Skip to main content

10 Thoughts on the Killing of Ahmaud Arbery

After watching (and rewatching) the video showing the terrible death of Ahmaud Arbery, here are my initial thoughts.

1) The video isn't as clear as people are saying it is.  The video really only captures the last moments of the situation.  What we do know is that two men made decisions that resulted in the death of another man.  They should stand trial and be punished accordingly.  Right or wrong, I suspect that they will be convicted of manslaughter.

2) We can't read hearts or minds.  We do not know what their precise motivation was.  It is unlikely, however, that they randomly decided to murder a jogger because he was black.

3) It is likely that Mr. Arbery's skin color contributed to his death and the lack of charges brought against his killers.

4) Racism exists, but not all white people are racists, nor is every crime committed against a black person racially motivated.  We need to let this case be its own case.  

5) As a white man in America, it is difficult for me to understand the fear in which black men live.  

6) We need to beware of tribalism.    

7) We should examine our gut reactions.  What is our first instinct?  Do we assume that the white people are guilty?  Do we assume that they are innocent?  What does that say about us?

8) Virtue signaling is ugly and nobody really cares what you (or I) think.

9) If the 21st century has taught us anything, it's that we should always wait to cast judgment, even when an event was captured on video.  There is always more to the story.

10) We must never skip the trial.  If we presume guilt without due process, we are no better than the white men who allegedly profiled the black man jogging past their house.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more