Yesterday I posted a comment on my Facebook page about the Shirley Sherrod incident that went down this week. In 1984 Ms. Sherrod, while working for a public agency, was approached by a white man and his wife, who were seeking help against foreclosure on their farm. In a recent speech, Ms. Sherrod admitted that – at that time – she did not give the man the “full force” of the help she could have offered, admitting her bias toward white people. Well, one of the major news networks got their hands on a copy of that speech and, true to form, aired a sound bite from it, portraying Ms. Sherrod as a bigot and an advocate of reverse discrimination. Her current employer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, without viewing the entire speech, made a rush to judgment and asked for her resignation. It turns out that Ms. Sherrod only mentioned this incident that happened 24 years earlier because she hoped to offer the women she was addressing a “learning tool” they could reference when dealing with issues of discrimination and racial bias.
The Facebook comment I posted yesterday was congratulating the USDA for admitting their
mismanagement of the affair, and Ms. Sherrod has since received a personal telephone call from President Obama; AND, her reputation and dignity were restored, as well as her employment. It was refreshing to know that there are people in control who do have a sense of humility when admitting they’ve made a mistake. 
Today I visited my Facebook page to find that no one made any comment to yesterday’s post. This is my response to no response:
I'm guessing not too many people agreed with [yesterday’s] comment, since silence is golden; and that reinforces my opinion that racism does – in fact - still run rampant in this country - in both directions. There have been times that I've felt discriminated against when dealing with civil servants. It’s something you can never prove; you just know by the vibes you pick up. So, I was happy that Ms. Sherrod was actually admitting that those prejudices do exist. More importantly, I was happy she told the story so others could learn from her mistakes and possibly avoid the pitfalls of racial bias (Apparently, the USDA is trying to live down several other charges of racism within the agency).
I have to admit, I’m guilty of the same rush to judgment when standing in line to receive assistance … "C'mon, girl...you can afford that weave and those acrylic nails; and your clothes sure don't look like they came from the Salvation Army store; so what're you doin' here looking for a hand-out."
Whether we are willing to admit it or not, there are an infinite number of divisions in our society – clean/dirty, rich/poor, healthy/sick, thin/obese, handsome/not-so-handsome, manic/depressed, bright smile/snaggle-toothed – the list goes on and on. By the time we have watched someone walk up to our door from the street, we have pretty much sized them up and put them in a category box. Shirley Sherrod – through personal experience - knew about one major division that had the potential to create a deep chasm between people, especially if their pleas for help were to fall on deaf ears: she learned that it all boils down to the division between the haves and the have-nots: the high and the lowly.
As Christians in a democratic society – under God – we are called to lift each others burdens. Sometimes it’s hard to know if someone is truly in need or not; but Scripture says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Precisely due to that fear of being judged, some people will starve to death rather than ask for help. So, you can rest assured that, if anyone is reduced to asking for help, he or she is experiencing a great need. All of us should always be mindful of that. It might not be such a dire circumstance to us; but it might be to the person asking. And none of us should make assumptions based on first impressions or sound bites. The three “old school” ways of aiding the poor are: (1) handing them the cash without questioning how they plan to spend it, (2) slamming the door in their face, or (3) ignoring them altogether. In our cynical society, we drive right by someone holding a sign that says, “Will work for food” because we're either afraid they are an axe murderer, or they just want to get next to us to see what we have so they can come back some time when we’re not home. Loving our neighbor is a pretty tall order when you consider how much we love ourselves... and our stuff.
We should always take time to investigate a little bit to see if we are able to help or if we need to refer them on to someone else. To me, that is what the Church is supposed to look like – not just giving blindly (There are some very devious con artists out there), but by getting to know them and understanding the nature of their circumstances. We all win if we give ourselves the opportunity to teach them how to get it for themselves. Conversely, if we discover they are frauds, we can directly rebuke them for their behavior and love them in spite of it – within the confines of “safety first,” of course. For all we know, our own circumstances could change drastically tomorrow or next week. We can be up one day and the next day we're down. Someone is always the giver or the taker; the winner or the loser. So, in the words of Mary Chapin-Carpenter, we should never forget that “Sometimes you’re the windshield; sometimes you’re the bug.”
No comments:
Post a Comment