What Is Black Lives Matter All About?

I have been somewhat hesitant to write anything about Black Lives Matter because American society has become so racially charged. Witness, for example, USC professor Greg Patton, who was suspended from teaching an intensive communications course last month because during a lecture, he used the word neige as an example of a common filler, or pause, word in Chinese. (A common filler word in American English is “Umm…”) Unfortunately for him, that word sounds somewhat similar to a racial slur which I will not repeat here; thus, his suspension. Black students in his class complained, and he was summarily replaced by another professor for the duration of the three-week course. He was not even given a hearing before a “faculty body.”

Let me give a similar personal example for the sake of comparison. Many years ago when I was a university teacher in China, I commonly gave my students English names if they wanted them. Sometimes the students wanted to choose their own; sometimes they preferred that I give them one. Students commonly wanted an English name that sounded somewhat like their Chinese name, so when I had a graduate student named Hu Kaibao, I gave him the English name “Hugo.” One of the young women in my class burst out laughing because, as it turned out, “Hugo” sounds somewhat like “Heigou,” which means “black dog” in Chinese. I had unintentionally embarrassed, even insulted, my student; one of his classmates suggested the name “Frank” because it fit Hu Kaibao’s personality, so that became his English name. Was I “reported” and suspended because of this? No. Did “Frank” hold this against me? I don’t believe so, based on our interactions both inside and outside the classroom.

Another example from American higher education where someone has been suspended or fired for a perceived racial slight is Leslie Neal-Boylan, former dean of the nursing school at the University of Massachusetts; she was fired in June because she wrote in an e-mail to the nursing school community, “BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE’S LIFE MATTERS.” The student who complained to the university about this email used the hashtag #BLACKLIVESMATTER in her response.

These examples and others caused me to go to BlackLivesMatter.com to investigate what the organization really stands for. I discovered this statement on their About page: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” (This statement was “scrubbed” from their website about two weeks ago, but they have neither replaced it nor repudiated it.) Even at first glance, there are a couple of things about this statement that are troubling. First of all, they have as their goal to “disrupt” the nuclear-family structure (two generations: mother, father, and children). The extended-family structure which they reference has commonly been understood to be at least three generations, usually consisting of grandparents, parents, and children, but that doesn’t seem to be their goal, either. Here’s another statement from their About page: “We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.” In fact, if you read their About page now, you will not find a single reference to families, which is stunning to me. Another thing that is less obvious at first glance is that Black men are not specifically mentioned. (Black women are.) I wonder if any of the Black men who display or tweet “Black Lives Matter” are even aware of this.

Perhaps you are familiar with statistics like these: 72% of Black children are born out of wedlock, and 65% live without a father in the home. According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, children from fatherless homes (in general, not specific to Blacks) account for the vast majority of suicides, runaways, high school dropouts, juvenile detentions, and substance abuse. (See https://www.liveabout.com/fatherless-children-in-america-statistics-1270392 for more details.) I know that there are people who blame law enforcement and the criminal-justice system in general because of so many Black men being incarcerated. However, that deflects attention away from the more fundamental problem: Men need to learn how to be good husbands and fathers. However, I don’t see anything on BlackLivesMatter.com that encourages them in this.

Thankfully, there are Black men like Marcellus Wiley, former NFL lineman and host of FS1’s “Speak for Yourself,” who are not afraid to critically examine Black Lives Matter and to speak up for the nuclear-family structure:

“I don’t know how many people really look into the mission statement of Black Lives Matter, but I did — and when you look into it, there’s a couple things that jump out to me, and I’m a black man,” Wiley said. “Two things: My family structure is so [vitally] important to me … Being a father and a husband — that’s my mission in life right now. How do I reconcile that … with this mission statement that says, ‘We dismantle the patriarchal practice. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement,’” Wiley asked before sharing statistics showing the negative impact of single-parent homes versus two-parent households. “So when I see that, as a mission statement for Black Lives Matter, it makes me scratch my head.” https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-blasting-nuclear-family-structure/

I believe that the key to transforming largely Black communities, in fact any community, is for men to take responsibility and lead their families. (Click here to read Part 1 of 2 about what Christian manhood looks like: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/08/26/what-does-christian-manhood-look-like-part-1/) And when my Black brothers do this in the power of Jesus Christ, they will experience genuine transformation in their lives, families, and communities.

A Christian Critique of Postmodernism

Two weeks ago, I wrote a post called about worldviews and how they answer four big questions; you can read it here: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/09/09/how-does-your-worldview-answer-four-big-questions/ The bulk of the post compared Christianity and naturalism, which fall under two of the five major worldview categories. Last week, I looked in-depth at evolution, the most obvious expression of naturalism. This week, I’m focusing on postmodernism, one of the three other major worldviews.

Let me begin by comparing the answers that Christianity and postmodernism give to four big questions:

  • Where did we come from? Christianity says that God created human beings in His image; postmodernism says that the universe has always existed.
  • What’s wrong with the world? Christianity says that original sin is the problem; postmodernism blames the oppression of Western civilization.
  • What’s the solution? Christianity says that the answer is Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and His resurrection; postmodernism says the answer is personal autonomy and tolerance enforced by law.
  • What’s our purpose in life? Christianity says that our purpose is to glorify God; postmodernism says that the development of a utopian Earth is our purpose.

I trust that you can see already that postmodernism has significant problems. For example, astrophysics has demonstrated that the universe had a definite beginning, and Christianity agrees with this. Regarding blaming the problem on the oppression of Western civilization: it’s like biting the hand that feeds you; living in a Third World country can quickly change your perspective. Postmodernism’s proposed solution to what’s wrong with the world is basically that everyone should be able to do whatever they want. After all, that’s what tolerance means; you have no basis for telling anyone that they’re right or wrong–except in regard to the making and enforcement of laws, apparently.

Ravi Zacharias, the great Christian apologist who went to heaven in May of this year, defined postmodernism with three “no’s:” no truth, no meaning, no certainty. I think the first “no” is the most obvious; I have heard and read things like, “You have your truth; I have mine.” This, of course, dovetails with postmodernism’s emphasis on personal autonomy. However, if you listen carefully to people, they end up saying things that are absurd. In his book The Good Life, Charles Colson recounts an exchange between Congresswoman Maxine Waters and a reporter, who asked her why she was marching in an abortion-rights demonstration. Waters responded that it was because “my mother didn’t have the right to an abortion.” And she said it with a straight face! Colson also gives the example of the army recruiting slogan “An Army of One.” The phrase is laughably self-contradictory, but the slogan was reportedly successful in terms of the Army’s recruiting efforts. Thankfully, the Army replaced it after just five years with the slogan “Army Strong.” Pundit Frank Luntz wrote the reason for the replacement was that “An Army of One” is contrary to the idea of teamwork. Duh. What’s amazing to me is that this absurd slogan lasted five years!

As I thought about postmodernism and its emphasis on personal autonomy, it seemed to me that there might be a connection between postmodernism and tribalism. Your “tribe” could be your family and friends; it could be those who share your beliefs and values, whether in terms of religion or political affiliation; it could be those who share your gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Upon doing some research, I came across a book by Steve Wilkens called Hidden Worldviews: Eight Cultural Stories That Shape Our Lives. One of those “hidden worldviews” is what he calls postmodern tribalism. Wilkens writes about the postmodern idea that all social structures are political in nature; postmodern tribalism is all about power. We have certainly seen that over the past several years, and in particular, this year with all of its protests and riots. I see postmodern tribalism as an extension of postmodernism; in other words, people like to have their personal autonomy, but they also want to have connections, especially ones that elevate their own particular “tribe.” If you are a Facebook user, I’m sure that no further explanation is necessary.

As stated earlier, postmodernism’s answer to the fourth big question about purpose is the creation of an earthly utopia. At an individual level, that means personal autonomy, meaning that I can do whatever I want; at a tribal level, it means that my tribe is the one in power. However, if my tribe is in power, that means others are not. It’s easy to see, then, that an earthly utopia is impossible for everyone. It’s just another contradiction of postmodernism and its offshoot, postmodern tribalism.

From a Christian perspective, I think the most fundamental problem with postmodernism is its rejection of absolute truth. It reminds me of when Jesus, immediately prior to His crucifixion, was standing before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate; he disdainfully asked Jesus, in John 18:38, “What is truth?” Another verse that came to mind as I was preparing to write this is the last verse in the book of Judges, where it says in the NIV, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” I like the ESV even better, which says, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” What a perfect description of American society. If this is you, my prayer is that you will come to see that Christianity is the only worldview that you can truly live by.

Is Evolution a Viable Theory?

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” So said Richard Dawkins back in 1986 in reference to Charles Darwin, the originator of the theory of evolution in 1859. I learned about evolution when I was a teen, and although I wasn’t an atheist, I wasn’t a Christian yet, either. One thing I recall is that evolution was presented as fact, not theory. If anything, that tendency is even stronger today, especially in textbooks. However, a theory is just that: a theory. (In this post, when I use the word “evolution,” I am referring to macroevolution, which is the hypothesized change from one species into another. It’s clear that microevolution, or changes within species over time, is a fact.)

After studying the evidence for evolution and thinking about it for many years, I have concluded that at best, it is a very weak theory. Here are five problems with it:

  • Irreducible complexity
  • The lack of transitional forms
  • The lack of “dead ends” in the fossil record
  • The fact that most mutations are not advantageous
  • The problem of reproduction

The first problem with evolution is what scientists call irreducible complexity. Everything we see is remarkably complex, even at the microscopic level.  Some organs and structures are so complex that invoking Darwin’s theory of natural selection and gradual change to explain them is almost laughable.  Two of the best-known examples are the eye and the wing.  If even one small part is removed, the whole becomes nonfunctional. In Darwin’s own words: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

The second problem with evolution is the lack of transitional forms, or “missing links.” To illustrate, it is taught, and popularly believed, that apes evolved into humans. Stephen Gould, a now deceased professor of paleontology (and not a Christian), wrote “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Here’s a quote from Philip Johnson, who was a Christian: “That 130 years of very determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples is significant negative evidence.” Even Richard Dawkins, our most well-known proponent of evolution, wrote, “It is as though they [numerous species that appeared 600 million years ago] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” Dawkins also wrote, “We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.” Really? Then what do we need? Nothing?

Let’s move on to the third problem with evolution: the lack of “dead ends” in the fossil record. What this means is that, according to Charles Darwin, there should be numerous examples of “failed” species in the fossil record. The best-known example of this is Neanderthal man, but we really don’t have enough evidence to know what he was. The fossil record shows us examples of fully formed “successful” species again and again. I have no doubt how Richard Dawkins would respond to this problem with evolution, based on his comment about not needing fossils to prove it.

The fourth problem with evolution is related to mutations. You don’t need to be a scientist to understand that “mutation” almost always connotes a negative change. However, evolution relies remarkably heavily on positive mutations to produce change.

Finally, and this is something I haven’t read but have thought about extensively: there is the problem of reproduction. What I mean is: Species cannot perpetuate themselves without reproduction, and a given member of a species can successfully reproduce only with another member of the same species. I say “successfully” because reproduction between different species produces sterile offspring. For example, maybe you know that when a horse and donkey reproduce, they make a sterile mule. Now let’s imagine two interspecies organisms (transitional forms); how likely would it be for both of them to have mutated in exactly the same way?  It is all but mathematically impossible, but this is the only way in which successful reproduction between them could take place.   Evolution is dependent on this happening over and over again. Furthermore, in an evolutionary sense, how can it be advantageous to lose the ability to reproduce with one’s own (former) kind?

To summarize, the theory of evolution faces five problems: irreducible complexity; the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record; the lack of “dead ends” in the fossil record; the fact that most mutations are not advantageous; and the problem of reproduction. I would guess that some reading this will think that I’m writing against evolution because I’m a Christian. Actually, I have examined the theory on its own merits and found it wanting. Also, when Richard Dawkins, our foremost proponent of the theory, writes that we don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact… well, to put it mildly, it doesn’t help his case for his so-called “fact,” which has at best become a very questionable theory to more and more scientists.

How Does Your Worldview Answer Four Big Questions?

I first encountered the word “worldview” in 1989 in books by Charles Colson.  He defined it as “the sum total of our beliefs about the world, the ‘big picture’ that directs our daily decisions and actions.”  There are different ways to classify worldviews, but I recently discovered a helpful chart that classifies all views of reality into five worldviews; you can see it here: https://dwellcc.org/learning/essays/five-worldviews. Christianity falls under the worldview of theism, as do Judaism and Islam, for example.

In his 1999 book How Now Shall We Live?, Charles Colson wrote that there are four big questions that every worldview has to answer.

  • Where did we come from?
  • What’s wrong with the world?
  • What’s the solution?
  • What’s our purpose in life?

Naturalism is one of the five major worldviews and a common one in the U.S. Let’s compare Christianity’s answers to these questions with those of naturalism.

  • Christianity says that God created human beings in His image; naturalism says that we are the result of undirected evolution, i.e. blind chance.
  • Christianity says that original sin is the problem; naturalism blames the problem on genes and society.
  • Christianity says that the solution is Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and His resurrection; naturalism says that a worldly utopia is the answer.
  • Christianity says that our purpose in life is to glorify God; naturalism says that our purpose is self-fulfillment.

As a teenager back in the 1970s, I used to watch The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson for anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour, depending on the evening’s special guest.  When Johnny would announce that Carl Sagan was the evening’s special guest, I was thrilled and prepared to stay up late.  Sagan, an astronomer and great popularizer of astronomy as a writer and speaker, was one of my biggest heroes at that time.  I was preparing to major in astronomy and always listened to Sagan, enraptured as he spoke of galaxies, black holes, quasars, and the like.  In the ’80s, after I became a Christian, I still enjoyed reading a book by Sagan now and then, but it was obvious that his worldview was thoroughly naturalistic.  Among other things, Sagan was committed to the cause of animal rights.  Therefore, he was strongly opposed to using animals for medical research.  However, when Sagan discovered in the ’90s that he had a rare blood disease that required an experimental bone-marrow transplant to prolong his life, he was faced with a dilemma:  should he remain true to his naturalistic philosophy of life and reject the transplant as something acquired by “immoral” means, or should he accept the transplant even though it meant going against his beliefs?  Well, it’s not hard to guess what he did—Sagan chose the transplant, denying his cherished naturalism in the process.

This story illustrates Sagan’s naturalism; according to his worldview, he was no better than an animal, but when push came to shove, he abandoned his belief to prolong his life–by two years, as it turned out.  At a deeper level, he illustrates the folly of naturalism; anyone who tries to live by such a road map will eventually discover it doesn’t explain reality.  A Christian faced with Sagan’s “dilemma” should have no problem accepting such a bone-marrow transplant, because our value is greater than that of animals.  In Matthew 6:26, Jesus tells us that we are much more valuable than the birds of the air, and by extension, all other animals as well. 

The world’s current greatest spokesperson for naturalism is probably Richard Dawkins. He has written several books; perhaps you’ve heard of, or even read, The Selfish Gene (1976) and The God Delusion (2006). He is very open about his disdain for Christianity and other religions; some of the things he writes are downright vitriolic. Here’s a quote from him in his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Admittedly, there are non-religious people who don’t believe in evolution, either, but Dawkins often targets Christians and people of other faiths.

Some of Dawkins’ opinions are bizarre. Here’s what he wrote in 2014: It “would be immoral” for a woman not to abort a fetus with Down syndrome. Christianity, on the other hand, has a reverence for all human life, including unborn children; that means virtually all abortion is “immoral,” to put it mildly. Another example: on his official website, Dawkins wrote in 2012: “Thank goodness, I have never personally experienced what it is like to believe – really and truly and deeply believe ­– in hell. But I think it can be plausibly argued that such a deeply held belief might cause a child more long-lasting mental trauma than the temporary embarrassment of mild physical abuse.” (The physical abuse Dawkins refers to is sexual.) First of all, for those who have experienced any form of sexual abuse, “embarrassment” is not a word I have ever heard anybody else use to describe it. Second, the Bible teaches that hell is very real but that we will spend eternity in heaven with the Lord if we come to Him in saving faith.

I mention these examples from Sagan and Dawkins to illustrate that naturalism has consequences in terms of important decisions and beliefs about specific issues. This is not to say that every naturalist has the same beliefs as they did/do, but that naturalism will inevitably lead to decisions and ideas which are very different from what the Bible teaches.

If you believe in one of the other worldviews–pantheism; spiritism and polytheism; or postmodernism–I challenge you to answer Colson’s four big questions accordingly. See if your worldview gives satisfactory answers. I pray that you will conclude Christianity is the only one that gives answers you can live by.

What Does Christian Manhood Look Like? (Part 2)

In last week’s post, I wrote about the first two principles of Christian manhood as developed by Robert Lewis; there are two more. Here are the four principles:

  • A real Christian man rejects passivity
  • A real Christian man accepts responsibility
  • A real Christian man leads courageously
  • A real Christian man expects the greater reward

It has always taken courage to be a leader, and that has probably never been truer than it is today. At the heart of leading is something contrary to the way most Americans think, and that is servant leadership. The Lord Jesus Christ modeled servanthood for us, and that is how we are to lead. My wife says that any Christian wife is happy to be led by a husband who leads as a servant. Obvious examples include a husband who helps around the house and who spends time with the kids. I think another aspect of leading courageously is thinking outside the box. Here are some examples of courageous servant leadership. Some are from my own life, and some are from the lives of other men.

  • A man has a job offer that would mean a substantial salary raise, but it would also require moving his family to a place where they know nobody. After consulting with his wife and kids, he decides to reject the offer because no one wants to move and because he realizes that the only reason to have considered it anyway is more money.
  • Christmas is approaching, and a man and his wife know a struggling single mom with three kids. As the couple are talking with the single mom, the man glances questioningly at his wife, and she nods her head. The man tells the single mom that he and his wife would like to buy Christmas presents for her and her kids. She breaks down in grateful tears.
  • A man and his wife have the desire to introduce their kids to another specific culture, so he decides to use his connections to get a summer contract working in that country even though it will be a money-losing proposition because of transportation costs. He and his family spend the summer there, and the kids are so enraptured that the family does the same thing three years later.
  • A man’s wife cheats on him, and they get divorced. The man gets custody of their two kids, and a few years later he starts seeing someone. After receiving counsel from other men, he decides not to pursue a possible second marriage until his kids are grown.

The fourth principle of Christian manhood, expecting the greater reward, is the one that I initially had trouble wrapping my mind around. Then I realized that it has to do with motivation for the other three. In other words, as a Christian man, the fundamental reason that I strive to reject passivity, accept responsibility, and lead courageously is that I expect the greater reward, which is God’s reward. I want His approval more than anyone’s. I remember a time when my wife had arranged for herself, our kids, and another mom and her kids to take a day trip, and I just didn’t feel like going. Thus, my initial answer was “No,” and my wife was OK with it. However, I sensed that the Holy Spirit was not OK with it, so I decided to go. Sometime during the course of the day trip (which I enjoyed!), I felt God’s smile; in other words, I had decided to do what He wanted, and I got the reward.

In his book Raising a Modern-Day Knight, Robert Lewis writes about the power of ceremony. Right after my son graduated from high school, a friend of mine and I decided to hold a manhood ceremony for my son and his, who had also just graduated from high school. We invited some close friends, and all of us older men welcomed these two young men into the circle of manhood. Each of us said something about manhood that we had prepared ahead of time, and each “new man” received a certificate of manhood. This ceremony was at least as meaningful to us older men as it was to the two young men.

When my son was in high school (this was before the manhood ceremony), there was an incident that in our family lore is known as “the stove trays whodunit.” My wife noticed that the stove trays had been washed, and she asked me if I had done it; nope. Then she asked my daughter; nope. Our son was not home at that moment, but it was obvious he was the “culprit.” My wife said, “The men in this family are awesome!” Later I told my son about what she had said, and he smiled from ear to ear.

I don’t tell these stories to boast; my family can tell you that I am far from being a perfect man! The same is true of my son. However, if a man lives by these principles of manhood, he will receive great blessings, both in this life and the next.