Will Ethnic Diversity Destroy America? part 2

Here are the next two points given in a speech entitled "I have a plan to destroy America," by Richard D. Lamm, former Colorado governor (see the first in this series for background).
3. We can make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.
4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated – I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.
RASMUSSEN COMMENTS:
a.  I agree with some of these points. Mere tolerance is a poor basis for survival. Engagement in relationship, working through issues, is a much better option, though more difficult. Tolerance, while a positive characteristic, can be taken to an extreme where people are afraid to stand up for what they believe in. Such hyper-tolerance is just as bad as intolerance.
b. With his repetition of a "rather than" dichotomy, Lamm casts diversity against unity as an either-or dynamic. By inference if not actuality, he says that we must choose either diversity or unity, and the latter is clearly better. My belief is that unity is meaningless (in fact, nonexistent) without diversity. We can't have a mosaic without different shapes and colors of glass. We can't have an orchestra without violins, cellos and trumpets in collaboration. We wouldn't have a body except for its different complimentary parts. So what we need in American is different groupings freely and joyously celebrating their cultures while at the same time gladly enjoying and contributing to their citizenship as Americans.
c. Lamm's fourth point is enigmatic. Who is he indicting here, the poor Hispanic migrant worker who refuses to get an education? If anyone stands to blame for the chronically poor (whether the inner city black youth or the Hispanic poor), it is the upper-middle and upper class who perpetuate poverty by enjoying privilege without concern for the poor. This point is a really cheap shot, woefully oversimplifying a very complex situation with a fear-mongering, blame-spewing venom that adds nothing toward a solution. It is the finger-pointing judgmentalism of one who sits in a seat of privilege and pretends he is not a part of the problem. If this attitude prevails, ethnic diversity will destroy America--not because of the diversity but because of the ethnic-pride of those who sit self-righteously in their comfortable lifestyle, accusing newcomers of creating all the problems.
Your thoughts?

Will Ethnic Diversity Destroy America? part 1

A friend forwarded to me a speech given in 2004 by former Colorado governor Richard D. Lamm. Since his subject matter (Immigration, Ethnicity, Unity) is extremely important, and since his viewpoint is quite provocative (that America stands a good chance of self-destruction if we continue down our current path), I decided to divide up his speech, citing it word-for-word, to invite comments from anyone who wants to weigh in. I will start off the discussion with some of my own thoughts. I welcome any input as long as it is respectful. I will be seeking to reconcile governor Lamm's opinion with my own viewpoint as a follower of Jesus.
A word about the text quoted in the four emails of this series of posts. Snopes.com cites a popular email version that has long been circulated, and provides a revised version by Richard Lamm http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp. The revised version is the one I quote, which I accessed June 9, 2011 at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50997
Now to Richard Lamm's speech....

---

I have a plan to destroy America

---

Posted: July 11, 2006
1:00 am Eastern
By Richard D. Lamm
© 2011 WND

Editor's note: In 2004, Richard D. Lamm, former governor of Colorado, addressed a conference sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington. The following remarks are reprinted with his permission. 

Richard. D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide." Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon – all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."
2. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.
3. (watch for the next post which will carry Lamm's third and fourth points; click on RSS feed above to receive notification; thanks!)

ROBERT RASMUSSEN COMMENTS:
a. Lamm certainly has a gift for overstatement. And possesses an unsurpassed grasp of the history of the human race. To know that the citizens of every nation have underestimated the fragility of their nations is an amazing..fact.
b. I agree that a bilingual nation is going to face challenges. But citizens who commit to work together can overcome temptations to divide. Citizens must quell the rebellious leaders who want power.  Given the selfishness resident in all of us, one cause or another will tempt us toward division; if not language and culture, it will be land or rights.My point is that bilingualism is not a necessary cause of divisiveness, any more than monolingualism is a guarantee of unity and national survival.
c. My main objection to Lamm's train of thought comes from the different worldview through which I see the issues. Lamm seems to primarily ask, "How can we preserve our nation for our continued enjoyment?" He wants American to survive "the ravages of time." From my worldview, which I hopefully draw from the Bible, does not place America's survival as a top priority. I appreciate so many things about the USA, and I am grateful for those who have settled, developed, and defended it. I appreciate the way of life America affords me and my family. However, America exists for the purposes of God. We are not blessed because we deserve God's favor, but because God has created this country that His name might be proclaimed to all, including those who have been coming in droves from other lands, speaking other languages, believing in other gods. This is where my U.S. citizenship must take a secondary place to my citizenship in the Kingdom of God. The proliferation of Jesus-followers and, therefore, the expansion of His kingdom are more important than the preservation of American society and the privileged lifestyle we its citizens have enjoyed.
Now I turn it over to others. What thoughts do you have on this speech?

Somebody blessed me today...read on

Dear Robert Rasmussen -
WOW. That's the only way I know to begin to describe how much I have enjoyed reading your book, "Imagine Meeting Him". I was actually cleaning some book shelves for a friend of my mother's in whose house I am staying, when I came across the book. I started reading, thinking I would just read one story, but I couldn't stop. I eventually asked if I could buy the book from this friend! He gave it to me and I am still reading - because I don't want to rush thru.
The stories I have heard and read growing up in Sunday School and church, but you have managed to tell them in a way that makes them real - makes HIM real! I feel as tho I really have seen Him or met Him. Your Reflection questions are always spot on, too! I have found myself going back to re-read a story when I was especially struck by it. So many have moved me - though I might say that a favorite is "From Anger to Wonder" because of the turmoil of my life recently.
Thank you so very much for writing this book. I thank Jesus for giving you the insight to write it - surely I am not the only one who has seen Him more clearly because of this?!
So thankful I cleaned those shelves!
In His Love - Melody

Guest Ken Baker on "If We Really Need Each Other...."

One of my good friends in this intercultural journey, and one I have leaned a lot from, is Ken Baker, who served for 25 or so years in West Africa planting churches, and now serves in the USA with SIM-USA (Serving In Mission). Out of a recent retreat of the Ethnic America Network, and discussion group carried on an email exchange dialoging whether multi-ethnic churches are mandated by Jesus and the Scriptures, or are recommended. In this post, Ken argues (if I may summarize) that if we really believe we need each other in the body of Christ, then we will not consider it normative nor acceptable to fellowship in isolation over the long term. Here's Ken....

"I believe the best starting point is to focus upon shaping our understanding of ‘kingdom character’ and its implications. The foundation of ‘kingdom character’ is “love one another.” This is a restoration narrative as the body of Christ lives into the character which God intended for humanity from the outset…joining a restoration of all things which culminates in God’s stated goal to “bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” (Eph 1:10) In Christ, we are not only new creatures, but also a new type of humanity. (Eph 2:15) We are not the same as we once were. We have a new identity, a new role. Just as Christ is the 2nd/last Adam, the realization of what a human was to be, we, in and through Christ’s body, collectively, represent true human community as it was intended to be.

What does it mean, then, to “love one another?” Are there any limitations to this mandate? Any who are not included? What is the rationale for not pursuing relationship with each other in Christ? (too hard, impractical, wastes time, too idealistic, we prefer not to, etc.—deep down, we know these are not sufficient responses) The bottom line is that our prayed that we would be one, that we would be together. Thus, unless we are continually moving toward each other, then we are falling short of that which God intended for us. But, why?

The whole point of the metaphor of the body is to emphasize how much we need each other…not just our functions as edifying contributions, but our personness as well. All that we each embody (personality, ethnicity, culture, age, gifting, history, joys, sufferings, etc.) is part of this contribution; and each culture has the contributive role as well, for the edification of the entire body. In my observation and experience, this is the fundamental disconnect—realizing and embracing the biblical reality that we need each other, that we are incomplete without each other.

This disconnect is driven by human nature. We don’t naturally believe that we need those who are unlike us (however we would define this). The progressive among us can be curious, appreciating the mosaic of diversity, kind, welcoming, polite and accommodating of difference…but still not believe that we need what people from other cultures (ethnicities, generations, gender, economic status, etc.) can contribute. It is why ‘inclusion’ is not enough… the new humanity in Christ is about kenosis, emptying ourselves, submitting one to another, confessing our sins one to another… that is, living in full mutuality—the image of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Given this reality, what are the implications? How is this new type of humanity in Christ supposed to live in this diverse, fractured, antagonistic, selfishly sinful, lost-without-Christ world? In such a way that “all men will know” that we are his disciples, that “the world will know” that Jesus is from God… that’s all.  We are to be living out a divine, restoration narrative to the glory of God. What do this look like? Perhaps it is better to ask, what does it feel like? I would propose this… when there is no longer a “them,” just an “us.” …when we can gaze upon our co-followers of Christ, and all our humankind ‘neighbors’, as our Lord does, gushing with compassion, love and humility, saying, “what do you want me to do for you?”

We are on a journey to understand and apply that which God has revealed and entrusted to us. We are sinful and imperfect, thus, our models are flawed and compromised, but we press on.

I fully realize that much of what I have shared is rather ethereal. But, I defend it as a way of clarifying biblical outcomes. If our understanding of outcome is incomplete, by default, the process will also be incomplete. We tend to be limited by what we believe to be possible. Since most of us, if not all, have issued from Christian churches and contexts that were (are?) primarily homogenous, we often do not have a track record of experience which provides an alternative perspective of what is possible. An example: when we first went to Niger as church planters we had already had twelve years of church planting on two other fields in W. Africa. In our experience, we had enjoyed good, edifying relationships between mission and church. However, upon arrival in Niger, we discovered that relations between church and mission were chronically strained and tense. Hence, discussions among the missionaries were negative and generally hopeless as far as the church was concerned. The vast majority of these colleagues had never lived and worked on any other field, so their experience was shading their conception of what was possible…

What if intercultural mutuality was the normative experience of every believer? How would the Christian landscape be different? Such has been my experience… of the five churches that I have had the privilege to see born, in five different cultural contexts, each one has been a diverse community of multiple tribal identities coming together in Christ. For me, this became normal. I didn’t start out that way… I had to learn it. They taught me. They lived it. Were they perfect pictures of grace and harmony? No, but they were trying to navigate this new humanity in a hostile environment. (Three of these churches were in Islamic contexts.) I am trying to communicate in the North American context what I have seen and experienced here, in Europe and in Africa…

Why our democracy is currently broken

I have felt for some time that our much-heralded democratic government is not working. This documentary gives voice to many of the reasons for this. We have moved past the point of being able to cordially dialog on issues of common concern. Corporate dollars determine media slants. Marketing firms provide branding for candidates, and so called "debates" are measured successful to the degree the candidate stayed "on message." I am embarrassed by some statements made by my fellow Christians in this movie, even as I am chagrined at the historical naivete of some on the left, even though they are educators on the collegiate level. As it looks to me now, the logjam will only be broken by the emergence of a set of issues (or one gigantic one) that drives us out of our boxing corners into mutually-deferential dialog. War doesn't even unite us anymore.

Onward Christian Soldiers?

A friend sent me the link to this video and asked me to comment on it, which I think I will do here since I would value interaction on this very important issue. In fact, I believe the matter of Christians interacting about Islam is one of the most vital issues of our time, and likely will be for the next 50 years.

Colonel West has answered the question as we would expect a Colonel to answer it. Plus, he is articulate and well read. My point is, West is viewing the issue from the standpoint of national security and military might. He is looking at Islam through the lens of the terrorist threat, and sees the historical agenda of Islam to expand and conquer through military and social needs (he doesn't mention that Muslims buy schools and dig wells, offering the services of such only to those who subscribe to Islam; someone converting to another religion is ostracized, disenfranchised from such services, and disowned by family if not killed. In many countries, oil money from the Middle East funds the construction of mosques every mile or so in order to put forth a presence for Islam leading to the conversion of the entire country). The threat to American security is real. I am not a student of the Q'uran but I am quite confident there are many verses calling Muslims to violence against those who do not believe.

But let's be fair. It is possible the Bible outnumbers the Q'uran in such statements. Reading the Old Testament is a bloody journey, and one shutters to imagine how our loving Father could prescribe so much violence even against innocents, and chastise leaders who failed to obey His commands to slaughter entire cities. I know God always had a good purpose for the training of Israel, but if we're counting violent verses let's not pretend the Q'uran corners the market.

This leads me to a related issue that is also of grave concern to me, and looms as a huge part of the story of how our Christian faith is going to fare in America over the next 50 years (And here I will promptly get myself in trouble with many of my friends). The military mindset expressed so well and properly by Colonel West has become the perspective of the Republican party which in turn has become the passion of many, if not most, conservative evangelicals (especially those of us who are white and established). "Syncretism" is a word that describes the blending of beliefs such that a new belief system is created; it is normally not intended to describe an improvement but a pollution of the original belief. Syncretism as on the march (excuse the pun) in conservative evangelicalism, and this subject reveals one of the main areas where the words and example of Jesus are being hijacked by a military-political-economic agenda.

Here is my heart longing. I know the Church in these United States numbers in the millions. What if we could condense ourselves and walk alongside Jesus as He walks through the towns and cities of America, the way He once walked with His disciples through fields of grain telling them He is Lord of the Sabbath, telling them that His ways and laws were higher than the current thinking of the day? Watching Him interact with the poor and proudly rich, would we not see things so differently? I think He would agree that Colonel West has a very valid point; that there is great cause for concern. But wouldn't Jesus then tell us how He loves all people, including those embedded in the culture of Islam and Hinduism and atheism? Wouldn't He tell us, His followers, that He is not desirous that any of them perish? Wouldn't He tell us not to put our own safety and security as our top priority, but to instead be willing to take up our cross daily and trust Him with our very lives? I think He would tell us to lay down our rights to the American dream and join the majority of the world community that struggles daily with insecurity.

I've gotten wordy with these comments. I think my bottom line is that we are citizens of a temporary country called the United States (with leaders, policies and values that change) alongside our citizenship in an eternal Kingdom (led by the King of kings, whose principles are unchanging). I am thankful for politicians who work to make this a blessed place to live, and I thank the veterans who defend this land. My personal struggle is to be a faithful citizen in both arenas while keeping my eternal loyalty to Jesus as the main filter through which I view everything and make my decisions.

"Kingdom" restraint, please

I have heard the word "kingdom" used in a variety of ways, some of which confuse or trouble me. Specifically, I am concerned when "kingdom" is used in ways that distinguish it from the Church (i.e. the universal church consisting of all believers in Christ).

For example, a Christian pastor is "kingdom-minded" if he cooperates with leaders from other churches and denominations. The sentiment is, "He isn't building his own kingdom, but really wants to work with others." Why not say he is a servant leader, or that he is humble. Does the use of "kingdom" in this instance add clarity? Shouldn't all pastors cooperate with other Christian leaders?

Here is another usage that I have trouble agreeing with. Let's say Christian leaders cooperate with leaders from different religions (like Islam, Hinduism, etc.) as well as leaders from the political or civic community. They cooperate on a cause, such as ending human trafficking or feeding the poor. This is sometimes labeled a "kingdom cause." This implies that the work of the Church is different from kingdom work. Why is this troublesome? Because it could infer that the kingdom (i.e. of God) consists of doing good, of bettering society, while (again, possibly inferred) the work of the Church is more restrictive. Is not the Church to be doing good and bettering society in the name of Christ? One could draw the conclusion that the Church is sectarian and non-cooperative while the kingdom joins forces with others. It could infer that the Church should not rub shoulders with politicians or leaders of other religions (while kingdom workers can). I think this diminishes the role of the Church. I would rather see our understanding of the work of the Church expanded such that it moves into the marketplace of ideas and initiatives, partnering with non-Christian groups, but doing so not because truth has been temporarily set aside for the purpose of inter-religious cooperation, but as a vibrant conveyor of truth in Christ that willingly risks criticism as it works alongside others who differ.

So, I hesitate to entertain the dichotomy between the Church and the kingdom. If God wants His kingdom to move in and take action, should that not be the very terrain the Church should traverse? Many issues and causes belong to the domain of kingdom, the subjects of which ARE the Church, such as: proclamation of the message of salvation, demonstration of the power of God in working of miracles, healing the sick, setting captives free, ending abuse, delivering from addictions, caring for the planet, improving neighborhoods, reducing crime, digging wells, etc. Which of these should not be the concern of the Church? Again, rather than create a dichotomy between Church and kingdom, why not expand the role of the Church to the extent which (I believe) God intends?

Having argued this way, I will now (ironically) add that I have thought of one way in which the kingdom of God involves a sphere in which the Church has not been asked to go: the sovereign rule of God in the universe and history. God's rule, which comes from His being the King of His Kingdom (and of course Jesus Christ receiving/inheriting that Kingdom, Dan. 7), extends to His sovereign control of the universe He created. The Godhead sustains that universe today (Col. 1), a task the Church has not been called upon to share with God (though we are to be caring for the creation... a far cry from being in control of it as ruler). We do not control the meta-narrative of history (unless perhaps one subscribes to Open Theology); yes, we play our part in our spheres of influence, which are important in their own way, but that does not elevate us to sharing control with the King as to how things go for the world. In (at least) these ways, the Church is distinct from the Kingdom of God.

So I come back to lobbying for a more restrained use of "kingdom," a use which enlarges the capacity of the Church.