kevinglenn.net

website and blog of Dr. Kevin D Glenn

Turning the Paige: When Accountability Must Outweigh Loyalty.

May 17, 2018
kevindglenn

Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and prominent personality within the Southern Baptist Convention has come under criticism recently for statements that surfaced regarding issues related to divorce and domestic abuse [1], and sexualized language toward a young woman. [2]

Social Media, Main Stream Media, and Religious Media, including the Southern Baptist Convention’s own news agency, were quick to report and respond. It was big news in light of the current cultural attention on sexual and domestic abuse through the #metoo and #churchtoo movements.

I’m proud of the voices from leaders like Ed Stetzer, Matt Chandler, Russell Moore, Thom Rainer, and Beth Moore, who have expressed grave concern and appropriate criticism for the statements. Such voices, however, seem to be the exception among SBC leadership. It’s the response of my fellow Baptist leaders who have run interference for Dr. Patterson, made excuses, stayed silent, marginalized those who would speak up, or, as one colleague who is employed in an SBC agency, even suggest that doing so could endanger one’s career. Ed Stetzer shared his own experience with such pressure in his article when he wrote, “Again and again, no one says anything because that’s what we are told to do.” [3]

Unfortunately, such an approach gets noticed. A recent piece in The Atlantic highlights the problematic silence and sheltering comments from key SBC leaders:

“The tight-knit Southern Baptist boys’ club is not so easily unraveled, and many leaders have sheltered their colleague. Some have simply remained mum. The denomination’s Executive Committee has not acknowledged the controversy despite the media coverage it has received. Current SBC President Steve Gaines has also stayed silent, though today he curiously tweeted, ‘You must not speak everything that crosses your mind’ and encouraged people to ‘read your Bible more than you check [social media].’ Others have actually offered their support. For example, Atlanta-based pastor and former SBC President Johnny Hunt took to Twitter to praise Patterson as ‘a man of   God and a man of your word.’ It’s not difficult to denounce domestic violence, and it shouldn’t be controversial. And yet, America’s largest Protestant denomination now seems to be ethically schizophrenic when it comes to the topic.”[4]

The go-to responses of several other leaders have been to discourage conversation on these issues through diversion. A composite of similar statements go something like this, “We should celebrate the good things God is doing in our churches and communities and be focused on the work of the Kingdom.” Concerns over Dr. Patterson’s statements have been dismissed as “chatter,” “malicious gossip,” “demonization,” or “distractions.”

This post is a response to these types of responses. It is a perspective I believe is appropriate to share in light what some SBC leaders are saying, not saying, and discouraging others from saying. My intention is not to be divisive. Instead, my prayer is that what I share could be an accompanying source of light, so that we all might see better … but then again, I’m not always the brightest bulb in the socket … and I could be completely wrong.

However, for what it’s worth, here goes …

I agree that we should celebrate the great things God is doing in our churches and communities but is it not also a good work of God when we engage in exhortation, accountability, and correction when our brother or sister has said or done something that warrants at least clarification if not full on critique and correction?

I agree that demonization is never the right way to approach concern or criticism of another’s position but is it not a form of demonization or at least minimization to characterize the concerns over the damaging things said, done, and taught by denominational leaders as “chatter,” “gossip,” or “distraction?” While demonizing certainly hinders our work, so does minimizing and ignoring legitimate concerns.

Are concerned Southern Baptists out of line to call into question teachings or counsel that appear to take domestic abuse so lightly; even excusing such abuse in light of the salvation of the husband? How is it an act of distraction to voice criticism for an illustration that makes its point by describing a teenage girl in a demeaning and sexualized manner? If Beth Moore made the same point by saying a man was “endowed” (which would be a  synonymous term for “built” in the context), would there be the same closing of ranks and calls for silence masquerading as “Kingdom Focus” from our denominational leaders?

I agree that our focus is to be on Kingdom work, but is it not also true that such a focus must include concern for how the gospel of Christ’s Kingdom is represented to our world by both laity and leadership? Doesn’t the Bible call us to hold one another to account, especially teachers, and leaders? Why then is there such a pattern in the SBC of working to minimize or even silence voices of critique when those concerns are leveled toward a revered, accomplished, or even likable leader? Ed Stetzer wrote about his own experiences, but I know plenty of pastors, seminary students, and convention/seminary employees whose jobs and educations have been threatened over voicing concerns or critique toward a powerful or popular denominational personality. This is not healthy, nor is it Biblical. No human being and no institution is beyond the reach of critique and correction, no matter how popular they are, or what memorable and historic things they may have done.

If the gospel is not moving the church toward the truth and grace of internal accountability, then how can we expect the gospel to make sense to a world to whom we preach Christ’s Kingdom call to repent, believe, and follow? Our mandate is to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. But when our loyalty to denominational identity robs us of the humility to walk where God is walking (even if it’s on our toes), we display a level of consent to the injustices committed against the oppressed, as well as a limited capacity for mercy toward the oppressed.

I read late last week that Dr. Patterson has issued a statement of apology. In response, some have questioned the sincerity of his apology. I can understand the skepticism for two reasons. First, he does not apologize for the actual content of his statements, only that they were not clear. Not only do I believe his lack of clarity was problematic, but the actual content did not convey the seriousness of domestic abuse, and was demeaning toward a young woman. Second, it seems to have taken a petition with a few thousand signatures from concerned Southern Baptists to surface before a statement of apology appeared at all. The specter of not doing the right thing until it appears you have to does not bode well for the SBC, whose previous annual meeting failed to vote on a resolution condemning white supremacy until pressure from concerned ministers and social media forced the resolutions committee to bring the resolution to the floor for vote (it had been declined), and the body of Messengers back into session.

So, was Dr. Patterson’s apology sincere? I don’t know. I want to believe it was. I want to move forward with cautious optimism that Dr. Patterson’s apology will bear fruit through him wielding his influence in the Seminary and in the Convention toward a healthier and more biblically faithful approach to domestic violence, sexual abuse, marital issues, and both a recognition and celebration of our sisters in Christ for the image-bearing, redemptive and completing (see the Hebrew terms for “suitable Helper”) partners they are to us male rough drafts.

If this is not what Dr. Patterson is prepared and willing to do, then I believe his apology should be accepted only if it is accompanied by his resignation. There is too much at stake for this not to be taken seriously by Christians in general, as well as Southern Baptists and Trustees of Southwestern Seminary in particular.

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] The specific statements regarding domestic abuse is here: https://archive.org/details/PaigePattersonsbcAdviceToVictimsOfDomesticViolence

[2] The statement about a young woman can be found here: https://youtu.be/gDRUVmcaQ3k

[3] https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/may/paige-patterson-end-of-era.html

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/sbc-patterson/559532/

 

Of Walls and Borders: Pt. 2 – Financial Concerns

May 8, 2018
kevindglenn

Are immigrants a fiscal drain on public resources?

 In addition to the job concerns raised in my previous post, immigration specialist and devout Christian, James R. Edwards, explains another economic concern often raised by Christians seeking to understand and respond to the immigration issue. “Immigrants who pay few taxes and draw heavily upon public services have been a significant burden on the communities in which they have settled.” [1] Such a problem is met with a mixed response from researchers. One study observes that immigrants do not pose an overall financial burden on the citizenry. However, the same study says in contrast that in a localized context, a concentrated immigrant population can and often does prove to be a financial issue for the community. [2] Such a burden is attributed not to the immigrants themselves, but to an insufficient appropriation of resources to these particular geographical areas. However, in many of these locations, immigrants and natives often live in close proximity. The lack of coordination between local, state, and Federal authorities results in insufficient federal funding to these locales. Unfortunately, such problems result in negative perceptions toward immigrants.

In contrast to Edwards’ assumptions regarding the taxes paid by immigrants, Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute, observes that many immigrants do indeed contribute tax revenue toward the public services they use. In fact, Moore finds the average immigrant pays nearly $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits over their lifetime. This is based on the immigrant paying an average of $105,000 more to the federal government than benefits received from the federal government while receiving on average $25,000 in benefits more from state and local governments than is paid to state and local governments. [3]

The data collected from naturalized immigrants suggests they generally have a positive effect on public resources and nation-wide economics. As one author states, “immigrants do not further split up the pie; they enlarge it.” [4] The glaring problem in this comparison, however, is the missing factor of undocumented immigrants. One can do little more than speculate on the extent to which undocumented immigrants impact the economic well-being of native and naturalized citizens. This is a very important consideration for which information is limited. No doubt the factor of undocumented immigrants fuels the debate since that unknown factor skews existing data. Proposed immigration reforms must account for and address the problem of undocumented immigrants. Such options will be discussed later in this series.

Christians will differ on how to address the economic issues related to immigration policy. But believers can certainly agree that no person, immigrant or native should be measured by their potential capital output, but rather by their status as bearers of God’s image.

[1] Swain, Debating Immigration, 60

[2] Pilar Marrero, Killing the American Dream: How Anti-immigration Extremists Are Destroying the Nation (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 194

[3] Stephen Moore, A Fiscal Portrait of the Newest Americans (Washington, D.C.: National Immigration Forum, 1998), 20.

[4] Tanya Maria. Golash-Boza, Due Process Denied: Detentions and Deportations in the United States (New York: Routledge, 2012), 204

Of Walls and Borders: Christian Perspectives on Immigration – Pt. 1

May 7, 2018
kevindglenn

This past Sunday at Calvary (the church I pastor), we hosted a forum for an immigration attorney to come and share about the nature and challenges of her work, the immigration system itself, and what immigrants experience as they go through the naturalization process, as well as asylum, and deportation. It was insightful, informative, and heart-breaking. It inspired me to share information I compiled in an essay from a few years ago. I’ll share the essay in several parts over the next few posts.

___________________________________________________________________________

Although I now live in New Mexico, I’m a native of Florida. Florida natives are an interesting and rare breed. Florida natives possess a certain pride and frustration reflected in a popular bumper sticker message directed at the many seasonal residents of the sunshine state. The message is simple and straight-forward, “Welcome to Florida, now go home.” Another is equally popular, “We don’t care how you do it up north.” Still, another is functional in its tone, “When I get old, I’m moving north and driving slow.”

While these messages are sent in good fun, they convey several misconceptions. First, is the misconception that seasonal residents are bad for the economy. In reality, much was gained when the snowbirds came to town. Church attendance increased, businesses enjoyed the additional activity, and the increase in population allowed for greater real-estate revenue. While these half-year residents may not have paid as much in taxes as natives, they certainly contributed to the welfare of the community. Yes, they drove slowly, but they came as most of us came; from somewhere else. The second misconception is perhaps the most important. While my great-great grandmother was Seminole, my self-identity as a “native Floridian” is arguable.

Members of the Seminole tribe could point to the invasion of their land by my Scottish-born ancestors with much more disdain and cause for lament than my shallow rejection of snowbirds. The Seminoles are the true Native Floridians, I am the immigrant. In fact, we are a nation of immigrants, making the issue of immigration one that requires a wise, careful, and thoroughly biblical response.

While the messages sent from my bumper sticker to snowbirds generated friendly jibing, Immigrants in the United States have often encountered serious intolerance along with negative, if not inaccurate stereotypes.  While it is accurate to point to historical and political realities for their impact on one’s attitude toward immigrants, a fair question can be raised; where do those attitudes come from? Are there underlying factors connected to the formation of society’s perspective toward immigrants on an individual level?

To this question, several proposals have been offered. These include how one’s attitudes are influenced by the condition of the economy, how perspectives are shaped by concerns over safety and security, and how one’s affinity for their own culture impacts their capacity to accept the cultural particularities of another. There are many studies that provide helpful information regarding general attitudes toward immigration policy. [1]

People of faith, Christian faith in particular also form their perspectives on immigration through the lenses of the economy, security, and culture. Religion, however, has been mentioned as an almost incidental element in the formulation of one’s attitude toward immigration. Until recently, the role of religious thought and practice as a key element in the formulation of such attitudes has been overlooked as an area of serious study. While researching this series, it was interesting to note the appeal that more attention be given to religion’s role in this area by researchers themselves. Sociologist Steven Warner called the absence of material a “huge scholarly blind spot”.  [2]

Of course, just as there are widely diverse perspectives in each of the three conditions mentioned above, adding religious affiliation to the interpretive mix in no way yields a unified religious response. This is illustrated through my affiliation with a ministry to border residents and its director. The research reveals a primary concern often expressed by potential visiting church groups is whether or not the immigrants they would serve are “legal or illegal”. In more than a few cases, church groups elect to avoid ministry efforts toward undocumented immigrants. It was believed by these groups that to do so would serve to enable illegal activity [3]  While it has been no surprise for Christian groups to state their convictions on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, my source with the border ministry has been surprised to see more and more groups view immigration as a moral issue, and therefore decline opportunities to minister to what they call “illegal aliens”. The news, however, is not all negative. My source reports that other groups increasingly seek out his ministry in order to seize opportunities to minister specifically to immigrants they know to be undocumented.  [4]

Why would some groups decline to engage in ministry to undocumented immigrants based on Christian conviction, while others cite Christian conviction as a reason to seek such an opportunity?

The information above illustrates a significant divide among Christians in their attitudes toward immigration. While the reason for the differing responses above are cited as Christian conviction, this series of posts will observe the way in which one’s Christian beliefs are constantly at odds with one’s sense of economic, security, and cultural self-preservation, and how this struggle impacts one’s understanding of the information available on immigration issues. This leads members of the Body of Christ to very different mechanisms by which they process and interpret the economic, security, and cultural factors of the current immigration conversation. The goal of this series is to heighten one’s awareness to the diversity of perspective within the Body and to provide a synopsis of the differing views of Christians in a way that promotes greater understanding and education. My hope is that even with differing perspectives on immigration policy issues, Christians will see immigrants as people in need of compassionate ministry, love, and respect. They are what all of us were at one time; strangers in need of a place and people.

Economic Concerns

A Christian perspective on the economic impact of immigration can be summarized through two different questions. One, can our nation afford the number of immigrants crossing our borders? Two, can our nation afford not to have the number of immigrants crossing our borders? To be sure, one could speculate that both sides would agree such questions on their own are temptations to see immigrants as fiscal units rather than as individuals made in God’s image. This, however, must be held I tension with the reality of the concerns raised by immigration’s economic impact.

  1. The influx of immigrants takes jobs from native workers.

Citing studies by Harvard economist George Borjas, immigration specialist and devout Christian, James R. Edwards, observes that a large number of low-skilled immigrants puts “downward pressure on low-end wages”, making it difficult for low-skilled citizens to compete for the same jobs, since the immigrant will usually do the job for much less money. This, according to Edwards, “is not a good thing for America’s low-skilled workers, leaving them vulnerable to…direct job competition, wage depression, and flooded labor markets.” [5] This claim assumes an influx of immigrants sufficient to create such an environment of job competition. However, other factors are present to temper this claim.

The condition of America’s current and future labor force must be taken into account. It is projected that from 2006 to 2016, the U.S. economy will grow at an average rate of 2.8%, a modest projection to be sure, but one that will generate an increased need for workers in the labor force. Among citizens, no increase in the labor force is expected between now and 2020, leading to an aging native labor force. [6]  In addition, Jenny Hwang, devout Christian, and director of the Refugee and Immigration Program of World Relief, notes that “low U.S. fertility rates will not only slow labor force growth but increase the ratio of retired people to working people.” [7] In short, there are simply not enough native-born workers to replenish the low-skilled labor force as its needs grow with the economy unless those gaps are filled by immigrants.

The citizenry that makes up the current labor force is also becoming more educated. In 1960, 50% of American men dropped out of high school to work a trade or join the military (my father being among them). Presently, less than 10% do so. However, of the 50.7 million jobs projected to be created between now and 2016, half will require no more than high school diploma. [8]

The suggested solution to this situation is to tighten and limit the extent to which immigrants can fill the gaps mentioned above. Such attempts, however, have been problematic and have produced shortages. Hugh Morton of the National Association of Home Builders points out that “contractors struggling to find quality roofers, concrete finishers, etc…found immigrant trade contractors a godsend.” [9]  In 2011, crackdowns on immigrant workers in Georgia led to an astonishing 50% of its agricultural produce being left to rot in the fields – at a cost to the state of more than $400 million, with total losses prompted by the act topping $1billion. In Alabama, immigration limitations have cost the state $11 billion since June of 2011. [10] New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg said of immigrants, “New York City alone is home to more than three million immigrants, who make up 40% of our population…our City’s economy would collapse if they were deported. The same holds true for the nation.” [11] The entrepreneurial spirit of many immigrants accounts for a number of business and services that would otherwise not exist due to the culturally distinct manner by which some immigrants perform their service. [12]

Low-skilled jobs are not the only areas of employment where Christians raise economic concern. Highly skilled positions are also addressed, although concern does not appear to be as intense in this area. Edwards confirms that among the gains and benefits brought to the nation through immigration, those related to work done by “highly educated and entrepreneurially talented immigrants” is seen as a valuable contribution to the economic picture. Notable examples are, Sergey Brin, Russian immigrant who founded Google, Inc., John and David Tu, Taiwanese immigrants and founders of the multi-billion dollar Kingston Technology, Dr. Alfred Quinones-Hinojosa, neuro-surgeon at Johns Hopkins University, who picked tomatoes in the fields of California as an undocumented immigrant before working his way through school, eventually attending Harvard Medical School. It is clear from these examples that the contribution of immigrants to the fields of science and technology in the U.S. is unmistakable. Another Taiwanese immigrant, Jerry Yang, founder of Yahoo, explains,

“Yahoo would not be an American company today if the United States had not welcomed my family and me almost 30 years ago. We must do all we can to ensure that the door is open for the next generation of top entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists from around the world to come to the U.S. and thrive.” [13]

It would seem that while concerns are valid regarding the number of immigrants entering the U.S., there appears to be sufficient room for both citizens and immigrants in both high-skill and low-skill jobs. However, more research is needed, including an answer for why contractors would have trouble finding roofers, masons, and concrete finishers at a time during which so many are out of work, and why American students continue to score low in math and science, while the best educational institutions and the most state-of-the-art research facilities in the world reside in the United States. It appears the world makes the U.S. its destination of choice while its own citizenry struggles to seize the opportunities in its own back-yard.

Next Post: Are immigrants a fiscal drain on public resources?

[1]Tanya Maria. Golash-Boza, Due Process Denied: Detentions and Deportations in the United States (New York: Routledge, 2012), 47.

[2] Warner Steven, “Religion, Boundaries, and Bridges.,” Sociology of Religion 58, no. 3 (1997): 217.

[3] Border ministry source, interview by author, August 26, 2012.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Carol M. Swain, Debating Immigration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 60.

[6] Betty W. Su, “The U.S. Economy to 2016: Slower Growth as Boomers Begin to Retire,” Monthly Labor Review 130, no. 11 (2007): 13, accessed December 2, 2012, http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/11/contents.htm.

[7] Matthew Soerens and Jenny Hwang, Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion & Truth in the Immigration Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2009), 118.

[8] Arlene Dohm and Lynn Schniper, “Occupational Employment Projections to 2016,”Monthly Labor Review 103, no. 11 (2007): 33, accessed 2012.

[9] Sorens and Hwang, Welcoming the Stranger, 119

[10] Ed Pilkington, “Kansas Prepares for Clash of Wills over Future of Unauthorised Immigrants,” The Guardian, February 2, 2012, section goes here, accessed December 3, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/kansas-prepares-clash-unauthorised-migrants.

[11]Testimony the Committee on Judiciary, United States Senate (2006) (testimony of Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York).

[12] My research revealed numerous branches of business supporting this claim. In the interest of space, a brief list would include; food services, tailoring, art, alternative medicine, exercise, and non-traditional education, just to name a few.

[13] “US Venture Capitalists Investing in Immigrant Businesses,” US Venture Capitalists Investing in Immigrant Businesses, 2006, accessed December 05, 2012, http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_11_27/us/immigrant_business_venture_capital.htm

Blog at WordPress.com.