(Self) Righteous Indignation
if "Jesus is Lord"
In 1973 something extraordinary happened at the Academy Awards. Rather than accept his Oscar, Marlon Brando sent a woman going by the name of Sacheen Littlefeather, in full ceremonial Apache dress, member of the Apache, and president of the “Native American Affirmative Image Committee” to decline his award. Reading a letter that Brando wrote, she explain that Brando could not in all good conscience accept the Oscar for Best Actor. Brando felt indignation on behalf of Native Americans (now called First Nations) for the way in which they’d been treated by the film industry. Go ahead and watch the video. I’ll wait.
This seems very noble; a stark visual reminder of Native American representation and the way they’d been portrayed in movies as “the bad guys.” But before you applaud, there’s something important to realize. Sacheen Littlefeather was not Apache nor Native American. Maria Louise Cruz “said her father was of Apache and Yaqui ancestry and her mother was of European descent. Shortly after Littlefeather's death, Navajo writer and activist Jacqueline Keeler interviewed Littlefeather's two sisters, who said that their family is not Native American and that Littlefeather fabricated her Native American ancestry. They also said that their father, who was born in Oxnard, California, was of Spanish-Mexican descent and had no tribal ties.”1
If this seems absurd, it’s because it is. It is absurd to have someone pretend to be Native American, speaking as a Native American, as a representative of someone winning an award, that is not Native American. In fact, it mocks the very people it seeks to advocate. It would be like a white actor sending a white person in black face to talk about racism against blacks. Oh wait. That also (kinda) happened, but not at the Oscars. Rachel Anne Dolezal is white, but desperate to be viewed as black. That allowed her not only to talk about her own racial discrimination, but also to feel indignation on the part of blacks. She believed she could empathize because she too is black…despite having been born to two white people. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “absurd” as “ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous.”2 But I prefer the Cambridge Dictionary definition of, “stupid and unreasonable, or silly in a humorous way; things that happen that are stupid or unreasonable.”3
Stupidity is everywhere. And when it is pared with indignation, stupidity can become emotionally charged. Joe Biden could not be called “old” until George Clooney wrote an OpEd. We’re screamed at by (either) political party to be kinder and more tolerant in the most unkind and intolerant ways. It seems everyone wants kindness for those who already agree with their views. Gender is just a construct, until the biology clashes with reality. Turns out that sports reveals quite a bit about reality of gender, which is why MMA has its own gender classification.
Here’s the thing about indignation: It has good roots (justice for others), but can quickly turn into a form of “self-indignation” that is absurdist. And this leaves the Christian with a quandary.
It is that quandary that I’m going to address and explore. I do so in the interest of the reader who may see so much beautiful about Christians advocating for good in the world in the name of often contrasting causes. But to do so, we should at least compare it to the status quo without Christ, which is much of what I describe above. In holding indignation on behalf of others, humanity often skews realities. And though post-modernity may say that perception is itself reality, we should remind ourselves of the Cruz and Dolezal dilemma: just because you created your own reality, doesn’t make it real (or helpful). The emperor may perceive he wears the finest clothes and be naked as the day he was born.4 Movies create perceived realities that are works of fiction. The moment I think Avatar is real - regardless of how I bend my life around that reality - only furthers evidence of my disconnect with reality. And trust begins with a mutal agreement on reality. All great vision and progress begins with a hard look at reality not as we perceive it, but how it is. In the Christian world, it doesn’t matter if the church perceives itself as friendly and welcoming. It matters if, in actuality, they are. What we tend to forget societally is that the dissonance between revisionist history or present experiences and reality is to be embraced, not shunned. We may not like the dissonance, but it is a kindness for us, because it keeps us grounded, humble, and with an opportunity to improve. Remember that it is the job of the comic to point out absurdities about us. What makes humor work is our recognition of the dissonance, and the knowledge that stupidity should be laughed at and not lauded.
Here is the quandary for a Christian: How do we seek justice and love mercy? How do we champion the discarded (e.g. the parable of the Good Samaritan, Beatitudes on poverty and generosity, etc.) while also recognizing self-efficacy and volition? What do we celebrate and what do we eschew? And how do we keep helping from hurting the people or issue we’re trying to help?
If Jesus directs His people as Lord, why are so many of His people professing a (self?) righteous indignation at everyone and everything? My Facebook feed is full of Christians telling other Christians how wrong they are and how, if they would just listen to Jesus, then they would arrive at the same position they hold. On the one hand, if spiritual maturity is a process (which it is), and if being with God’s people means being sharpened by God’s people (the wounds of a friend (Prov. 27:6)) then the indignation we express is designed to exhort, warn, and help. On the other hand, how do so many turn into jerks in the process? And why is it more and more difficult to tell them apart from those who profess Jesus is Lord over their attitudes and actions? Shouldn’t there be a distinction?
The short answer is, “yes.” But that “yes” is not a simplistic answer. And the reason for that is that the work of the Holy Spirit is so individual, collective, and distinct. We long for justice (one day - complete justice!). But we were shown mercy. Justice means no chance to reconnect with a holy God. If the standard is justice, then mercy is meant to be an exception from the justice. But some want mercy to be the standard rather than the exception because we are told to be merciful. What most Christians try to navigate is the application of God’s instruction in the current Zeitgeist. We know due to the brokenness of the world that there will always be more issues to help “right.” We also know that we’re to live in the kingdom of God (i.e., where Jesus reigns as Lord) with the practices that match being a part of that kingdom. But we also know that only Jesus ushers in the kingdom and only he will replace the current world with His perfect kingdom. At heart, what we’re doing is “coping” with the reality that Jesus is real and is Lord of our lives. And we’re doing so in a variety of contexts and backgrounds.
So, where is the common ground all Christians share? How do we embrace righteous indignation from self-righteous indignation on behalf of others (which is always the easier justification for the manufacturing of our own emotional outrage)? How do we avoid revisionist history in the name of empathy? Difficult questions. Fuller answers for another day. But let’s set the “Christian” bedrock:
I. Our example is Jesus. We can be as outraged as He is and no further.
Judas betrayed Jesus not because he was trying to be rich, but because he was disappointed as a Zealot that Jesus was not overthrowing the political oppression of the Roman Empire. When we read Scriptures, we find that Jesus said very little about the political oppression that was so evident of his context. I read of no marches or protests in which He participated (and there were plenty in his day). One reason for the Triumphal Entry was the thought that this man who did miracles and healed the sick and cast out demons would miraculously stand up for the oppressed against the oppressors. And so the people cried out for "Barabbas” to be released and Jesus to be killed. After all, what good is someone claiming to be God if he won’t physically overthrow oppression and defend His people?
And when Jesus returns, we find little about rectifying political oppression at the end of the world. Instead we find justice metted out on a grand scale. He comes in the clouds and then…boom! Turns out that mercy has an expiration date.
This is not to say that God does not ask us to champion “causes.” Racism, poverty, prisoners, the sick, the handicapped, the orphan, etc. are all addressed in Scriptures. We’re asked to zig where society tends to zag. And this has led to the creation of hospitals, orphanages, prison ministries & rehabilitations, empathy and organizations on behalf of the physically or mentally challenged, etc. These are all historically uniquely Christian because of the Christ who compels us to engage.
But because Jesus is our example, we dare not put the cart in front of the proverbial horse. Jesus did not heal all sick, cast out all demons, nor instruct us to place our hope in His miracles. Constantly, He reminded us that the miracles are there to drive us to the Man (Himself). The miracles are a demonstration of His power, and are there as an invitation to submission and intimacy with Him. The demoniac can have “Legion” cast out, but if he does not submit to Jesus as Lord, the demons return. Championing the poor is a good thing, but our hope is not in a rich society where everyone can afford everything. We know from the rich that rich is, in itself, not related to happiness or meaning. The sick can be healed, but what of the forgiveness of sins (re-read Mark 2, where the forgiveness of sins precedes any form of healing). Jesus knew that sick is bad, but forgiveness of sins is the greater healing. We can work for healing, but ultimately, we should recognize it’s better to be sick and know Jesus than be healthy and not know Him.5
The challenge for the Christian, then, is keeping perspective on the priorities of Jesus as demonstrated by His life, while also seeking the welfare of the people around us. In seeking the welfare of all people, we must always strive to first recognize that sin is a bigger problem than systems. Any societal solution must keep the “sin” in view as well.
II. In a reactionary world, the Christian basis for action is not based on reactions.
Culture and society are pendulum swings. What is en vogue today is out of style tomorrow. The Christian keeps in mind the following (Scriptural, though I’ll put it colloquial) maxim: All that glitters is not gold.
In indignation, we often seek to help others avoid consequences for actions (the mercy impulse). But avoidance of consequences isn’t always helpful or merciful. We learn through consequences. This is (very) evident all throughout Scriptures. Often, Jesus wants his disciples to experience the consequences of obedience and disobedience.
In other words, the parent can discipline and also be loving. Loving someone does not mean allowing them to do whatever they want or championing whatever they want. And this is difficult for many Christians to embrace because we have empathy. We know what it is to see a train coming and what it meant for someone to tell us there was a way off the tracks. Therefore, we proclaim the Word “in season and out of season.” But we must also honor the volition of people to destroy themselves. What we cannot do is to alter rules or systems so that the people have no sense of destruction. This brings us full circle to the idea of absurdity and perception. Some Christians view standards (with consequences) as unloving or unkind. And so they lower the bar. In fact, entire denominations have lowered God’s standards in the name of the “higher ethic” of love. And this is why active, practicing LGBTQIA+ members are allowed be pastors or leaders in some denominations. “Sin” is redefined based on what the practitioner of sin perceives as sinful. “Sin” becomes about perception, not reality. And this leads to the absurd. It’s difficult to say to a congregant “I know Scripture says this practice is sinful, but in the light of love, nothing is sinful” when the reality is that love demands a recognition of sin and submission to Jesus as Lord. Love is not a sentiment, but a holy Person. We may want to choose the areas of impact, but doing so simply puts us on the pedestal of our own lives. It is, in other words, unloving and unhelpful.
The nightmare scenario for the Christ-follower is that we remake Jesus in our own image. There is no hope in that because we see our own absurdity. And we know those who don’t are delusional.
What we do then, is to double-down not on what is popular, but what is perennial:
Every person was created with worth
Love gives us the choice to destroy ourselves
Ultimately, any personal transformation is a control issue requiring submission to Jesus as Lord.
Salvation comes with that submission.
With transformation comes societal change because we behave under the Lordship of Jesus.
We can disagree with our former selves (non-Christians) and still be loving.
We’re ambassadors, sons and daughters of God, the bride of Christ. What pours from our lives should first filter through Whom we represent.
We’ll get it wrong (often). Thankfully, we know how to laugh at ourselves, cry over our mistakes, and repent. We’ve already given ourselves up, so we have a good basis for continuing to do so over and over again. God’s steadfast love never ceases. His mercies never come to an end and are new for us each morning. And that is meaningful because the mercy is shown even as justice is upheld. The standards of holiness do not drop. And therefore, neither can ours.
I see Christians join in with reactionary throngs and my heart drops a little. Do I understand the sentiment and desire? Absolutely. But I’m tempted in all kinds of ways to behave under my “old self.” But I was bought with a price. The “new self” no longer participates in old ways. I do not join in with reactionary throngs, regardless of how good it makes me feel or how I could twist it to be a Christian cause. Rather, I first ask how it squares with Scripture and how my own expression reflects my Lord Jesus. If I am His ambassador, then surely how I represent Him matters (to Him and to me).
Having said all that…are Christians still in a quandary? Sure we are. There are a lot of challenging contemporary issues (CRSPR and bio-ethics, AI, shared cultural values and allegiances, gender, poverty, migration, political systems, etc.). Viewed rightly, however, the Christian need not panic because our foundation is sure. Our house is built on the Rock. Our example is Jesus. Because of that we can step out of the reactionary to thoughtful, Scriptural intentionality even as Jesus did. When others try to trap us, we speak insightfully and with wisdom. And we share - as often as we can to those who might listen - that Jesus is real, the Good News is available, and sacrificing ourselves to embrace that Good News means finding our true selves by the grace of God. And we do so with characteristics that reflect the character of God: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control. Against these things there is no law (Gal. 5:23).