Showing posts with label Matt Chandler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt Chandler. Show all posts

Thursday, October 11, 2018

The Green Hornet

Recently I watched a couple of presentations by Matt Chandler on race and religion:

1. There's a certain paradox in these presentations. If I want to hear a minority perspective, why would I listen to a white guy presume to educate me on the minority experience? There are black American Christians, black African Christians, Latino Christians, East Indian Christians, Chinese Christians, Chinese-American Christians, Korean-American Christians, &c., I can turn to to get a minority perspective or Third World perspective. There are Bible commentary series by Third World contributors.

2. I agree with Chandler that evangelical pastors can preach hard-hitting sermons on safe issues. We saw that failure in the Jim Crow South.

3. Chandler's presentation was basically a feel-good message. That's because it was so lacking in particulars. He gave very few details about how contemporary black Americans are ongoing victims of racism. Perhaps that's because, if he ventured to be more specific, that would make his indictment easier to challenge. Maybe he didn't take the risk of inviting factual refutation.

4. Instead of rational persuasion, he repeatedly dismissed people who don't share his viewpoint as "fools". He said the 300 members of his church who left when he starting preaching these messages were "fools" or "ignorant fools". But that means he's not making a serious effort to convince people.

5. He preemptively discounted conservative blacks. He says they're probably "trying to win approval or position".

6. He pedaled equivocations about African history and church history in reference to Egypt and North Africa. But that doesn't mean church fathers who were Roman colonists were black Africans. He might as well say Francis Nigel Lee was African. For a corrective to some of his equivocations, read Edwin Yamauchi's Egypt and the Bible.

7. He mentioned the Ethiopian church. That has a fascinating history, but the black experience in America is far removed from the history of the Ethiopian church. Weren't most slaves from West Africa rather than Egypt or Ethiopia?

8. He said most Americans are ignorant of African history. True, but then, most Americans are fairly ignorant of world history. And it's not as if most folks outside the USA have in-depth knowledge of American history, so that cuts both ways. Is Matt Chandler an authority on world history?

9. He made sniping remarks about football fans who resent players who refuse to salute the flag. But that goes to the issue of whether the narrative promoted by Black Lives Matters is factually accurate. You can't sidestep that issue. If Chandler's going to use that example, he needs to take a position and back it up.

10. Finally, he discussed "white privilege" in terms of his growing up at a time and place where he was surrounded by people who looked like him. In real life, on TV, in magazines.

i) It isn't clear how that amounts to white privilege. Is it Korean privilege to grow up in a predominately Korean-American enclave? Or Chinese or Japanese or Latino?

ii) Perhaps what he's groping at is that if most people you see on TV or film are white while you're a minority, then you have no role models or heroes with whom you can identify growing up. I suppose there's a grain of truth to that.

But does that mean that only members of your own race can be heroes and role models? I recall watching The Green Hornet as a kid. Bruce Lee as Kato was way cooler than the square Van Williams–titular star of the show. Was a white boy like me unable to relate to a minority actor? No. And I doubt I was exceptional in that regard. Lee is the only reason anyone remembers the short-lived show.

iii) Say you're white and most movie and TV dramas are by and for a white audience. Is that white privilege? But if most of the character are white, that means most of the villains are white. Is that still white privilege?

iv) From my reading, "white privilege" is defined in terms of "unearned advantages and benefits". Suppose, as a white man, I know hardly any minorities, I know little about minority cultures or Third World cultures. But is that an advantage or disadvantage? Isn't there a sense in which I'm disadvantaged if my experience is that provincial and ethnocentric? Wouldn't I benefit from having cross-cultural experience? Aren't I intellectually deprived if all I know is my own ethnic heritage?

v) Hollywood didn't have any significant roles for Asian-Americans until Bruce Lee single-handedly popularized martial arts in the west–as well as popularizing the kung fu film genre. Instead of complaining and waiting for Hollywood to take the initiative, he took the initiative. Not only is he a role model for Asian guys, but for many young men generally. That's not specifically Christian, but it shows the difference one man can make.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Evangelical elites

Having just posted an unfortunate piece by Michael Horton expressing views favored by the bigwigs at CT, I now post an outlandish interview with Rev. Matt Chandler, pastor of the Village Church in Dallas, that is so much worse than Horton's article that it makes Horton's piece look spot-on by comparison. Now I'm sure that Rev. Chandler is a nice Christian with whom I could have good fellowship, were we to break bread together. However, his rhetoric in this piece employs self-righteous slander toward fellow Evangelicals (and that, apparently, to outsiders), characterizing Evangelicals who knew what they were doing in supporting Trump (as opposed to Evangelicals who were either too dumb or too scared to know what they were doing, due to the media "whipping them into a frenzy") as having "sold their soul" (presumably to the devil).
Moreover, he betrays a bit of delusion of his own regarding what is coming down the pike in terms of abridgment of free speech, free exercise of religion, forced indoctrination, and a coercive mandate to promote sexually immoral acts, all of which he either minimizes or does not know. His habit at the MLK Conference of referring to those who disagree with him as "fools" is everywhere the subtext here when he is being his most charitable.
"People are frightened at the speed at which things are changing culturally so I think they began to grasp for something that might help. The Obama presidency -- great man -- some of his policies ... really, really scared Evangelicals ... the news media whipped people up into a frenzy and made them feel desperate."
So Obama was "a great man"? Chandler gives no recognition of the harm that Obama perpetrated in supporting whole-hog the "LGBTQ" and abortion agendas, in undermining free speech and the free exercise of religion, in two bad SCOTUS appointments that gave us "gay marriage" and hundreds of other federal court appointments, among many other bad decisions. Those who voted for Trump are just delusionally frightened, fearful of any "cultural change," but without having any basis in reality? This characterization is itself delusional.
He has no problem focusing on domestic violence and racial reconciliation, matters that are good to deal with but for which one will receive only kudos from the dominant left-wing media and entertainment industry. But for the issue of homosexuality, where it actually takes courage to speak out, there is only criticism of the church:
"We're quick to say that it is a sin, which I'm not going to disagree that I would think from the Scriptures that that's not what ultimately God intends. But to pretend like we're not talking about human beings with souls who sometimes are deeply conflicted is just a great error. To be right the wrong way is to be wrong."
Chandler never specifies in what policies about the "LGBTQ" agenda Christians have been wrong. But one would presume he is referring to things like providing religious freedom safeguards for religious persons who do not want to contribute their artistic talents to promoting immorality; or to Christians not promoting "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" laws that lead to their own persecution and the persecution of their children at school, places of employment, and the use of social media to express their views.
Who exactly thinks that people with same-sex attractions are not human beings with souls? Can he name a single Evangelical leader that thinks this? His remarks create an incredible caricature and then weakly describe homosexual practice as "not what ultimately God intends." Ultimately? Would he say that incest of an adult-committed sort is not what God "ultimately intends"? Doubtless he would respond that to compare homosexual practice to adult incest is a hateful response since adult incest is (allegedly) so much worse. To which I respond: Not from a biblical standpoint it isn't. If anything, the writers of Scripture depict homosexual practice as an even greater violation of God's standard for human sexuality.
He goes on: "People were terrified by that bathroom bill. More than anything else, the thought that their children were going to be in a bathroom with the opposite sex, right? -- and I know all the arguments around that but I'm using the language that would make the most sense to conservatives -- that that made them go 'Whoever is the opposition to that I'm going to vote for,' and then they lost their soul in it, many of them did," an obvious allusion to voting for Trump.
The way Chandler words this is incredible. First, he makes it sound like Christians made an unimportant matter -- males entering private female spaces -- important. Second, he appears clueless about the entire range of coercive measures associated with the "gay" and "transgender" movements, encompassing every aspect of life, not just the "bathroom" issue (and we haven't even dealt with the abortion question). Third, he seems to suggest that men who identify as women are not really the "opposite sex" to women but he (Chandler) is just using those terms to make a connection with scared Evangelicals.
I don't think that Evangelicals who voted in the last presidential election, whether for Trump or Clinton, "lost their soul." However, a Clinton victory would have done far more for promoting immorality and abridging basic human rights for generations to come than the Trump victory did. For Chandler to chide those who disagree with his "Obama is a great man" politics as being in some danger of damnation for not supporting Obama's heir apparent is grossly insulting and just plain foolish.
Chandler characterizes Evangelicals who disagree with his brand of politics as people "who try to reach the world by becoming like the world" while he and those who agree with him are those "who hold fast to the orthodox Christian faith in a way that is compassionate and kind." It is so good to know now that for the past 43 years of my life I have not been holding fast to orthodox Christian faith in a way like the Church Fathers of old that is compassionate and kind. Rev. Chandler and others now at long last will show us the way to true Christian faith, "weathering the backlash for all the wrong that's been done in the name of Jesus the last 50 years." What arrogance.
I would be more than happy to debate Rev. Chandler publicly over the proposition that Evangelicals who supported Trump en masse more or less "sold their soul" or (if they were too dumb or too scared to know what they were doing) at least were deeply delusional. Rev. Chandler's rhetoric is just face-saving nonsense to make him look more avant-garde in relation to the previous generation and less objectionable to the left-wing despots controlling the secular narrative. Yet it does little for the unborn, a male-female basis for marriage, a biological basis for identifying one's gender with one's biological sex, the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and a judiciary that interprets rather than amends the Constitution.

Friday, November 13, 2015

An interview with Matt Chandler

I thought this interview with Pastor Matt Chandler was a valuable and edifying read. For example:

Man, let me tell you, when I got sick with a brain tumor, I was the least sexy I’ve ever been. All my hair was gone. I had a gnarly scar on my head, and I was lying on the bathroom floor trying to get the strength to vomit in the toilet again. Praise God my wife’s view of love wasn’t just about what I could do for her. If Lauren were to leave me in that moment, when I was sick and dying with cancer, no one, not even the worldliest person, would think that what she had done was right, good, or should be emulated. And yet, they’re fine with someone leaving under far less difficult circumstances. It’s crazy. It’s a total failure to understand what love is.

Another:

The litmus test I’ve always used on whether or not you really grasp grace is what you do when you blow it. If you blow it and you run from the Lord to try to clean yourself up and then come back, you do not understand grace and what God has done for you in Christ. But if you blow it and you run to him, that’s an evidence of grace. Ed Welch said, “Everybody thinks sanctification looks like strength. Really what it looks like is weakness.” It looks like failure. Sanctification looks like darkness and difficulty and pain and suffering. Show me someone who blows it and runs to the Lord and cries and snots and lays that before the Lord, pleads forgiveness, rests in it and gets up and continues to walk, and I’ll show you someone who understands grace. You show me someone who blows it, pulls way back for a season until they can either forget about what they’ve done or at least get some kind of control around it, I’ll show you somebody who doesn’t understand grace. They are their own functional savior—I can clean myself up.

The entire interview is well worth reading.