By Steve Higginbotham
In 2013, when the “Black Lives Matters” movement began, I took offence. I immediately rebutted with, “All Lives Matter.” I felt that such a statement elevated one race above another, rather than acknowledging that everyone has worth.
I was wrong.
I have done a lot of reflection since then and have come to realize that to bring emphasis to one truth does not mean you’re discounting another truth. In affirming “Black Lives Matter,” no one is suggesting that “All Lives Don’t Matter.” Rather, it is an attempt to bring attention to the fact that one of the injustices of our culture is that some have not treated “Black Lives” as if they mattered.
Upon further reflection, I have discovered that we have a difficult time recognizing many truths without feeling compelled to offer a caveat along with that truth. When brethren respond to “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter,” it isn’t necessarily a “racist” reply, but a genuine, though misguided, attempt to “balance” complementary truths. I say it’s not “racism” because, upon reflection, I have come to realize we do it with many truths that have nothing to do with race. For instance:
Let a brother preach or teach a lesson on “salvation by faith,” and watch how quickly it will be challenged if it doesn’t involve a discussion of baptism. We often feel the need to offer a counterpoint, and say something like, “but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to be baptized.” Can we not allow the true statement, “salvation is by faith” stand, without complimenting or trying to balance that truth with another truth?
Have you ever heard a sermon on the thief on the cross without it involving a discussion of baptism? Is the story of the thief on the cross really about baptism, or is it about the scope of God’s grace? Why must the truth about the scope of God’s grace always be moderated by his truth about baptism?
Let a brother preach on “the role of women” and watch how he will be challenged if he does not develop what isn’t her role. In fact, I’ve heard sermons on the “role of women” that did not even touch on her role but simply expounded upon what her role was not.
The list could go on, but these might be sufficient to help us recognize that we can affirm a truth without needing to, at the same time, offer complimentary truths.
I can say, “Black Lives Matter” (period). It’s true. I needn’t complement that with another truth that affirms, “All Lives Matter.” In a time when many in our culture act as though black lives don’t matter, can we not affirm the truth that “Black Lives Matter” without diluting that truth with other truths? Let it stand as is! There’s a time and a place for injecting the worth of all people, “red and yellow, black and white,” but there may also be a time to affirm, individually, the worth of each (Ecclesiastes 3:1).
I believe now is such a time. Black lives matter!