from both WW1 and WW2. Daily we witness the spectacle of rampant cynicism, violence, discord, neglect for vulnerable members of society, profound moral confusion, and a kind of irrationality that is utterly baffling, like those who believe the pandemic was some hoax or those latching on to conspiracy theories. Others see it too. In the Atlantic article, “A Nation Coming Apart,” Jeffrey Goldberg worried that the ties that bind us are fraying at an alarming speed, that we are becoming contemptuous of each other in ways that are both dire and possibly irreversible. Dan Zak’s Washington Post article, “The Collapse of American Exceptionalism,” quoted Elizabeth Tandy Schermer, an associate professor of history at Loyola University Chicago, who said we “can no longer pretend that ‘the American century’ isn't over.” She views “the years since 1968 as a cycle of recessions and widening inequality, debt and disenfranchisement that is only now becoming apparent to broader America - white America, moneyed America - because the pandemic and social media have made it impossible to ignore. Institutions have been deteriorating and failing us for generations, she says, but we rigged work arounds with our own social network and mutual-aid groups. We made do. Then the pandemic scattered us, isolated us, exposed us for what we really are.” These are samples of a robust national conversation that include other articles such as Joel Kotkin’s, “America’s Drift toward Feudalism,” and the controversial Rolling Stone article titled, “The Unraveling of America,” about a country losing its soul. In a sense, the pandemic both exposed and exacerbated weak points in our systems and citizenry that will take years to address. 18 When we peel the layer back and look closer, we see a more troubling picture of the nature of the American crisis. There is a stubborn refusal to right the wrongs of the past and present around

| 21

As a final point, there is the problem of what passes as leadership today in America. We have too many political and community leaders who cannot see “the forest for the trees,” meaning they are so preoccupied with the individual parts - singular social issue, social group, or partisan loyalty - that they neglect the whole - the health and well-being of the nation. We have powerful leaders whose thinking and actions hurt the country but benefit their group, and they believe this is acceptable. That is only part of the problems we face. Our preoccupation on only parts and blindness of the whole is why we cannot see the root of the growth of social dysfunction that is stifling our nation. I want to draw our attention to what I believe to be the core because I suspect this broader crisis is a second and equally important reason Biden invoked the language of America in a fight for its soul. The Heart of Our National Crisis While attention needs to be given to the political system, weakening and ineffective infrastructure, and poverty, they do not get at the heart of our crisis. Our first core problem is that we have placed hatred at the center of society. Hate is the undercurrent and common thread animating the American crisis. It guides how we think about and interact with others (remember the Ben Sasse book, Them ). For example, there is a form of hate that I call “othering” that manifests itself in both the resurgence of the old white-black racism and neo-racism directed against other people of color and immigrant communities. Othering categorizes non-white people to justify indifference, mistreatment, and violence. Othering extends beyond racism and xenophobia. Its social currency also allows us to use partisan and class labels as excuses to mask indifference, exclusion, and discrimination. In other words, we all use othering to justify ill treatment of each other in both our personal relationships and policies we support. Yoni Appelbaum’s article “How America Ends” in The Atlantic gave a compelling example of what I’d call “partisan othering.” “Recent research by political scientists at Vanderbilt University and other institutions has found both Republicans and Democrats are distressingly willing to dehumanize members of the opposite party. “Partisans are willing to explicitly state that members of the opposing party are like animals that they lack essential human traits,” the researchers found…This is a dangerous line to cross. As the researchers write,” Dehumanization may loosen the moral restraints that would normally prevent us from harming another human being” (December 2019, 46). These researchers are correct. The way we think and talk about people in the opposite party is dangerous. Today, hate has created a crisis in public morality, indicative of a nation losing its soul. We cannot fix our crumbling infrastructure, bridge the partisan divide, correct systemic racism, and address poverty until we come to grips with hate. Why do I believe that we have centralized hate in society? First, as a general principle, people are not going to admit they hate other people or are thinking and acting in hateful ways. This does not, however, mean such a claim is true. Actions always speak louder than words. A person or group’s actions

22 |