I've probably spent 10 hours reconstructing what happened at the Capitol. Censorship has made this process more difficult, but I think I've gotten about as far as I'll get at this point. Unpreparedness and chaos are both good words to describe what happened inside the Capitol. There were members of radical groups, including some sympathetic with Antifa who were present and did help instigate along with angry Trump supporters.

Hundreds of Trump supporters made it into the Capitol. The police were totally unprepared. In some instances the police let protestors near or inside the Capitol. In others, they retreated after struggling with protestors. The vast majority of the those who made it into the building were angry but peaceful, staying in walkway areas, picking up trash, etc. 

Many thought they were allowed in. Some of this is due to the fact they were not at the front of the line where, if there was a struggle, few witnessed it. Police officers giving directions and allowing selfies to be taken with protestors, etc. also contributed to this sense. 

It is important to realize that those in the front at the Capitol, where agitation occurred, could NOT have been present for all of Trump's speech, and most were probably not present for any of it. Those who listened and followed Trump's instructions arrived much later.

Trump called for a peaceful march, but some mainstream media reported that Trump supporters were storming the Capitol before his speech was even complete. The most loyal Trump supporters (who cared about his words) were not present for any of the initial confrontations.

The motive of the majority, as represented in video testimony, seems to be a somewhat naïve and sincere attempt to inform their representatives to not certify fraudulent electoral votes. There was a very small, but evil minority who stole items and disheveled offices etc.

The hundreds of thousands outside the Capitol, of which I was a part, had no idea of what happened inside. If the goal of the majority had been to have an "insurrection" there would have been one, and no one present could have stopped the crowd. The crowd did NOT want that.

This is further reinforced by the fact that many videos show Trump supporters tackling or confronting individuals they believe to be Antifa members who are damaging property outside the Capitol. We witnessed no property destruction and neither did hundreds of thousands.

I can't speculate about why most riot police were hours late, why Capitol police were ill prepared, and allowed and directed protestors to enter in some instances, why some of the outfits (helmets, tactical gear, etc.) worn in videos by protesters weren't present at the Trump rally, why the riot police who were present stood down, why multiple sources claim "Antifa" or some kind of group of radicals came from a different direction than those streaming in from the Trump rally (and the list goes on).

But, there are some conclusions I CAN reach that do not fit the media narrative. 

1) Trump did not call for violence. He called for peace in his speech, and again in a video Twitter deleted. 

2) 98% of attendees had no participation or knowledge about what took place inside.

3) Most of the hundreds who made it inside had no desire to harm anyone or anything and remained civil. 

4) After a young lady, who was not behaving violently, was unexpectedly killed by an officer those inside left and seemed both shocked and surprised violence occurred.

5) The lack of preparedness and incompetence on the part of whoever(s) controlled law enforcement can only be due to extreme negligence or evil intent. 

​6) Condemning Trump or his supporters as a group for what happened is simply lying.

​It is no secret that Southern Baptist leaders carry a large burden of white guilt for historic situations and symbols they consider insensitive to Americans blessed with African lineage. They are especially ashamed of their own denomination's history. And, interestingly, they think they somehow have the power to change the legacy of their self-assessed complicity through lamentation and other measures (a very "white" assumption from the perspective of Critical Race Theory advocates, if there ever was one).

In 1989, the Convention issued a statement against racism and bigotry. They apologized for slavery in 1995. In 1996, they made a statement condemning arson in African American churches. In 2007 they denounced the Dred Scott Decision. In 2015 there was another statement on racial reconciliation. The next year, they issued a statement against the Confederate Battle Flag. In 2017, the Convention adopted a resolution against “Alt-Right White Supremacy.”

In 2018, Danny Akin, the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary sponsored a resolution which, among other things, condemned the first president of the convention, William B. Johnson for promoting slavery in his inaugural address. Johnson's crime concerned his disagreement with the Mission Board in Boston, which "had placed itself in direct opposition to the Constitution of the Convention" by disqualifying slave-holders from becoming missionaries and had "failed to prove—That slavery is, in all circumstances, sinful." This resolution failed amidst the crowded slate of resolutions also condemning some form of, you guessed it, racism.

The Convention adopted a resolution against using the "Curse of Ham” as a justification for slavery, and another statement condemning racism. Add to this the various statements written, sponsored, or supported by Southern Baptist entities and one begins to swim in a sea of anti-racist statements all attempting to once-and-for-all rid the Convention of, as Al Mohler likes to call it, “the stain of racism.”

The latest attempt to use racial animosity as a pretext for societal revolution has afforded Southern Baptists yet another opportunity to condemn one of their most cherished subjects—racism. Prominent SBC pastors like Thabiti Anywabwile and David Platt encouraged marching with Black Lives Matter. The president of the Convention, J.D. Greear, called for the retirement of the “Broadus gavel”—deemed unholy for having been the unfortunate block of wood to have been in contact early on with a slave-holder and Confederate supporter. The Mississippi Baptist Convention took it upon themselves this week to condemn the Mississippi State Flag for its symbolic Confederate imagery.

As advocates of cheap bravery rush to show solidarity with the forces of revolution and obtain their unearned “pat on the head” from media elites, one wonders where this will all end? Perhaps, Southern Baptist comrades should showcase their fidelity to the revolution by demonstrating some, you know, REAL sacrifice. It will be easy for the scoffers and "exvangelicals" to see through token measures meant to placate other comrades. However, what if the SBC were to make a financial sacrifice for their oppressed minority brothers and sisters made in the image of God? What if Southern Baptists eliminated the Lottie Moon offering for the racism it is!

Think about it.

Lottie Moon was born into a "fifteen-hundred-acre tobacco plantation." Her father "was the largest slaveholder (fifty-two slaves) in Albemarle County" Virginia. Lottie never, that we know of, apologized for her privilege or her family's complicity in holding slaves.

In 1875, Lottie Moon said "Where the Caucasian goes, he carries energy and an inferior race is aroused by the contact." In 1876, Moon claimed that “self-respect” compelled her to reject any potential “decision of any Chinaman or body of Chinamen” to determine the place of her ministry. She likened such an affront to an “African church in Richmond” telling Dr. Warren where he could live. (Send the Light, 162) Moon was most likely referring to Dr. Edward Warren, who had been the medical inspector of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lottie Moon’s sister, Oriana Russell Moon Andrews, had served the Confederate Army as a nurse under Warren.

Also in 1876, Moon talked about another missionary, Mrs. Holmes, who didn't want to move and abandon her "duty to these poor heathen," but knew her son, Landrum needed to go to the United States. The boy would likely live with Methodist relatives "Northern in political sentiment," an arrangement whose influence Holmes was “not willing to subject her boy to.” Moon sought alternative arrangements for the boy to help him avoid what to her was an understandable negative situation. (Send the Light, 35)

In addition, Moon said Chinese funeral processions contained "barbaric pomp and show" in 1884. Two years later she proclaimed, concerning China, "The life here as we Western people consider life, is exceedingly narrow & contracted. Constant contact with people of a low civilization & many disgusting habits is a trial to one of refined feelings & tastes." In 1907, Moon opined that a large “Reunion of Confederate veterans” must have been “pleasant.” (Send the Light, 425)

This cursory sketch of some of Lottie Moon's views make it clear that if Southern Baptists want to truly show their loyalty to the spirit of the age, they will disband the Lottie Moon Christmas offering. As an added bonus, perhaps they should return 1.5 Billion dollars in funds collected in support for their colonization work they refer to as "missions." Western male Christians, exploiting the legacy of a "racist" white female, have tried to dominate the minds of brown-skinned members of minority religions for far too long.

Mr. Greear, tear down your idol. Cancel Lottie Moon.

​‪One of the reasons Christians have fallen prey to a social justice narrative is a previous capitulation to humanist ethical categories imposed on Christian concepts. Most of these shifts predated the current movement, but laid a linguistic foundation for it to succeed.‬

‪For example: Where does “the sin of racism” rank among biblical categories for sin? Racism, as it was defined, represented sin as it stood for arrogance on the basis of ethnicity. Unfortunately, biblical categories like “arrogance,” “pride,” and “partiality,” in their textual contexts became less used in favor of the catch all, and increasingly harder to define, “racism.” ‬

‪Is racism a preference, attitude, action, idea, or innate characteristic of privilege? If someone is romantically attracted to only certain ethnicities are they racist? If someone benefits from alleged systems of oppression without knowing it, are they racist? ‬

‪The word is easily untethered from biblical sin categories, yet many Christians seem to insist it is among the chief sins, along with misogyny, intolerance, homophobia, and general bigotry. In fact, these sins are so evil that, like the apostle said, it is a “shame” to even “speak of them.”‬

‪You will not find Christian accountability groups for recovering racists or misogynists, let alone these sins numbered with the church prayer request list. Pornography and alcoholism, actual biblical sins that have been redefined as “diseases,” are even more acceptable. ‬

‪Behind the etymological war stand two worldviews. Both compete to define man’s great problems. One says man’s problems arise from internal evil. The other, that they come from external inequities. Christians have increasingly confused symptoms for diseases, and accepted the egalitarian scheme for addressing man. ‬

‪This is the essence of today’s social justice. It will be the nature of tomorrow’s socialism. Most self proclaimed Christians will accept the second because they’ve allowed the definitions and terms of the first to replace biblical definitions. ‬

​The study of history cannot be neatly contained behind the tall foreboding doors of an ivory tower nor swept under the rugs of dusty corner offices housing stacks of paper. It bleeds into other fields as it serves to inform both individual and group identity. It gives context to the current world and helps one understand their place in it culturally, socially, and spiritually. The modern disinterest in studying history has more to do with a lack of identification with the subject matter presented than it does an actual disdain for stories of the past.  

Joyce Appleby, a former history professor at UCLA, sought to explain this controversy as a somewhat unsurprising development given the collective nature of history and the cultural change occurring in American culture. For example, Appleby, in discussing the inclusion of African-American experiences into the greater story of America, tells us that “incorporating these details of the African-American experience in national history . . . proved almost impossible, because they represented such an indigestible element in the tale of American democracy (Appleby, Telling the Truth About History, 299). In other words, the traditional consensus would not stand for African-American history that shown poorly on the greater narrative. Part of Appleby’s solution for attracting interest in the subject of history while avoiding the discarding of traditional concerns was to democratize the subject along pragmatic lines. A moderation intended to include newer groups who have been allegedly left out of the American story while still maintaining an overall group cultural identity was the goal. 

Appleby’s solution comes across in some ways as overly naive and optimistic. If her assessment is accurate the question then becomes, “Are disenfranchised groups desiring their cultural stories to be incorporated into the larger American story?” Perhaps this is taken for granted since the battle Appleby may have been observing was being played out in board room tug of war matches located in American history textbook manufacturing plants. It would be nice to think that everyone could “just get along,” but this is rarely the case over something so fundamental to national identity. The question is not asked, “Why do Irish, Italian, Jewish, German, and perhaps many Asian cultures not seem (broadly speaking) to have the same problems identifying with the American story as other minority groups, though they experienced varying degrees of bigotry as well?” Could it be that certain groups are not interested in history, especially American and Western history, not because they do not feel included, but rather because they fundamentally have a dislike or disagreement with the country in which they reside. They simply do not wish to identify. Perhaps the common ground with one’s culture necessary for even forming an identity is not present. It is likely that the only exposure to American or Western history known by many is a negative. Since the divide in this matter is also generational, this would certainly suggest that the proposed solution will not work. Appleby may as well have been trying to un-poison a well in that case. 

So how can history be made more relevant? Most humans do not wish to know a great deal about something they find offensive. Repulsion gives birth to avoidance. After all, if one knew their great-grandfather was a horse thief, drunk, and a swindler, how much more about their grandfather would they want to know, and would they ever make one of their children his namesake? If parents are not engaged in civic duties, families are too broken down to impart identity, and Hollywood produces art that vilifies American heroes, teaching names and dates will not suffice to cultivate an interest in a topic thought to stink in the first place. Though it be an up-hill battle, perhaps the only option available to the historian is to first become the philosopher. If the values passed down through law, legend, and lore are castigated as fundamentally offensive, then the values themselves are what need explanation and defense first, not the stories that flow from them.

If one thing remains clear it is this: All people use standards by which to judge those who preceded them. If the theme of American history is to be “how the people of the United States did terrible things and continue to do terrible things,” it would not come as a surprise that such a course would need to be mandatory in order to have any participation. The more moderate alternative (hinted at by Appleby), “how the people of the United States failed to live up to their values but are getting better” is not much of a rallying cry either. If the standard of measure for judging the past happens to be egalitarianism, there does not seem to be any way of recovering an interest in American history as a identity marker. Its main function will most likely be sacrificed on the alter of identity politics.

This article was originally published on WorldviewConversation.com on 9/3/2018.

​It was on this very week one year ago that I embarked on what would become a three hour informal debate with protestors beneath the shadow of the Silent Sam statue at UNC Chapel Hill. I was not sure what I was getting into at the time, but I knew someone had to stand up and say something. Getting angry on social media did not seem to be accomplishing much for me or those on my side of the debate. My goal in confronting the protestors was for myself as much as it was for them. I needed to see them for who they were. 
 
They were indoctrinated, ignorant, malicious, and dangerous. But, as much as their truth suppression had affected them, they were also broken, insecure, lost, and pathetic. Their moral compass off. Their God-given design marred. Their natural tendencies replaced by the unnatural. Yet they were still human and bore the image of their Creator whether or not they believed in Him. Yes they were culprits, but they were also victims of their own beliefs. They may have been my social and political enemy, but they were still my mission field—people I could reach and relate to on a deeper level, because I too, apart from God’s grace, was like them. My purpose in writing this is not to rehash the ins and outs of my three hour exchange. You can read about that here. Since the Silent Sam statue has now been destroyed likely by some of the same protestors I reached out to a year ago, I want to answer a question gnawing at the heart of many on my side of the debate. “What happened?” Not just as it relates to the mob that ripped down Silent Sam, but what happened to our young people? To our culture? 

As you may have known, unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last three years, what happened earlier this week is not unique. Countless demonstrations in favor of just about every cause on the “Left” or against every caused deemed to be on the “Right” have been the norm now since directly preceding President Trump’s election. In fact, a little over a year ago some of the same culprits who lawlessly tore down Silent Sam, tore down a Confederate monument in Durham. Our side (i.e. traditional Americans who think the admirable aspects of our heritage are worth preserving) has been pretty good at winning arguments, but we are not winning hearts. 

We can generally expose the absurdity of neo-Marxists using history and logic. “No, the Confederacy was not fighting to preserve slavery.” “No, the Founding Fathers were not trying to set up a government of white privilege and misogyny.” “No, Donald Trump is not a white supremacist,” and the list goes on. We back up our counterpoints with data, and can usually corner often younger, arrogant, inexperienced Leftists by applying their own standards to themselves (whether they’re listening close enough to spot their refutation is another story). We have a paradigm for reality that attempts to take into account all the facts, good, bad, and ugly. They usually have a belief based on what their professor told them substantiated by a “NowThis” video that can only survive by actively suppressing facts that do not fit the paradigm. 

So why are we not trouncing the opposition? Why do they not beat their swords into plowshares as they are dazzled by our impeccable logic? Why do they continue to attack what they often willfully do not understand? Why the vicious hatred for what we stand for even when we are nice? There are two sides of the coin in answering this question. The first side can be summed up in four words. 

Because they hate God. 

They kick against the goads of the natural order God has set up. They resent the constraints of gender, hierarchy, and privilege. They seek to rip down anything that reminds them of their station and the responsibility attached to it because on a core level they believe they are able to create their own version of reality in which they are god.They have faith in an egalitarian heaven here on earth. As an example focus on these words inscribed still at the base of Silent Sam. 

Obviously no white supremacy here. No racism. But we do find duty and hierarchy. Robert E. Lee’s famous dictum, “Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less,” defines this generation of men. About a year ago the self-crowning sophisticates at Duke University decided to take Lee’s statue off the side of Duke Chapel, though his figure was sitting right next to slaveholding Thomas Jefferson who’s statue was not removed. 

Could it be that slavery in and of itself is not really issue? We traditional Americans know this, but we tend to think those on the progressive side do not—that they are somehow duped into believing the war was “all about slavery.” So many of us start spitting facts at them about Northern complicity, the Morrill Tariff, how the Confederate constitution outlawed the slave trade, etc. and while that may work with many fellow conservatives who actually have been duped, it does not seem to make much of a dent when it comes to social justice warriors. 

If you remember nothing else, remember this. Social justice warriors cannot be convinced, they must be converted. I am not suggesting we abandon an intellectual defense of tradition, but I do think we ought understand the real issue so we can expand our focus. The protestors are not reacting against slavery per se. They are reacting against a culture of duty, hierarchy, and privilege—vestiges of which still exist in the Christianity, manners, and paternal nature of the South. Kicking the head of an inanimate statue makes no sense to someone who fails to understand the real issue. The statue is not lifeless to the protestor. It represents something very real, felt more than understood. It may have connections a broken family, abusive parents, and bad relationships, but more than anything it is connected with God. A God who would allow suffering. You think I am talking about slavery but I am not. I am talking about young men and women who think they do not deserve the hand they have been dealt. Nevertheless, they still seek for meaning in what they have been taught is a meaningless world. Deep down they suppress what they know in their heart of hearts: That the Creator’s meaning on this earth includes inequity and suffering. They cannot attack God directly so they go after the most accessible representation of Him they can get away with destroying. A statue that screams the reality of immaterial absolutes such as honor, declares an individual’s responsibility to his culture, and champions the ideal man from the high point of Christian civilization is a perfect target. Add the allurement of instant media attention (the only concept of meaning many of the social media generation can conceive of) and a police force that is ordered to stand down and you have a recipe for disaster. Intellectual arguments are necessary, but love is essential. 

As stated previously, hatred for God is the first side of the coin in answering why many of the young protestors are not persuaded by argument. The second side is a disordered identity. When I met a year ago with the protestors at UNC I noticed two things that stood out to me. The first was that my Christianity was more offensive to the protestors than was my Confederate heritage. The second was that many of the protestors lacked respect for their families or even the concept of family. This came out in both discussion on abortion and of the sins of previous generations. It is not that they disdained the concept of family. Indeed, those who perhaps looked like they might be the descendent of a slave were supposed to be justifiably offended by Silent Sam. But this family connection only served to perpetuate a sense of victimhood. There was no positive family identity with which I could appeal as one who was proud of my Confederate ancestors. The protestors were more than willing to throw their ancestors under the bus and understanding them was of little interest. 

Contrast this with the way I was raised, which I think will give us the key to engaging with millennial social justice warriors. I was nurtured into three primary identities two of which were birthrights and one in which God had to call me into (I’ll let you guess which one that was). I was a Christian, a Harris, and an American in that order. These were not my only identities, but they were my primary ones. I was privileged to grow up in a house in which I had stability. My parents loved each other and demonstrated quite well the roles I needed to navigate the world around me and become a man. I knew what a father, husband, wife, and mother were. I was proud of my parents, and by extension I was proud of my family. I was taught what it meant to be a Harris (honesty being the chief virtue), and I was provided with living heroes in my immediate and extended family. My grandfather told me about World War Two, and the older members of my extended family told depression-era stories and passed on folklore. My parents were careful to teach me about heroes of the faith (missionaries, Bible heroes, etc.) and of American history. Obviously Robert E. Lee made it onto that list. So much of what I do whether I’m aware of it or not stems from my identity. 

Not so for many of my compatriots. The majority live in what I call a “hormone culture,” the exact opposite of a duty-driven culture. They are lost in this world and many are not even aware of it other than the emptiness they feel inside. They know nothing of real faith, family, or country. Most come from broken homes. The majority have never seen what true love between a husband and wife look like. Insecurity is the norm. They have nothing to take pride in other than their individual abilities. This is the essence of hormone culture. Life becomes about sexual exploits, bodily shape, style of clothing, or some other superficial quality. Some of these young people will carry this attitude into adulthood where their whole identity will be wrapped up in their position (ever meet an arrogant professor at a university?). They have lost the divinely intended connections to faith, family, and country, and therefore have lost accountability, responsibility, and meaning. It is in this environment that the Left offers a devil’s bargain. “Come to us and protest those who have what you do not. Pretend that you have moral authority over them. Make yourself feel justified in your own sins. Ease your conscience for a little while. Take your anger out on those who have more privilege than you. We will make you famous and you will finally have the meaning you’ve been missing.” Of course, just like the original Devil’s bargain (to be like God), the promises do not pan out, which is why the protesting never seems to end. 

If you recall, I originally set out to answer the question, “What happened?” It’s actually quite simple. In rejecting divine order and engaging in carnal pursuits the culture  has managed to finally “liberate” itself from it’s own heritage. The obvious next question is, “Can this be remedied?” I actually foreshadowed the answer to this question when I stated, “Intellectual arguments are necessary, but love is essential.” Ask yourself, if you are in a heritage group like the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “How many young people do you see in attendance at your typical meeting?” The likely answer is, “Not many.” Now, I do not pretend to know every circumstance or reason for this being the case, but on a macro level something went wrong. Why is it that our sons are not interested in their own heritage? Could it have something to do with us? I say this as a 29 year old who is fascinated by the stories of American and indeed, Confederate heroes. Were they ever taught, as I was, to take pride in family—to look into the mirror and see generations of men staring back into their face. There’s no substitute for telling the stories. My dear readers, please know this: Culture is not built on arguments, but on stories, and stories are only attractive if there is proper respect for the heroes in them which takes me to my last and final point. 

Perhaps most important to this entire discussion is this: We are living in a time when there are no real heroes.The protestors do not see the heroism in a man like Robert E. Lee for reasons previously explained, but do they see a hero in you? Treating a protestor like a dignified human is not something they are used to from opposition. In fact they will probably respect your bravery and sincerity. This is the reason I brought sports drinks to those staging the sit in at UNC last year. I listened to what they said, showed them respect, and I was shown a shocking amount of respect by most of them at the end of our conversation. I know if it were possible I could have carried on a relationship with some of them past our conversation. Most of the younger ones especially are hungry for the relationships they have never had, they just do not know it. Some do not even have a concept of what a home to be proud of looks like because stability to the is a foreign concept. You can be that stability. Sure it takes patience, but true love is worth the work. 

I have not touched on the cowardly cops or the corrupt school administration in this post. Let me say this though: We ought to let UNC and Chapel Hill know how upset we are over this. (UNC Police - (919) 962-8100, Mayor's Office - (919) 968-2743, Office of Chancellor (919) 962-1365, Donate to the Sons of Confederate Veterans Heritage Defense Fund here) There needs to be some righteous indignation toward what amount to a mob of spoiled brats. Justice and love flow together and it is not loving to justify evil activity. If anyone finishes this and gets the impression I am not angry about what happened, they need to read it again. I am angry, but I also have compassion on those whose lives are so pathetic as to find meaning by being out late at night destroying property. We are generally good at the justice side, I’m suggesting, without changing this, we also become good at the compassion side. Here are two parting biblical passages that help me remember that justice will come one day, and it will be from someone greater than me. 

“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,’ says the Lord.”  Romans 12:19

“For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:14
​
Note: This article was originally published at WorldViewConversation.com on August 21, 2018.