Why the Monuments Matter...And Why They Don't

History does not repeat itself.

There will never again be a time when we churn our own butter and use horses as our primary means of transportation.

History does spiral. The same themes come up over and over again, reminding us of where we were but like the difference between a spiral and a circle never precisely replicating where we were.

In 1896, 41 years after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to have "separate but equal" laws in the case of Plessy v. Fergusen. In the years following, more and more Jim Crow laws were enacted (the Louisiana law that Plessy challenged appears to be the first law referred to as a Jim Crow law) and more and more Confederate monuments and memorials went up. In fact, the large majority went up during this time period - it's not even close.

It was not another Civil War - history did not repeat itself - but the Supreme Court sent a message that discrimination was OK. That was not their intent. The majority opinion was that all people really should be treated equal. They just thought that we could have separate facilities, in this case railroad cars, and those facilities could really be equal. But that wasn't what your everyday ordinary racist heard. Monuments went up and there was a spike in lynchings. People were given permission by the government to be racists.

I heard President Trump with my own ears say that racism is not OK in his first statement about Charlottesville. But that's not what white nationalists heard. Both David Duke and Richard Spencer thanked Trump for his words. What they heard, regardless of Trump's intent, was permission to be racist. When we allow monuments to the Confederacy to remain up we do the same thing. We give an implicit message that we are OK with the racism represented in the monuments. And remember the timing of when those monuments went up is strong evidence that the motivation was racial - they came at the same time as the racist Jim Crow laws, not after the war in honor of the fallen.

On the other hand...

In 1954 the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate cannot be equal. It was not another Civil War - history did not repeat itself - but we can see the spiral. Civil unrest, protests, racism raised its head again, and we had another spike in monument construction. Once again, the monuments were built because of racism. But this time the racism came out as a result of the courts ruling against inequality. In other words, when racists felt vindicated monuments went up and when racists felt threatened monuments went up.

What's it mean?

The monuments of the Confederacy are not racist. They are stone and metal. But they symbolize racism in the same way that Trump's words symbolized racism regardless of his intent. and regardless of his heart. Allowing the monuments to remain is a sign for some that their racism is OK. They should all come down and go to museums where we keep our history. And at the same time, taking down the monuments does nothing to take down our racism. They are a sign of something deeper within us. Unless we are willing to dig into our hearts, look deep inside to see what is there, merely taking down monuments will matter very little.

**throughout when I reference racists/racism I'm speaking of individuals who identify as alt-right, white nationalists, etc. Systemic racism and the ways in which all of us who are in the majority have privilege are important subjects that deserve attention in their own right. Those are not my focus here.

Trump, Kim Jong Un, and "Moral Authority"

Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress, who is one of President Trump's religious advisors, has announced that "God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un [of North Korea." He says this on the basis of Romans 13.

So let's take Romans 13 literally, as Jeffress wants to do. "Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government." We run into two very clear problems:

1. If you want to take every verse literally, then the leader of North Korea (and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and Russia...) could use this same verse to demand authority be given to them by the citizens of their country. The passage makes no distinction between leaders of different countries or different types of government. In fact, the only kind of government that Paul had experience with was more like North Korea's dictatorship than the United State's democracy.

2. These verses have nothing to do with foreign policy. There is nothing here about how one leader ought to treat another leader. It is all about how residents of a country should relate to the leader(s) of that country. Romans 13 actually would treat Trump and Kim Jong Un as equals, both put in place by God.

It is clear that Pastor Jeffress is reading Romans 13 to justify what he already believes (as, by the way, we are all tempted to do.)

So what is it really about?

Context matters. The early Christians were trying to live out "the Kingdom of God," a Kingdom that we modern Christians also claim citizenship in, while also living as residents of the Roman Empire. How does one go about living in two kingdoms at once? Paul speaks to them (not to the rulers!), saying that governance rather than anarchy is part of God's plan for this world. We have freedom in Christ, but we still should follow traffic laws. We should give freely to the Church and to those in need, but we also should pay our taxes. Unless the law of the State contradicts the law of Christ we are to follow both.

There is also a longstanding Christian tradition that there are times when it is a Christian's responsibility to resist the state when laws are against the Christian's calling. So, for example, a Christian pacifist ought not fight even if drafted. We'll be talking about issues like this in a three part War and Peace series at St. Paul's in September.

Should Trump "take out" Kim Jong Un? That's a question I won't presume to be able to answer. But the answer doesn't come from an isolated passage from Romans. It comes from prayerful, faithful, study not only of Scripture but also psychology, sociology, and policy. It is dangerous to reduce such complex questions to our own biased readings of a text.