photo-1556865897-3e02fedb1774

Are There Good Reasons to Opt Out of the BLM Movement?

If you have questions or concerns about the Black Lives Matter movement, does that make you racist—or suggest that you don’t believe “black lives matter?” Of course not. But if Americans were needing a reminder of why not, Jonathan Isaac just provided it.

Is racism a problem in society today? Absolutely.  

Do Black lives matter? Infinitely so.  

Do those who agree on both of these points also agree on how to demonstrate and live them out in society today?  

Not at all.  

It’s the third point that many people are overlooking—or missing entirely. Recently, I raised a question about the Black Lives Matter movement in correspondence with a friend—prompting a quick response, “So, what are you saying—that black lives don’t matter?” 

Do we really believe there is a single perspective out there on how best to support the African-American community?

Last week, I similarly heard from a friend of mine who had shared her own concerns with some aspects of the agenda outlined on the original Black Lives Matter website— prompting the same reaction from the person listening, “So, do you believe black lives matter?”  

By now, many have had experiences like this where genuine questions or concerns about the BLM movement are met with reactions that presume only one reason people might feel such resistance or opposition to the movement. 

To that, many of us want to ask in reverse: Do we really believe there is a single perspective out there on how best to support the African-American community—or are there multiple, valid points of view? 

Since the answer to that question is, once again, no longer obvious to many in this country, any curiosity or question can swiftly be experienced as overt hostility to black people. 

But why? Should it really be so surprising that, along with many other important aspirations, we might hold unique views about reaching the goal?  And if so, shouldn’t we expect similarly robust conversations about how to pursue this one?  

One man standing

Just a year ago, it was still a unique anomaly for any professional athlete to be kneeling or sitting out the national anthem. Those who did so received major public attention, along with frequent institutional pressure to conform with the standard of standing for the anthem. 

The tables have now turned, with anyone choosing to remain standing now the outlier sticking out. As the NBA’s season started recently, with each passing game every player chose to kneel during the national anthem. 

Until Jonathan Isaacs. Not only did he choose not to kneel, but Isaacs also opted out of wearing a BLM T-shirt now ubiquitous in NBA warm-ups. 

But, again, why and how would a black man choose to not publicly support Black Lives Matter? 

His decision naturally invoked a great deal of shock, curiosity, and confusion. And yet the first question asked of this man by a reporter in the press conference shouldn’t have been surprising: 

“Do you believe that Black lives matter?”

“Absolutely,” Isaac said.

Underscoring the strangeness of the line of questioning put to him, Isaacs later reminded reporters that he “grew up black” and had “a black little brother.”  Even so,  this newly ordained minister admitted, “a lot went into my decision” but “I don’t think that kneeling or putting on a T-shirt for me, personally, is the answer.”

Why not? 

“For me,” he continued, “my life is supported through the gospel of Jesus Christ . . . I feel like, for me, Black lives are supported through the Gospel. All lives are supported through the Gospel.”

Say what? One mystified reporter asked him the question Americans now ask many people of faith when it comes to many issues: what does “religion have to do” with any of what’s actually going on (police brutality, racial injustice, etc.)? 

The answer that Isaac went on to provide in this short press conference was nothing short of remarkable, and I would argue provides a poignant illustration of how the core problem definition implicit in Christian faith and scripture differs so markedly from so much of the rhetoric we’re hearing all around us. 

Especially in two main ways. 

The underlying problem behind the civil unrest.

Americans have been hearing more and more that where you were born and the color of your skin leads to a radically different set of experiences, possibilities, pains, and hopes—differences that are fundamental, intrinsic, and gaping. From this vantage point, as Jonathan Chait summarized in New York Magazine, “the individual is subsumed completely into racial identity.”

Isaac started with a different focus entirely—emphasizing a profound, underlying commonality in human beings, without denying meaningful differences in experience: “Everyone is made in the image of God and we all share in His glory.” 

Then this man emphasized another experience he suggested as common to all of our experience: “Each and every one of us, each and every day, do things we shouldn’t. We say things we shouldn’t say. We hate and dislike people we shouldn’t hate and dislike.” 

In other words, we all make mistakes. We all sin. When one journalist probed why he wasn’t featuring a social justice message on his jersey, Isaac acknowledged that, yes, “Obviously there are things in our country that aren’t right, people that aren’t right”— but then, again, returned attention to the personal level: “And that goes for every single one of us, every single last one of us fall short of God’s glory.”

I personally found this as contrasting sharply with rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum that highlights the distinctive, glaring mistakes of Those People—“the police” or “the protesters” depending on which side you are on (or “the liberals” or “the conservatives,” etc.). Pointing towards this rhetoric, Isaac then said, “Sometimes we get to the point where we point fingers about whose evil is worse, and sometimes it comes down to simply whose evil is most visible.” Yet directing attention back to the scriptural message of the universality of human betrayal of what is good, he repeated again, “We all, like I said, have things that we do wrong. The Bible tells us that we all fall short of God’s glory.”

It’s not just race where we’re falling short.

According to Isaac (and the scripture he references), it’s not only the police who fall short of God’s glory, or the protesters. It’s also journalists, politicians, and the millions of American onlookers at home. 

Furthermore, it’s not just race where we’re falling short. As Isaac points out, “When you look around, racism isn’t the only thing that plagues our society, that plagues our nation and plagues our world.”  That’s why, he explained, he felt strongly about “coming together on that message that we want to get past not only racism but everything that plagues our society.” 

Everything that plagues our society? However difficult it seems to eradicate just racism, you’re suggesting we take on every betrayal of goodness in the world, Isaac? 

Pretty bold. So, how exactly is that grand vision ever to come to pass? 

The ultimate solution to societal unrest we’re facing.   

Jonathan Isaac then said the following: “I feel like the answer to that is gospel . . . the end of the day, whoever will humble themselves and seek God and repent of their sins, then we could see it in a different light—see our mistakes and people’s mistakes in a different light, see people’s evil in a different light.”

Consider how different this proposed solution is from the loud demands being raised right now across our land. Rather than just pointing the finger at Those People (liberal/conservative, black/white, protester/police), the gospel message invites us all to look inside—and in the mirror itself. 

But why? To ignore the aching injustice and “real problems around us”? Not at all. 

All of that still matters—to God and anyone who seeks to follow His Son. But as scripture underscores, the answers to all the injustice must begin in each of us—in order to be able to do what God wants us to do and change what God wants to see changed.  

That’s not something we need to do alone, however. As Isaac elaborated, “So I felt like I wanted to take a stand on [the reality] that we all make mistakes but the Gospel of Jesus Christ says there is Grace for us and Jesus came to die for our sins. If we all come to an understanding of that and God wants to have a relationship with us. . . .”

“And that,” he continued, “would help bring us closer together and get past skin color, get past anything that’s—you know, on the surface that doesn’t really deal with the hearts of men and women.”

Hold up—did he just say “get past skin color”? Yes—and more than once, as he reiterated a goal that “we can get past skin color and all the things that are messed up and jacked up.”

“We’re protesting and doing things to get something done” he added—in an acknowledgment of the many seeking change. Then he said, “And I’m standing to get something done as well—to get out of the realm of skin color and see all the things that we all do each and every day that aren’t right. And come to an understanding that, at the end of the day, the answer to it all—to all of our problems—to everything that goes on in our world, is Jesus.”

Wow. To say that people had a hard time understanding his answer would be an understatement. For the next ten minutes, the mystified reporters peppered him with all sorts of follow-up questions. 

And no wonder. What Isaac had just articulated in a few minutes was at odds with the taken for granted assumptions driving not only the entire NBA—but protests in cities across the nation. 

Rather than a war between black and white, Isaac testified this was a war requiring all of us to be united against something we all need to confront inside. And in sharp contrast to those who propose skin color as differentiating fundamentally different kinds of human beings, this man again bravely highlighted the fundamental unity among the family of God—a unity that Christ asks His disciples to seek. Finally, in contrast to those who insist the answers lie primarily in dismantling systems, institutions, and practices around us, Jonathan stood firm in emphasizing an answer that begins in only one place. 

And one person: Christ. 

“I think that I just wanted to take that stance in saying that I believe that Jesus is the answer, so I didn’t think that wearing a message on the back of my jersey was the answer for me.”

No other path, according to Jonathan Isaac, was going to really lift Black lives in a way he would stand for. And so he wasn’t going to kneel for it. Or wear what would have made everyone like him. 

Of course, many other Christians see some overlap between Black Lives Matter and the redemptive message of Jesus—denying any legitimate conflict as existing. For instance, Catholic columnist Elizabeth Breunig recently portrayed this as an “imagined conflict between Christianity and today’s anti-racism movement.”

Others have agreed with Isaac—including Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic writer, who argued in July that Black Lives Matter and Christianity are “fundamentally incompatible world views.” Bishop Thomas A. Daly of Spokane, Wash., likewise stated in July: “BLM is in conflict with Church teaching regarding marriage, family and the sanctity of life. Moreover, it is disturbing that BLM has not vocally condemned the recent violence that has torn apart so many cities.”

Which is why individuals like Jonathan Isaac believe that Black Lives Matter (the organization and movement) may not be the right approach for those who believe that Black lives matter. 

Even though a national debate on all this is ongoing, the consequences fall much heavier on those dissenting from the popular Black Lives Matter message. And when asked how he arrived at what must have been a difficult decision, Isaac admitted being aware “it was going to be something that people had a lot of questions for me and questioned my heart, questioned my love, questioned my morality for not wearing the T-shirt or taking a knee.”

Yet he had to do what felt right. Along with spiritual mentors, he said, “I leaned on God’s word, and the promises” in making the decision. 

He underscored the love he had for his teammates—and emphasized, “For me personally, it’s not coming from a position of wanting to be popular or wanting to be seen or wanting to be anything other than a humble follower of Jesus. That’s where I stake my flag.”

Something more (and less) than a deconstruction of systems may be needed.

Many made it clear how much they disliked the fact that a black man was publicly dissenting, disrupting the optics of all black people supporting this movement, and drawing attention away from its message (towards another message). NBA writer Vincent Goodwill of Yahoo! Sports, for instance, suggested that Isaac took a potentially powerful moment to push for more concrete change and gave fuel to those looking for the OK to push views that undermine necessary social change.

Is there more than one way to support Black lives?

Which brings us back to the question we started with: Is there really only one legitimate perspective on how to support the black community in seeking peace and joy? 

The answer is—or should be—clearly no. But that’s not so clear or obvious to anyone anymore. 

Which is why raising your voice, like Jonathan Isaac demonstrated, is so important for all Christians. 

Testify. And bear witness. 

Of another way to think about all this—and another way to respond. Reminding people that something more (and less) than a deconstruction of systems may be needed. 

Something that goes far deeper—and far beyond that. 

A change of heart that only God can bring to pass. 

In all of us. 

About the author

Jacob Z. Hess

Jacob Hess is a contributing editor at Deseret News and publishes longer-form pieces at PublishPeace.net. He co-authored "You're Not as Crazy as I Thought, But You're Still Wrong" and “The Power of Stillness: Mindful Living for Latter-day Saints.” He has a Ph.D. in clinical-community psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Jacob is a staff writer and Latter-day Saint Voices editor at Deseret News.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Upcoming Religious Liberty Cases

With the Supreme Court at the front of center stage in the American public eye, the upcoming religious liberty cases are seeing a lot of light.

Truth, Justice, and the BYU Way

A retrospective on Elder Jeffrey Holland’s BYU staff talk and what the fierce response by some suggests about this distinctive school’s place in the ailing American university system.

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven: Episode 4, “Church and State”

Summary — The episode begins with the detectives checking in on Bishop Low’s home, which they find ransacked and deserted. Pyre finds a letter written by Ron’s wife to the Prophet expressing concern about her husband’s refusal to pay taxes. The detective contacts the Church about the letter and is told the letter was handed down to one of the bishop’s counselors, LeConte Bascom, who works at the bank. Brother Bascom says he had to turn Ron down for a loan because his brother’s refusal to pay taxes made him a liability, though it’s heavily implied that the real reason is that his wife’s letter was seen as an embarrassment to the Church. In flashbacks, we see Dan marching in a Pioneer Day parade, shouting about the government’s illegal taxes, as well as smoking and kissing a woman who isn’t his wife. Dan’s father says he’s ashamed of his immoral behavior and anti-tax nonsense and advises him to study the scriptures to set himself back on the right path. This unfortunately drives Dan into researching more obscure history of the Church, including information on polygamy.  He makes a business trip down to Colorado City to visit the breakaway polygamist sect there and manages to get the name of a pro-polygamy pamphlet called “The Peace Maker.” He reads this pamphlet and brings up the idea to his wife Matilda, telling her she’s limiting his spiritual power if she doesn’t let him marry a second wife.  During this conversation, Dan is pulled over for speeding and refuses to cooperate with the officer, leading them on a police chase that ends with his arrest. At the jail, Dan’s brothers try to convince him to stop his resistance to the government. Ron feels it’s his responsibility to show Dan the error of his ways, but instead, Dan runs circles around him, leaving him speechless and admitting that he’s going to lose his business and home. Dan somehow turns this fact into evidence that his views are correct and ends up winning over Ron to his side. In the present, Detective Pyre is being leaned on by the Laffertys’ stake president to release them into his custody but refuses. The detectives have identified the car the killers were probably using and plan to hold a press conference to ask for tips when the police chief returns from vacation and demands that all mentions of fundamentalism Mormonism be scrubbed from the press briefing. (It’s implied he’s being leaned on by the Church.) Pyre tries to toe the line at the conference but eventually caves to a persistent reporter and admits that he thinks that the murders may have something to do with fundamentalist beliefs. The next day at church, the ward is shunning the Pyres, and a specific couple is assigned to keep an eye on their faith. Meanwhile, a police officer has located Bishop Low fly fishing in the mountains and safe. Church History — During Dan’s explanation of polygamy, we get flashbacks to the infamous scene where Emma finds out about the doctrine of polygamy for the first time and throws the revelation in the fire. Though church members will be familiar with this story, the tone is portrayed very differently than we are used to. Emma is shown as being absolutely skeptical of Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon and other prophetic acts, even though she firmly testified of the truth of these things even after her break with the Church after Joseph was murdered. Joseph is portrayed as proclaiming the doctrine of polygamy only for his own physical gratification, which is a common anti-Mormon trope with little evidence behind it. While it is true that one of Joseph’s wives was only 14, the facts behind the situation are more complex than portrayed in the show. The pamphlet “The Peace Maker” is portrayed by Dan Lafferty as an “essential LDS tract” written by Joseph Smith, and no one in the show ever corrects this perception. In fact, the tract was not written by Joseph Smith, and he repudiated it during his lifetime. This episode presents a slanted view of church history, giving only one side of the conversation and showing the modern church as trying to hush it up rather than having its own interpretation of events. Shibboleths — Pyre claims that writing a letter to the prophet is like writing to “Heavenly Father himself,” which is absolutely wrong. While members of the Church do revere the prophet and listen to his teachings, he is not God, and this equivalency is not one Saints would make (though outsiders think we do). The idea that doing business with fundamentalists is like “doing business with the mafia” is totally alien to me. They are regarded as somewhat of an oddity in Utah, but not dangerous like organized crime. One unusual phrase occurs when the stake president claims that the Laffertys need to be released into his custody for “healing prayer.” I honestly have no idea what this phrase refers to and have never heard it in an LDS context. And the formal type of shunning portrayed happening to the Pyres is not something we do. Though obviously, wards vary in their culture, there is no formal instruction not to talk to those who have questions. Rather, we are encouraged to keep being friends with those who are struggling with faith and support them however we can. Changing History — It is interesting to note that in the actual chain of events, it was Sister Low, not Bishop Low, who was on the Lafferty hit list. Sister Low was a Relief Society President who supported Dan’s wife as she sought a divorce. Why does the show change this? Perhaps the idea that the Church has female leaders doesn’t fit well with the show’s depiction of the oppression of women in the LDS church. Brenda Lafferty’s sister has also expressed her disappointment with the way the show is misconstruing her sister’s murder in pursuit of an

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This