Years ago a
black woman began attending our services.
Betty, a retired schoolteacher, knew some of our members from an
interdenominational Bible study she taught.
Invited by those members, she visited the church. She kept coming. Each Sunday she offered an insightful comment
on my sermon; she especially seemed to appreciate their Biblical content. Then one morning she asked if she could talk
with me in private at some time. We set
up an appointment for early that week.
When Betty
came to my office she seemed tense but got quickly to the point. “I’d like to
join the church,” she said, “but I won’t do if it would cause you any
problems.” I was happy to tell her it
would cause no problem at all, that the people would be thrilled she wanted to
become a member.
She relaxed
and began talking freely. “I’ve attended
black churches my entire life,” she said, “but lately things have changed. I
don’t think I can go anymore.”
“How so,” I
asked. I assumed she was about to tell
me that black churches, like so many white churches, had begun to deny certain
aspects of Biblical truth—the authority of the Scripture, the deity of Christ,
the need for salvation, etc. Her answer
surprised me.
“The pastor of
the church I attended for so long started preaching hate against white people.
I know too many good white people and I can’t stand it.”
Not a little
shocked, I recall saying something like, “Betty, we would love to have you as
part of our church but maybe that’s just one pastor at one church.”
“No,” she
said, “I’ve visited every black church in town and all of them are preaching
hate against whites.”
Do I believe
Betty visited every black church in Columbus? No.
But, knowing Betty, I’m sure she visited enough churches to justify her statement.
Betty and I
had our conversation nearly a quarter-century ago. She passed away in the early 2000s. I wonder what she would say about what is
happening in our nation.
The kind of
teacher who loved and was loved by her students, she doubtless would mourn
every young black man killed by the police—or by gang violence.
A genuine
Christian and a policeman’s widow, she doubtless would mourn the deaths of
those policemen in Dallas this past week, praying for their widows and
children—regardless of their race.
Betty was not
naïve. She knew racism was an
ever-present reality. Her visit to my
office proved that. If she was bitter
about it, she never showed it, nor did she deny it. An art student at Ohio State, she had dreamed
of being a fashion illustrator. She once
showed my wife and me sketches she had drawn in the mid-forties. They were beautiful and could have graced any
magazine in the days before computer-enhanced images. But, placing the drawings back in their tattered
folder, she said her professor had told her no magazine would hire a black
woman as an illustrator. So, she became
an art teacher. No, it wasn’t fair. But Betty trusted God and made a life
inspiring students rather than selling couture.
Again, I wish
I could ask Betty her thoughts on what is happening. I can’t so I’ve been reading—Facebook posts,
newspaper editorials, and just listening.
“What about
black on black crime,” someone asks.
“That’s racist and irrelevant,” someone else responds. A lot of people raising the specter of “black
on black crime” may be racist but I’m not sure the issue is irrelevant. If—fairly or unfairly—a community has a
reputation for violence, is it likely a police officer entering that
neighborhood is going to be just a little nervous, prone to draw a gun?
The answer to
that problem: Recruit better police officers.
Okay, but what does that mean?
It’s only in the movies you have police officers like Harry Callahan,
Martin Riggs, or John McClane; fearless—to be sure—though just a little too
quick with those guns. (Besides, didn’t
Riggs’s partner shoot an unarmed man at the end of LW2?) We will never have officers immune to fear
but we might be able to find officers who are less prone to act impulsively.
First, we need
to pay police a sufficient salary so that “moonlighting” and extra shifts are
not necessary for police officers to support themselves and their
families. Not only will this attract
better quality recruits, it will mean police officers are less likely to be
fatigued while on duty. I have not seen
any statistics related to this matter but I wonder how many of the
controversial shootings have taken place near the end of a shift or even a
double-shift and how many of the officers involved were working two jobs.
Second, we
need to vet recruits very carefully. I
took an extensive psychological test before I was admitted to seminary. Surely police recruits should face the same
tests. Maybe they do. Of course, after meeting some of my fellow
students, it was clear the seminary had ignored the results of those
tests. I wonder if police departments do
the same. But, having a few more
slightly neurotic ministers let loose on society is not the same as having
homophobic, racist, power-hungry bullies wearing badges.
Don’t be
shocked but I’ve been stopped four times by the police; three times were
justified—speeding, not maintaining my lane, and failing to properly stop (what
in Texas is called “a rolling stop,” but it was late at night, in a town with
only one stop sign, and one police officer—I met him). The fourth stop was unjustified (I was
driving a Pontiac station wagon which goes from zero to sixty, eventually;
given the circumstances, I couldn’t have been going as fast as the deputy from
a Burt Reynolds movie said I was going).
From those experiences I received three warnings and one ticket. Guess who gave me the ticket. I was visiting
my brother-in-law, who was in the car with me; he knew the deputy and said he
had a reputation as a bully. And a bully
is a bully. I’ve known store managers
who were bullies, teachers who were bullies, coaches who were bullies, deacons
who were bullies, and even pastors who were bullies. Weeding the bullies out of any profession,
including the police, is a tough job.
The problem with police bullies is, of course, they carry guns.
No, I am not
suggesting 25% of police officers are jerks; I am saying my experience with the
police has generally been positive. (I
even respected the honesty of the officer I talked to after we were burglarized
in Houston; he said there was very little chance we would get any of our stuff
back.)
Of course, you
can’t find many people much whiter than I am. Some police officers apparently target black
drivers just because they are black. Dash
cams and body cameras, recording every interaction of police and civilians,
might reduce such behavior, especially if officers know they might have to
explain why they stop far more black drivers than white drivers. But the issue is rooted in more than the
aggravation of an unjustified traffic stop.
Films, TV, and
music all seem to foster the “cops against blacks” mindset. According to an Associated Press report, black
actor Sir Maejor said, "Black Lives Matter doesn't condone shooting law
enforcement. But I have to be honest: I understand why it was done. I don't
encourage it, I don't condone it, I don't justify it. But I understand
it." How many will read that statement and think, “He is saying that given
the circumstances shooting cops makes sense.”
Protests against shooting unarmed blacks I can understand. Editorials against shooting unarmed blacks I
can understand. Sermons against shooting
unarmed blacks I can understand. But
shooting white cops to protest shooting unarmed blacks—that, I don’t
understand. Surely no one imagines this
will win support for the cause of racial justice.
Sometimes even
those we would expect to promote healing foster suspicion and hostility
instead. In March of last year, the
Reverend Jeremiah Wright told a group of seminary students: "We need to teach black and brown youth
how to negotiate safely the militarized mindset of American snipers in blue
uniforms, but simultaneously we need to fix the systems." (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/04/rev-jeremiah-wright-tackles-issues-of-race-violence/24357789/. Accessed 9 July 2016.) While admitting the system needs fixing,
categorically describing the police as “snipers in blue uniforms” surely must
fuel distrust toward all the police. And
those you distrust, you soon learn to hate.
Vetting
candidates may help keep trigger-happy police officers off the streets, but
every police officer wants to get home safely to his or her family. Every police officer knows of officers killed
during “routine” traffic stops. Every
police officer knows that “Adjusting for
population, black men, overall, are 5 times more likely than white
men to kill police officers.” (Peter Moskos, “Police Killing Whites and
Blacks,” a post on Moskos’s blog, Cop in
the Hood. http://www.copinthehood.com/2014/12/police-killing-whites-and-blacks.html.
Accessed 9 July 2016.) Every police
officer knows that a hate-the-cops litany is being repeated on the radio, on
twitter, on Facebook; and, sometimes, in the movie theater.
Peter Moskos,
a City University of New York sociology professor and former Baltimore police
officer, offers interesting insights on the issue of cops targeting blacks. First,
he questions whether the charge can be sustained. I will not repeat his
argument but it deserves to be considered whether you ultimately agree with him
or not. Second, he suggests, that white cops regularly assigned to minority
neighborhoods are less likely to respond to perceived threats by a member of
that community than white cops who have little interaction with members of
other races or ethnic groups. In many
school systems, new teachers (“rookies”) are assigned to the tougher schools
while veteran teachers are believed to have earned the right to be assigned to
schools with less-troublesome student populations. Perhaps this helps explain why nearly half of
new teachers leave the profession within three or four years. However the
teaching profession handles its rookies, police departments need a better
way.
“The federal
government should investigate every police shooting of blacks,” someone else
declares. (This being the same federal
government Jeremiah Wright was talking about when he said unequivocally,
“Governments lie.”) Maybe if a policeman
pauses a moment because he knows a tribunal is going to examine everything
about the next action he takes, there will be fewer shootings. Of course, what if during that pause the
officer is shot? And let’s face it, a
substantial number of folks won’t believe the tribunal was fair if it says a
cop was justified in shooting; a substantial number of folks won’t believe the
tribunal was fair if it says a cop was wrong.
Still having a
tribunal made up of citizens and, perhaps, former police officers judge each
case would surely be better than having the cases tried on Facebook, twitter,
talk radio, or You Tube. A federal
tribunal is less likely to be influenced by regional prejudices and
loyalties. Only such a tribunal could
ask really tough questions, like why were the two Baton Rouge officers involved
in the Alton Sterling shooting still partnered when they had both been accused
of using excessive force in the past. While they were cleared of the charges, we can
be sure journalists and others will be reviewing the cases. While I am not usually a fan of bigger government,
a nonpartisan, multiethnic, police review board representing all regions of the
country might be a good step to take. It
won’t make everybody happy but a lot of people are unhappy right now.
*******
Two days after the event, Pat and I
were talking about the Dallas shootings with our younger son. We were at a playground in a public
park. We were watching his son, our
grandson play. Aged five-and-a-half
(the qualification is important to him), our grandson knew nothing of the
shootings. He was just having fun. Through the trees, we could see the building
nearest the park—a school building.
Nothing much distinguished the building, except its name: Columbine High
School.
Near the playground there is a
memorial to the twelve students and one teacher killed on that shocking day in
April 1999. Given the circumstances, as
much as the Dallas shootings may have been on our minds, our thoughts
inevitably turned to Columbine. Our son
said, “I don’t know how I’d prove this but I feel like everything changed
then.” I think he meant violence had
become more ruthless, more meaningless, more heartless; and, maybe, more
inevitable.
Columbine eroded our ability to be
shocked. Sure 9/11 shook us but we’ve
since embraced an attitude that accepts school shooting as part of life. Did you know that as of February 2016 there
have been fifty school shootings since Columbine in which some 141 deaths have
occurred and that there have been a total of 270 school shootings of any kind
since Columbine? I had no idea there had
been so many.
Columbine seemed to give permission
for unhappy, disappointed persons to say, “If I’m in pain, I’m sure as heck
going to make sure others feel some pain.”
No, that doesn’t exactly fit the Dallas situation, except it’s probably
easier for the aggrieved to justify violence since Columbine.
Columbine did change things and so
did the coming of the new millennium. At
least, I think it did. I haven’t shared
this notion with many people. Even my
long-time Thursday lunch companions seemed at a loss for what to say when I
explained my thinking to them. They graciously
avoided asking, “Have you lost your mind?” Still, I might as well share it with
you. I think the year 2000 brought a new
attitude toward Jesus. Oh, it’s not so
much that people thought, “Great, he really isn’t coming; let’s party!” But, suddenly it was okay to criticize
Jesus, to mock him, to consider him passé.
Love your enemy, forget that.
Forgive those who hurt you, not on your life. Treat the different as your neighbor, that’s
not going to happen, they’re different.
While Jesus looked at a person and saw the image of God, we look at the
black face, the white face, the brown face, the olive face and say if their face
isn’t like mine, I can’t trust them.
My thoughts on the Dallas shootings
and related events are just that. My
thoughts. I don’t have special
insight. If you’ve read this far, it’s
probably because you’re my friend (in the “friend” sense, not the Facebook
sense.) Events in Dallas, in Louisiana,
and in Minnesota are racial issues. They
are police issues. They are legal
issues. They are social issues. They are, of course, moral issues. But never forget those events are spiritual
issues.
Just before we were drafted into a
game of tag with rules favoring five-and-a-half year olds, we returned to the
subject of the recent shootings. My son
said, “Somehow everyone has got to get back to respecting one another.”
Sheriff Andy Taylor never carried a
gun. (Listen, I’m an only child. One of my closest friends growing up was a
B&W TV. Deal with it.) Still, he did
his job. Of course, in the world of
Mayberry people respected the law. Then,
too, Sheriff Taylor showed as much respect toward Otis the town drunk as he did
toward Howard the town clerk. Those days are no more. Naïve as it may sound, restoring mutual
respect has to be a priority in fixing the system.
I think Sheriff Andy would
agree. I know Betty would.
