P. 225,
VI, J
8/3/93
Racism, Sexism, Marxism
On secular university and college
campuses, one would guess that there is only one ethical problem worth
discussing: the oppression of various groups by other groups. Racism is the
oppression of people based on race, sexism oppression based on sex, and so on.
Similarly, discussion focuses on oppression based on nationality, culture,
disability, sexual preference, height, weight, looks, age, and so on. This
preoccupation is based on Marxist concepts of class warfare. Marx taught that
the history of mankind is the history of the oppression of one group by
another, and that the oppressed group must (and in time will) rebel against its
oppressor.
The worst oppressors in this scenario are
usually white American Christian heterosexual males. In this particular
discussion, all sorts of mean and slanderous accusations may be hurled against
such "oppressors," but the oppressors are not permitted to say
anything against their critics, lest they incur the greater guilt of being
"insensitive."
The whole situation, of course, is
preposterous, and all the more so since it occurs on campuses where in the past
great emphasis has been placed upon "freedom of speech," upon hearing
all sides of every question. Today, however, the incipiently totalitarian
nature of campus liberalism has been fully unveiled, and we can scarcely visit
a college or university without being face to face with the campus thought
police.
Certainly the view of history underlying
this movement is highly skewed. Some groups have through the years been
oppressed by others, to be sure. I have no qualms about saying that African
Americans have been oppressed by whites through kidnapping, enslavement, and
later segregation from white society. I do object to the view that the
traditional family order is the result of "sexist oppression." See my
essays on "The Biblical View of the Family" and "Women in Church
Office." The subordination of wives to husbands and of women to church
elders, together with the traditional division of labor between female
homemaker and male breadwinner, is not the result of oppression; it is God's
order, and it has been beneficial for both sexes.
And oppression is a far more complicated
reality than the neo-Marxists present. When an older white couple lives in an
inner city, unable to sell their house, terrorized daily by black gang members,
who is being oppressed? When the handicapped demand that the government provide
facilities for them in every business, forcing many businesses to close and
workers to lose their jobs, who is being oppressed?
(See my essay on "Living With Ourselves,"
the second section.) When homosexuals demand that government force churches to
hire them contrary to the church's confession, and set on fire those churches
that resist their influence, who is being oppressed?
I do not doubt that some groups have
endured more suffering than others. I do believe however that there is, on the
whole, enough blame to go around, especially in view of the considerations I
presented in "Living With Ourselves." All of us have been, at one
time or another, both oppressor and oppressed.
Neo-Marxists
tend to affix blame[1]
based on large historical relations among groups. But when we focus on
individuals it is much more difficult to say that anyone is
"oppressor" or "oppressed," pure and simple. To do that is
to make the same mistake that racists make: an over-generalized negative
characterization of a group of people.
The rest of this paper will focus on
racism, since I have addressed sexism and disabilities in other essays. Racism
is a genuine evil: harming people simply because of their race, and therefore
unjustly. Here we must use great caution, for the neo-Marxist "political
correctness" rhetoric tends to obscure allsorts of important distinctions,
tarring people with labels like "racist" with little basis. Is it
racist, for example, to say that African Americans sprint faster and jump
higher, on the whole, than whites? Far from being racist, this statement seems
to me obviously true, and I can't imagine why anyone would take offense at it.
But Mike Royko recently complained in a newspaper column that an educator was
denied a position at the University of Chicago for making that very statement.
The idea that all races are absolutely
equal in every possible aptitude is ludicrous on the face of it; but in the
present climate of thought, one has to agree with that idea, in effect, if one
is to avoid charges of insensitivity. This climate makes serious research into
the distribution (both genetic and environmental) of human aptitudes
impossible. And that is a great loss for modern science. Let it be known that
not all obscurantists are not Christian fundamentalists.
For all that, there is a genuine problem
of race relations in the world today. Not only is there a conflict between
blacks and whites in the United States and South Africa, but also between
Muslims and Serbians in Bosnia, Jews and Arabs in Israel, and many other
places. It is difficult to prescribe remedies for racial, religious and
cultural conflict. Hatreds and resentments can become so deeply ingrown that
reconciliation becomes a hollow dream.
In the United States, slavery was ended in
1865 and legal segregation of various forms from 1954 to 1964. In the late1960s,
Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" program sought to lift blacks and
others out of poverty through greater welfare assistance, public housing,
educational assistance and so on. Affirmative action in hiring has become the
rule since the 1970s.And yet the tensions, the riots, the anger remain. Much of
what the government has done has been counter-productive: Public housing has
often degenerated into slums. The welfare system has done terrible damage to
the black family, encouraging illegitimacy, single parenthood, permanent
dependence (=slavery), a hopelessness that contributes to drug addiction and
anti-social behavior. Affirmative action has sometimes placed blacks in
positions for which they have not been adequately qualified, arousing the
resentment of whites and a new round of racial stereotyping. Businesses have
taken risks to enter inner-city neighborhoods and have been burned or
terrorized for their trouble.
Only the grace of God in Christ can take
away the hatreds and bring lasting reconciliation. But are there things we can
do that will improve these relationships?
I must say I have become sceptical about
Martin Luther King's "dream" of a society where race makes no
difference. Over the long term, if the Lord tarries, that could happen, and surely
it would be desirable. We can read in Scott's Ivanhoe about the hatreds
which once existed between the Saxons and their Norman French conquerors. But
those conflicts no longer exist. The Norman French and Saxons have intermarried
and merged into one larger culture. That tends to happen in history over the
long term. But difference in skin color and basic culture creates barriers
larger than those between Norman and Saxon.
In all the recent discussion of Malcolm X,
it has escaped the notice of many people that Malcolm had a very different
dream from Martin Luther King. Malcolm, like Marcus Garvey, was fundamentally a
black separatist. He did not want to be dependent on the handouts of white
society. He wanted his people to become more self-sufficient, disciplined,
principled, strong, as he himself had become in prison. Scripture, as I read
it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially.
Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God's grace into one body. They were
expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the
faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and
house churches were not required to include members of both groups.
It is evident that sometimes separation is
necessary, at least temporarily, to achieve peace. Clearly Serbs, Croats and
Bosnian Muslims, for the forseeable future, cannot live together in peace. The
same for Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants.
I have often felt that if there are groups
in this country (blacks, Indians, or whoever) who simply do not trust the
majority government and dominant culture of the US and cannot stand to live in
that environment, they should be given some land and accorded self-government.
No, I don't mean "reservations," nor South Africa-style
"homelands;" those are horrendous. I mean great tracts of land with
plenty of natural resources and genuine independence. Has the concept of
"integration," at best a very long-range dream, blinded our minds to
other possibilities?
I have in the past thought also in terms
of restitution, similar to the restitution given to Japanese Americans unjustly
interned during World War II. Certainly that should have been offered when
slavery was ended. But today it is hard to assess blame for the continuing
animosities, and "restitution" would doubtless be perceived as just
another government handout.
John Perkins, the founder of Voice of
Calvary Ministries,urges Christians of all races to form communities among
urban and rural blacks and there to set examples of Christian family life and
economic achievment, making themselves available as resource persons for the
neighborhoods. I have seen wonderful fruits from such community involvement,
and if great numbers of Christians were to accept the challenge this could make
a great difference. But this kind of ministry is not for every Christian. And
when one looks at the size of the problem today, these ministries seem like a
drop in the bucket.
As for the role of government and
business, I can only suggest two general rules: the first is "do no
harm." The second is to revert to truly color-blind policies.
There is no obvious way out of these
difficulties save divine intervention. The ideologization of the issue in
Marxist terms can only bring greater resentments and further divisions. We must
reject that movement in no uncertain terms. But we must also pray to God to
bring reconciliation through the blood of his Son.