PreachingHelp.org (This article is not about the “Black Lives Matter” ORGANIZATION, but it is about the TRUTH that black lives matter).
In 2013, when the “Black Lives Matter” slogan started being used, I took offense. I immediately rebutted with, “All Lives Matter.” I felt that such a statement elevated one race above another, rather than acknowledging that everyone has worth.
I was wrong.
I have done a lot of reflection since then and have come to realize that to bring emphasis to one truth does not mean you’re discounting another truth. In affirming “Black Lives Matter,” no one is suggesting that “All Lives Don’t Matter.” Rather, it is an attempt to bring attention to the fact that one of the injustices of our culture is that some have not treated “Black Lives” as if they mattered.
Upon further reflection, I have discovered that we have a difficult time recognizing many truths without feeling compelled to offer a caveat along with those truths. When brethren respond to “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter,” it isn’t necessarily a “racist” reply, but a genuine, though misguided, attempt to “balance” complementary truths. I say it’s not “racism” because, upon reflection, I have come to realize we do the same thing with many truths that have nothing to do with race. For instance:
- Let a brother preach or teach a lesson on “salvation by faith,” and watch how quickly it will be challenged if it doesn’t involve a discussion of baptism. We often feel the need to offer a counterpoint, and say something like, “but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to be baptized.” Can we not allow the true statement, “salvation is by faith” stand, without complimenting or trying to balance that truth with another truth?
- Have you ever heard a sermon on the thief on the cross without it involving a discussion of baptism? Is the story of the thief on the cross really about baptism, or is it about the scope of God’s grace? Why must the truth about the scope of God’s grace always be moderated by his truth about baptism?
- Let a brother preach on “the role of women” and watch how he will be challenged if he does not develop what isn’t her role. In fact, I’ve heard sermons on the “role of women” that did not even touch on her role but simply expounded upon what her role was not.
The list could go on, but these might be sufficient to help us recognize that we can affirm a truth without needing to, at the same time, offer complimentary truths.
I can say, “Black Lives Matter” (period). It’s true. I needn’t complement that with another truth that affirms, “All Lives Matter.” In a time when many in our culture act as though black lives don’t matter, can we not affirm the truth that “Black Lives Matter” without diluting that truth with other truths? Let it stand as is! There’s a time and a place for injecting the worth of all people, “red and yellow, black and white,” but there may also be a time to affirm, individually, the worth of each (Ecclesiastes 3:1).
I believe now is such a time. Black lives matter!
Thank you!
I agree with most of your post. The part I do not agree with is “salvation by faith”. Although It is critical, but if I do not allow others to know there are other things also, It could lead them astray by not knowing the entire message. Example you may have used before you need flour to make a cake and then you just stop there and say well that is truth. Sure it is but it will not get you the final thing you desire.
The example of the woman and a lesson on what her role does not consist of. What if you applied the argument “I needn’t complement that with another truth”. Well I think what you are saying is the best way to have the message. And that would be to also tell what here role as a member of the body is and how important it is.
In closing I believe the black lives matters can stand on its own but I must be careful in using”I needn’t complement that with another truth” on other subjects.
Thanks
But what if the slogan represents more, and things with which you disagree? What if you believe it promotes a false narrative, and that, as an organization, BLM stands for things that you cannot abide? Then I will refrain from using such slogans. Thank you for the article.
Thank you, Steve. Keep preaching truth in love with courage.
Thank you for opening our eyes ❤️
Black Lives Matter is a terrible group that only cares about black lives when killed by whites. They don’t care when blacks kill blacks, which is over 90% of black murders in this country. They don’t care about the real reason blacks are being murdered, men growing up without father’s, breakdown of the black family, and a victim mentality that blames others verses taking responsibility for their action. This is not in line with Christ teachings.
Thank you for this.
Rick, thanks for taking the time to express your concern. However, I believe the root of your concern is in failing to see that I am not supporting the black lives matter “ORGANIZATION,” the the “TRUTH” that black lives matter. I don’t support the organization. It stands for things that are unbiblical. But my article didn’t once mention the organization, but was focused on the truth of the statement. Hope that helps.
Thank you for your comments, Angelo, but I would ask you to re-read my article and find where I endorsed or even mentioned the black lives matter “ORGANIZATION.” I didn’t. I wrote about “TRUTH” that black lives matter. This seems to be the root of your disagreement. In the same way that I should be able to affirm God loves homosexuals without being accused of supporting a homosexual “ORGANIZATION,” I should be able to affirm the truth that black lives matters without being accused of supporting the black lives matter “ORGANIZATION.”
Jim, thanks for your reply, and while I appreciate your comments and your desire that all men know all of God’s truth, I think your reasoning is flawed here. One need to affirm all truth on any topic at the same time. For example can we find a single, all-inclusive verse in the Bible that tells one what he must do to be saved? No. We put it together. Some passages mention faith but don’t mention repentance. Some passages mention baptism, and don’t mention love for God. These inspired men were not wrong in their approach.
Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and didn’t mention repentance, baptism, or love for God. One would be incorrect in concluding that Paul didn’t affirm the essentially of all these things because he didn’t mention them in that particular context.
God loved the Jewish nation. He affirmed his love for them many times in Scripture. Did such affirmations need a counterpart reminder saying, “and remember, God loves all men too?” He could affirm his love for one people without having to, in the same breath, affirm he also loves all men.
Thanks for taking time to reply. I hope you can see my point. God bless.
Steve,
This took some courage and I appreciate what you said. The church does not always have the cleanest record when it comes to race matters. Some of our colleges allowed POC only after secular schools did. We too often conflate fighting racism with left-wing politics, so our hands are tied and we say nothing. It shouldn’t be that way! We need to shine a light in the darkness, no matter how we might be labeled or criticized. All of us white brothers and sisters should listen to our Black brothers and sisters, and we need TALK LESS and LISTEN MORE.
Thanks again for the article, it will have a positive impact.
Making a specific statement such as ‘white men are smart’, gives the implication that others aren’t. A statement that is a partial truth, is a lie by omission. Doing an entire sermon on being saved by faith and leaving out baptism is also a lie by omission. Partial truths that are group specific by their logical statement exclude those not included in the statement. If the statement ‘black lives matter’ is a valid statement without qualification of others also mattering, then my statement ‘white men are smart’ also would be valid. Logically, a statement about a specific group, by definition, excludes all others not named in the statement. For the statement to be true, just as saying ‘we are saved by faith’, a modifier can be added to remove the narrowness of the group named. ‘Black lives matter, too’ becomes not only true, but does not leave anyone out even though the statement omits them. Similarly, ‘we are saved by faith, too’ removes the possibility of someone hearing one sermon about being saved by faith, and not hearing the whole truth since it implies other requirements. Making any statement that is specific in scope automatically removes those not named as being worthy of the description in the statement. The simple addition of a word that makes the group specified as part of a bigger group is all the difference. Black lives matter, too.
Richard, thank you for your interest in this topic and for taking the time to reply. While I appreciate that, I must ask that you reconsider your reasoning. It’s flawed. Can I ask you to consider how it is flawed by putting it to the test?
You said, “A statement about a specific group, by definition, excludes all others not named in the statement.”
You also said, “Making any statement that is specific in scope automatically removes those not named as being worthy of the description in the statement.” Thus you suggest we should add the modifier, “too.”
Let’s test this. So let’s imagine you’ve taken your wife out on a date and at some point in the evening, you say, “Honey, you’re beautiful.” Does that therefore exclude all other women from the category of beautiful? If not, should you qualify your statement to you wife and say, “Honey, you’re beautiful, too?” I’d suggest you don’t. 🙂
Jesus loved the church (Eph. 5). Does that exclude the world from being in the category of those Jesus loves? Should we modify that statement to say “Jesus loves the church, too?”
I could go on. I might say, “My children are thoughtful and kind.” Did I just exclude all other people in the world from being thoughtful and kind? Of course not.
I think you can see the flaw in your proposition. One can affirm that black lives matter without excluding others, and without the need of a modifier.
Good article. Excellent food for thought. Recent events have caused me to re-examine my thoughts on racism in our country. Especially after some of the stories I heard from two wonderful elders who are black. I never would of dreamed they and their families would have been subjected to some of the things they described.
Steve,
Thank you for this excellent and important post. I have seen similar statements from many younger ministers in their 20s and 30s, but not nearly as many from those who are somewhat older, which, to me, makes your statement all the more important.
I deeply appreciate you sharing these thoughts.
What is not in line with Christ teaching was taking a man/ woman and making them a slave, taking his wife or daughters and raping them and even raping the men to brake them. Is this Christ like? Destroying his family by saling them off to other slave traders. Yes its true that there is problems in the black race, but it’s all by design and the struggle to rebuild is also by design. Some of us have made it and became quite successful, but not without reproach. Black business men, police officers and even public officials have been mistreated and disrespected by police officers and others simply due to their skin color. How many times has a white man or child walked into a store and was followed around to see if he would steal or a white woman pull her purse close simply because you were walking by. Our people made an attempt to be self sufficient a long time ago and was met with violence and hatred with the bombing of Black Wall St. and even to this day we are treated differently than most as far as our credit ratings, pay grades,the way we are charged with crimes and etc.. So yes this country still has a lot of blame when it comes to our freedom and success. America; take the chains of low income, injustice, unfair practices, racism,improper education and the right to simply be human and maybe then we can begin to reform our race and our neighborhoods. We simply want the right to live well and safe just like you and when you understand that, then you will understand that it is Christ like to live and let live.
Steve,
I wholeheartedly agree with the “empirical truth” of what you’re saying and completely agree that black lives matter; I also understand that 99% of the world operates on their individual “perceived truth” i.e. what we believe to be true based on personal experiences, prejudices, and branding (i.e. advertising) that we’ve encountered. As an example related to people of faith, I’ll go back to the mid/late ’70s when the Southern Baptist Convention adopted the slogan “Born Again Christian” for their annual convention. A decade before any of us had home computers, or cellphones to “#anything” , “Born Again Christian” became the hashtag for the Southern Baptist Church. It was probably 10 years before any other baptized believers could use the empirically-true phrase to refer to themselves without taking four paragraphs to explain “no, I’m not a Southern Baptist, but I am a born again Christian because . . .”.
There were some great teaching moments then, as there can be today with “Black Lives Matter”, but the overarching “truth” to 99% of the population is that the phrase IS tied to the movement that branded it. Given that our world today is even more focused on hashtag quotes, instant gratification, microwave popcorn (and anything else that can be done quickly before we move on to the next task) than we were 45 years ago, very few people will take the time to digest the explanation and truth behind the statement. Without knowing that you can can engage someone for the time to hear/read your logic, I fear that you/we are unwittingly associating ourselves with that movement that, by their actions, are supporting the idea that only certain black lives matter and that groups of people are categorically evil.
Thank you for your article.
Wonderful truths expressed Steve.
Steve,
I would like to make some observations regarding this post. First, the phrase, “black lives matter” does not stand on its own as a basic truth. You recognize this fact when you disassociate yourself from the Black Lives Matter organization which is anti-Christian in many of its beliefs. Your opening statement in the blog post is the further truth that clarifies what you mean by the phrase “black lives matter.” This statement is your caveat. Consequently, you have contradicted yourself. The self-contradiction is a result of affirming the false proposition that “all truth stands by itself” and does not need further truth to clarify it. There are only some statement of truth that are self-evident (truisms for example). If you stop to think about it, all of the revealed truth given by God in His Word is given in a written context. That context involves the immediate context as well as the remote context. Not a single passage of Scripture “stands alone.” When we lift a passage of Scripture out of context, it becomes a “prooftext.” This violates hermeneutical principles. You have lifted the phrase “black lives matter” out of its original context (cultural, social) and have given it new meaning. The original context is the Black Lives Matter organization that branded the graphic and the slogan as a means of identifying itself and distinguishing it from other organizations. In order to do this, you have to give clarifying statements to separate yourself from this organization and redefine the phrase “black lives matter” for a Christian audience. When you redefine the phrase and disassociate it from the organization, only then can you affirm it in good conscience. It takes “other truths” to accomplish this and you do this in your blog.
Hi David, Good to hear from you. Hope you’re doing well. I appreciate you taking time to comment on this article, but I’ve read your comments and must disagree. I think you’re taking my comments farther than I ever intended and whether that is my fault or not, I can say that I think we’re missing each other.
First of all, I do believe the truth that black lives matters can stand without caveats. I do not agree that this statement doesn’t stand on its own. The fact that I might offer clarification that I am not talking about the organization called, “Black Lives Matter” does not mean it doesn’t stand on its own. That caveat is a matter of preference. Depending on the situation, I may or may not feel the need to clarify. Same thing with the thief on the cross. I can preach from Luke 23 about the thief on the cross and expound upon God’s grace. The fact that I might choose to clarify some matters depending on the situation, does not mean that the truth that the thief was saved by grace doesn’t stand on its own. I don’t believe I’ve given a “new definition” to the words “black lives matter.” When a grandmother is grieving over her 2 year old boy who has been physically abused, and in tears says, “I don’t know why anyone would treat him this way. He’s such a good and innocent little boy.” I don’t think it would be compassionate, kind, or necessary to respond by saying, “Excuse me ma’am, all two-year-old boys are good and innocent little boys.” Can we not let that woman’s statement stand and show her compassion without reminding her that all two-year-old boys are innocent? That’s all I’m trying to say.
In a day and age when a group of people have experienced injustice, we should allow them to express their worth, and show compassion toward them for having to endure actions that don’t respect their worth without having to remind them the complimentary truth, “Well, all lives matter.” Such a response seems to be terribly calloused. Not because those who say it are wanting to be, but they haven’t realized how it comes off.