Who speaks for the black community?

[Ms. Izzie]

Isn't it hypocritical for people from one community to look into another community and go with the minority voices because these voices agree with what they already believe while in their own community it's insisted upon that the majority rules and that the minority need to submit to the majority? Remember all the conversations about whether sexual abuse is prevalent in CA churches? Did the majority listen to the minority who said it is? Are they listening to the minority now on any other subject except on the subject of the black community? What is going on?

For now, I won't share my opinion on the issue of racism or on the protests and so on, but my people need to be called out on this hypocrisy. I haven't watched the video either. I might later. Mostly, I'm just watching this conversation for now and learning.

I

[ken_sylvania]

Isn't it hypocritical for people from one community to look into another community and go with the minority voices because these voices agree with what they already believe while in their own community it's insisted upon that the majority rules and that the minority need to submit to the majority? Remember all the conversations about whether sexual abuse is prevalent in CA churches? Did the majority listen to the minority who said it is? Are they listening to the minority now on any other subject except on the subject of the black community? What is going on?

For now, I won't share my opinion on the issue of racism or on the protests and so on, but my people need to be called out on this hypocrisy. I haven't watched the video either. I might later. Mostly, I'm just watching this conversation for now and learning.

I

No, that's not hypocrisy. Just plain old common sense. Listen to the majority and submit to the majority when the majority is right, but when the minority is right, listen to the minority....

[appleman2006]

Isn't it hypocritical for people from one community to look into another community and go with the minority voices because these voices agree with what they already believe while in their own community it's insisted upon that the majority rules and that the minority need to submit to the majority? Remember all the conversations about whether sexual abuse is prevalent in CA churches? Did the majority listen to the minority who said it is? Are they listening to the minority now on any other subject except on the subject of the black community? What is going on?

For now, I won't share my opinion on the issue of racism or on the protests and so on, but my people need to be called out on this hypocrisy. I haven't watched the video either. I might later. Mostly, I'm just watching this conversation for now and learning.

I

I am not quite sure I am understanding what you are saying but let me try to clarify what I am talking about.
When it comes to church governance I am a strong believer in listening to the majority. Everyone deserves to be heard of course but ultimately a decision needs to be made and I think letting the majority decide when a consensus cannot be reached is good protocol.

However absolute truth is never decided by a majority. Even it only one person is left standing and preaching truth it is still truth.
I agree that majority viewpoint on a topic can be helpful to know when it comes to knowing how to relate to that group but it in no way determines truth. That is my only point.
. m

[Ms. Izzie]

We agree that truth is truth no matter how many or how few people agree with it.

When it comes to church governance I am a strong believer in listening to the majority. Everyone deserves to be heard of course but ultimately a decision needs to be made and I think letting the majority decide when a consensus cannot be reached is good protocol.

This is where we might disagree. If truth is truth even if one man is saying it, then it is not good protocol to go with the majority even in church governance because the majority may be wrong and we would be consenting to untruth.

This is why I think it is pretty arrogant to say in our churches the majority is what you go with because it is "church governance", but in a different community we can't go by the majority because it's not "church governance". The possibility exists in both places for the majority to be wrong. I am glad to know that what we call "common sense" in church governance is simply that--"common sense"--which sometimes is also known as arrogance and isn't Spirit-led. Do we get to decide what is "common sense" in both communities? "Common sense" is created by the culture that raised it. If I get to decide based on my "common sense", then it is no longer about truth, but about what I want to or already believe and that makes me the decider/creator/dispenser of truth. Sometimes the Spirit changes my "common sense". He did for the Jews in the early church.

I know that not everybody who reads this is conservative Anabaptist. What I am saying isn't directed your way.

[appleman2006]

We agree that truth is truth no matter how many or how few people agree with it.

When it comes to church governance I am a strong believer in listening to the majority. Everyone deserves to be heard of course but ultimately a decision needs to be made and I think letting the majority decide when a consensus cannot be reached is good protocol.

This is where we might disagree. If truth is truth even if one man is saying it, then it is not good protocol to go with the majority even in church governance because the majority may be wrong and we would be consenting to untruth.

This is why I think it is pretty arrogant to say in our churches the majority is what you go with because it is "church governance", but in a different community we can't go by the majority because it's not "church governance". The possibility exists in both places for the majority to be wrong. I am glad to know that what we call "common sense" in church governance is simply that--"common sense"--which sometimes is also known as arrogance and isn't Spirit-led. Do we get to decide what is "common sense" in both communities? "Common sense" is created by the culture that raised it. If I get to decide based on my "common sense", then it is no longer about truth, but about what I want to or already believe and that makes me the decider/creator/dispenser of truth. Sometimes the Spirit changes my "common sense". He did for the Jews in the early church.

I know that not everybody who reads this is conservative Anabaptist. What I am saying isn't directed your way.

just to be clear again. I am talking about areas in church governance that come up that are not specifically stated in scripture. In most areas I am not so arrogant as to think I have a monopoly on truth. I am willing to listen to the reasoning of others when there are differences of opinion. And if it happens to be a group of people who I trust and who have convinced me by the lives they live that they have my and their neighbours best interests at heart I am really going to listen to them especially if a majority is speaking. If on the other hand a group has proven that many really are just following the latest popular talking points or in some cases maybe even the historically accepted points (it has always been done this way) I am less likely to take them seriously. Does that make more sense?

[Ms. Izzie]

In most areas I am not so arrogant as to think I have a monopoly on truth.

I believe this about you. And yes, you are making sense.

We may be talking past each other a bit. What I was saying was generally speaking as a conservative Anabaptist group.

(What I am going to say next is not to Appleman in particular because I think the sexual abuse actually does matter to him.)

Case in point. Sexual abuse in our churches and the CAM situation in particular. If we as a group generally speaking go with the majority who say, "It's just a couple bad apples and it doesn't affect most churches," but there is a minority who is finally speaking up and saying this affects many people, whose voice did the CA's go with, generally speaking? ---The majority.--- It makes us feel like we are not responsible for what happened and besides, there is nothing we can do about it.

But when it is the black community, generally speaking, we don't go with majority. Now we go with the minority. What is a possible reason for this? Could it be because it makes us feel like we are not responsible for what is happening and besides, there is nothing we can do about it?

How do we care for people who feel pushed around? What is our responsibility as God's people?

By the way, in both communities I don't think it is kind to tell people that how they feel isn't right or necessary and that we are going to present them with facts.

[appleman2006]

Perhaps part of the reason we are talking past each other is that in my own experience and the circles I mostly work directly in, it has not been my experience that sexual issues are ignored or at least for the last 20 years that it is not even seen as being only a small problem in our broader circles. But I accept that the circles I move in may be the minority in this situation. And that does sadden me. I personally take the blame for talking past you and I am sorry.

But getting back to the OP my whole point continues to be that we need to listen to various spoke persons from the black community. And to dismiss someone's experience and opinions simply because they may be in the minority is not fair. In fact it does the very thing that so often angers minorities which is to assume they all think and feel the same things.
And so again for me things that I use to determine whether a person is a worthy spokesperson for any cause
1. Does what they say line up with absolute truth?
2. Do they speak strictly from emotion and anger or are their arguments reasoned and balanced?
3. Are they charitable in their approach especially to those that may differ in opinion from them?
4. What price are they personally paying for speaking their message? Is it costing them something or are they actually potentially gaining status?
5. Is the message consistent with history and historical facts or does it take a strong degree of revisionism to make their argument stand?

That is not a complete list but it is a start.

[Bootstrap]

But getting back to the OP my whole point continues to be that we need to listen to various spoke persons from the black community. And to dismiss someone's experience and opinions simply because they may be in the minority is not fair.

The experiences and opinions of a small minority do not negate the experiences and opinions of the vast majority.

And that is often what this is about. Often, this is about some "spokesman" who is paid by a political lobbying group or a campaign, someone who has no claim to fame other than the fact that they are black and are telling us we do not need to listen to the opinions most black people are expressing. Which makes us feel comfortable ignoring what most black people are telling us about their own experiences.

Sometimes this "spokesman" makes a good deal of money this way and is famous for having these contrary opinions and not much else. Sometimes the same person was saying the opposite a few years back, on someone else's pay. Would you have any idea who Candace Owens or the Hodge Twins or Diamond and Silk are if they weren't doing this? Where do they get their fame and money from? What qualifications do they have except for being black? If they changed their opinions, would they still have any claim to this fame or money? Who appointed them spokespeople for black people? Was there some group of black people who decided this? Who?

If I want to know what black people experience, I think there are better ways.

[Josh]

I wish my black friends were paid by lobbyists - then they’d be a lot better off financially. As far as I know, nobody pays them to hold conservative views.

[temporal1]

I wish my black friends were paid by lobbyists - then they’d be a lot better off financially. As far as I know, nobody pays them to hold conservative views.

From what i understand, life is rough on conservative black folks, esp if they choose leadership in any way. i empathize with them, and respect them. They typically do not speak, they prefer the high road, they don’t expect applause, gratitude, reward. They expect a hard time.

Like typical people the world over with deeply held beliefs just trying to navigate a difficult world, while trying to function and contribute. Most people never make the news, nor is it a goal.

i viewed this tape of “a black guy” with a non-PC view, thinking, his view will never make mainstream news. i found his FB page. he has much more education and life experience than his casual, low-key presence lets on.

there are so many voices ignored.
even as he begins to speak, he anticipates his view will be removed from public view.
he speaks anyway.

he has at least a couple of other videos on his FB page. i don’t know him, i’m not a FB friend, i viewed some of his page. i viewed one more video. i believe his is a voice in the black community.

Michael Dozier
https: link not working

What is presented in the mainstream is in no way sufficient to conclude anything.
Until, and unless that changes, it’s just biased propaganda.