Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Love without blind spots

Love without blind spots

Last updated on: June 3, 2022 at 1:03 pm by Fred Clark

Love without blind spots 2022-06-03T13:03:21-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Back in the ’80s, when my dad was still an attorney in New Jersey, he was researching a property deed in North Plainfield. The deed he found, written in the 1930s, had a “restrictive covenant” — a stipulation in the contract that forbid the property from being resold to “Negroes.” Dad was dismayed, but also curious, because our church had purchased its property around that same time in that same neighborhood.

So Dad checked into that and discovered that yes, alas, the original property deed for our own Hydewood Park Baptist Church also included a restrictive covenant intended to preserve a whites-only neighborhood.

My dad showed what he’d found to the man who was then our senior pastor and he was furious. At my dad. Pastor Urey grew angrily defensive. What’s your point? That was a long time ago! It’s not like I signed that, and we certainly wouldn’t today, so why dig up old dirt?

Ten years later, after that guy had moved on to a bigger, fundier church, my dad told that story to our new pastor, a man named Steven Fletcher. He had a very different reaction. Pastor Fletcher grew sad, and quiet, and thoughtful. “It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?” he said. “What are we doing now that people in this church will look back on in 50 years in horror, asking ‘How could they have done this? How could they have ever thought this was right?'”

The opposite responses of those two pastors is instructive. The ugly defensiveness of the first is stupefying — a form of self-reinforcing foolishness that prevents us from ever learning, growing, or correcting any mistakes. Pastor Fletcher’s chastened humility seems not just wiser but also more constructive. It allows for the possibility of learning, growing, and improving — for the possibility of something other than blindly repeating and doubling down on all the mistakes of the past.

So I appreciated the intent of a recent Twitter mini-sermon from white Reformed mega-pastor Tim Keller. I think he was aiming for the same kind of humility that marked Pastor Fletcher’s response to that shameful restrictive covenant my dad showed him. But then, alas, Pastor Keller tripped over the plank in his own eye.

Here was Keller’s tweet:

The sin of slavery is so obvious to us now, but for 1000s of years everyone saw it as just a part of life. It's arrogant to think that 100 years from now our ancestors won’t see us as having similar blind spots. What are they?

— Timothy Keller (1950-2023) (@timkellernyc) May 18, 2022

Here’s the text of that: “The sin of slavery is so obvious to us now, but for 1000s of years everyone saw it as just a part of life. It’s arrogant to think that 100 years from now our ancestors won’t see us as having similar blind spots. What are they?”

The warning there about “blind spots” is wise and thoughtful. This calls for humility. The thing about blind spots, after all, is that we can’t see them. As Pastor Keller says, it would be foolishly “arrogant” for us to presume that we don’t have any such blind spots just because we can’t see what they are.

But the other thing about blind spots is that they’re a consequence of where one is sitting. My context limits my perspective such that, from where I’m sitting, some things are hidden from my sight. But just because I can’t see them doesn’t mean they’re invisible. Other people — people who aren’t me and who aren’t sitting exactly where I’m sitting — can see them just fine.

Keller’s chastened humility is an excellent starting point. But it’s also a terrible stopping point.

And — since we’re dealing here with my elaborately biblical white evangelical kinfolk — I’d add that it’s a completely unbiblical stopping point. There is, after all, an extremely famous biblical passage on exactly this matter of blind spots. Even people who never go to church except for weddings know this one.

“For now we see through a glass, darkly,” Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13, “I know in part.”

We mortal humans are stuck here, with — at best — partial vision and partial knowledge. Blind spots are part of the package. But if that were the last word on blind spots then we wouldn’t read this passage at weddings. Paul goes on to remind us that there are some things that “abide” — some things we can rely on even if it’s never possible for us to rely on perfect sight or perfect vision or perfect knowledge: “These three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Paul there isn’t offering a moral commendation of love, but an argument for its epistemological necessity. “The greatest of these is love” is not simply saying “Love is really neat.” It’s saying that love is the only solid basis we have for truly seeing or for truly knowing. Love is the only way to overcome our blind spots.

Pastor Keller’s tweet got a lot of attention, but that wasn’t because of what he told us about “blind spots.” It was because of what he showed us about them. “The sin of slavery is so obvious to us now,” he wrote, “but for 1000s of years everyone saw it as just a part of life.”

“Everyone”? What do you mean “we,” Kemosabe?

Keller’s pratfall there reminds me of our discussion some years back of “The Hole in Noll.” I am a huge fan of historian Mark Noll’s terrific book The Civil War as Theological Crisis. It’s an insightful, deep dive into the centuries-long argument among white American Christians over slavery and the Bible. Noll does a terrific job of collecting and summarizing the “biblical” arguments being made by both pro-slavery and anti-slavery white Christians, highlighting the ways that these arguments shaped and were shaped by the different ways those white Christians preferred to read and interpret their Bibles.

Noll’s history proves that there was never a time when the obvious sin of slavery was a blind spot for “everyone.” Not even among the white American Christians his history is almost exclusively concerned with. It won’t do to suggest that someone like, say, George Whitefield was innocently blind to the sin of slavery when his fellow Christian Benjamin Lay was loudly condemning its obvious sinfulness. (Even if Whitefield somehow managed to avoid paying attention to the theatrical, cave-dwelling, hunch-backed dwarf running around stabbing bleeding Bibles in churches, he surely heard about him from their mutual friend Ben Franklin.)

And if those pro-slavery white Christians were so confident that “the Bible” defended their theft, rape, torture, kidnapping, and flesh-peddling, then why was the version of the Bible they produced for their slaves so heavily redacted and painstakingly edited? The editors of that Slave Bible seem to have been able to trace the outlines of their “blind spot” with exacting precision.

But the biggest problem with Keller’s “everyone” is the same problem as the huge hole in Noll’s history. That “everyone” excludes the clear vision and superior knowledge of the millions of Christians and other people who were, themselves, enslaved. The obvious sin of slavery was never, for them, a “blind spot.” They saw. They knew. And they said so, even at incalculable personal risk.

White Christians heard them say so, but chose not to listen. That deliberate choosing isn’t anything that can accurately be described as a “blind spot.” When you jam your fingers in your ears and shout “La la la — I can’t hear you!” the problem cannot be described as one of imperfect hearing.

(And it won’t do — as Keller attempts — to retreat to some more abstract, longer history of slavery beyond the specifically brutal race-based American form of it. The sin of slavery was obvious to St. Patrick. And it was obvious to Onesimus.)

This brings us back to Paul’s reminder of the abiding epistemological necessity of love. Love enables us to know better and to see better and to hear better because love compels us to listen to those who are not sitting exactly where we’re sitting. It compels us to seek out and to learn from the victims of the obvious sins to which we’re fortunate enough to be obliviously blind.

We don’t have to sit there, sadly humbled and forlorn like Keller and sweet old Pastor Fletcher, worried and wondering about whatever it is that we might be doing that future generations may find appalling. “Everyone” isn’t in the same position as we may be. We can find them. And ask them. And listen.

That requires not just a chastened humility, but also these three: faith and hope and love. And the greatest of these, etc.

Uncategorized

justice

Previous Post

June 3, 2022

June 3 Flashback: Second coat

Next Post

June 4, 2022 June 4 Flashback: Eternal movie night

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Judas Peter Thomas John