Blog

I believe that as a Christian I am obliged to engage with issues that we face as a society. That I should do so because I am a Christian and to do so through the lens of my Christian faith. I am aware that not everyone agrees. Some Christians have suggested that I should keep out of such discussions, that I should just declare the truth of Jesus. People who do not share my faith have said that I should not bring my faith perspective to contemporary issues. I believe that Jesus is Lord of the whole earth and that I too should be interested and involved in all of God’s creation. I reject the concept that my faith is just a private matter, it is just about my relationship with God. It is that, but it is much more than that.

However, there are some guidelines that I try to follow when I engage with issues impacting wider society. These are based on my understanding of what the Bible teaches.

Firstly, I seek to apply the teaching of Jesus that we should test something by its fruit not by its roots. Matthew 16. This is very important and relevant today as I observe that some Christians seem to be doing the opposite, testing things by their roots rather than the fruit. E.g. “woke” teaching and critical race theory amongst others are summarily dismissed because of their “atheistic” roots. A better way, in my opinion and practice, is to benefit from the fruit of the insights gained on such things as racism, climate change and recognise where they agree with and inform a Christian viewpoint. Then, if appropriate add a Christian perspective. As Paul says God has revealed his plan and purposes to all humanity. E.g. Romans 1v19-20. 

Linked with this, secondly, I am influenced by the way Jesus and Paul engaged with those around them. They seem to have a different attitude to disagreements with those who claim to be part of the people of God from those who did not. Both Jesus and Paul were ruthless in the way they engaged with what they perceived as false and dangerous teaching by Pharisees and Judaisers, who claim to be part of God’s family. However, they looked to build on points of common ground with others, e.g. Paul’s attitude to the people of Athens as recorded in Acts 17. I do not always get the balance right. I know that sometimes I shy away from confronting what I consider to be dangerous and wrong teaching and attitudes from those who claim to be followers of Christ. I don’t enjoy confrontation and therefore am vulnerable to avoiding it. However, I know the principle and try to put it into practice. 

I am also aware that consideration needs to be given to the context something is being shared. What is appropriate to be shared publicly, e.g. on social media may be different to what is shared privately. What is shared in writing compared to what is shared face to face. Where possible I would seek to disagree with people face to face rather than in writing, although this is not always possible. I am also very careful about publicly disagreeing with people and would want to do so privately first wherever possible.

Finally, there are so many issues that we face as a society. I don’t feel that it would be appropriate to engage with them all. I therefore seek to discern those that I should engage with. I then seek to be as well informed as possible prior to engaging with them. 

I hope these reflections are helpful. I would encourage you to engage appropriately and seek to represent Christ well and bring a Christian perspective within society.

With love,

Tony Thompson

Preference for white people is deeply ingrained. 

In one experiment Black children preferred a white doll to a brown doll. Whether it was the doll that the children ‘would like to play with’ (67% vs 32%), the doll that ‘is the nice doll’ (59% vs 38%) or the doll that ‘is a nice colour’ (60% vs 38%), the children reliably picked the white doll more frequently than the brown one.

In another study, Ugandan children overwhelmingly exhibited a pro-White bias; despite themselves being Black, they chose to play with White children over Black children 78% of the time.

This is not surprising when you consider the way that white and black people are portrayed in literature. Can you name a single children’s book in which the main character is a human being who is not White? Of the 9,115 children’s books published in the UK in 2017, just 1% of them featured a non-White person as a main character (compared to the 18% of the UK that isn’t White).

Whether it’s a children’s book, a comic book, or a news programme – if you see ethnic minorities represented at all, they probably won’t be represented favourably. No wonder the bias towards white people is deeply ingrained.

Encouragingly, research has identified ways that racism can be reduced.

If people from different racial or ethnic groups interact with each other (particularly under certain circumstances), racism will decrease, and people will be happier around each other. Even in the particularly challenging context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intergroup contact has been shown to reduce racism.

Some research suggests that the worse your attitudes are at the start, the more effective contact will be at reducing your prejudice.

Four necessary conditions for getting intergroup contact to work have been identified: (1) the participants should have common goals; (2) the participants should be in a cooperative environment; (3) the participants from the different groups should have equal status; and (4) the intergroup contact should have the approval of authority.

Other research identifies the power and importance of education, including education specifically about racism.

Both ways to reduce racism have been highlighted in my book. They are ways that the church needs to take a lead in reducing racism and offering a positive contrast to wider society.

Tony Thompson

Despite the clear evidence that racism exists, as we saw in the last blog, in survey after survey no-one will admit to being a racist! 

In one experiment, people were told they were being asked to apply to be part of a scientific study. They were asked to complete a long and complex questionnaire which included some questions which would indicate whether the person has a racial bias. Months later, the same people were invited back to be part of an actual study, part of which was to compare themselves with a random person who had also completed the questionnaire. The comparison was whether you were more or less racist than the other person as demonstrated by the answers to the questionnaire. In just about every case the person felt they were less racist than the random other. What they didn’t know was that they had been given back their own questionnaire!

The explanation to this, according to research, is a combination of “unconscious bias” but also that people go to incredible lengths to do racist things, but to do them in such a way that proving the racism is next to impossible. Experimenters found that people would go to great lengths to avoid employing ethnic minorities. Lying about people having to sign imaginary forgotten forms, lying about positions being filled, lying about having to check references, lying about hotel rooms being unavailable, ‘randomly’ checking the status of the Black person and only the Black person at a conference.

What this means is that if a person from an ethnic background doesn’t get a job interview for what seems a good reason there is always a doubt that they might be being lied to and discriminated against. 

Another way that we can be racist without admitting it is how we interpret information. E.g. We could look at the percentages of people in prison (about 0.13% of the White population of the UK, compared to 0.44% of the Black population) and focus on the fact that Black people are 3.5 times more likely to be in prison. Or we could look at the other side of those numbers. They indicate that 99.87% of White people in the UK are not in prison and a very similar 99.56% of Black people in the UK are not in prison. Looked at that way, the differences between White and Black people seem a lot smaller and less important.

Yet this type of information has been used to justify why black people are stopped and searched far more often than white people. As Professor West says, this is victim blaming at its finest. It ignores instances in which White people are statistically more likely to commit crimes. It uses quippy phrases like ‘Black-on-Black crime’ but ignores the mirrored reality of ‘White-on-White crime’. It uses small but apparently real statistical differences in criminal convictions between groups to justify large, widespread, disproportionate and sometimes deadly forms of discrimination, even when White people who have themselves been convicted of crimes do not face the same level of stigma. If you want to be really racist, but you don’t want to admit it to yourself, this is a great way to start.

Tony Thompson