Jason Aldean's "Try That In A Small Town" and the dangers of conflation

 

Much has been said about country music singer Jason Aldean's recent song and accompanying music video, "Try That In A Small Town."  In addition to those who have pointed out that the courthouse in the video was the scene of a horrific lynching in 1927, and suggestions by some that the music video encourages racism and/or vigilante justice, there have also been voices on the other side of the cultural/political divide in America quick to say, "I stand with Jason Aldean."  Lost in the not-unexpected yelling back and forth by politicians and pundits, and the chiming in of regular folk on social media to proclaim which side they are on, is a technique used in the music video, and to a lesser extent in the song lyrics, that is as troubling as it is common in our cultural/political discourse: conflation.

conflation: The merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

Which two ideas are being merged into one in this example: protesting and criminal behavior.

[Note: To a segment of the American population, an example of which being the stereotype of it portrayed for laughs by Carroll O'Conner as Archie Bunker on All In the Family, protest of any kind will always be considered un-American.  To those individuals, no conflation is necessary, protesting already is criminal behavior in their eyes.]

In America, each of us has a constitutionally guaranteed right to protest, both for and against, any issue.  We have the right to assemble to make that protest known, including with marches, speeches, sit-ins, and the like.  The same right that should have kept Civil Rights marchers from being set upon by firehoses, batons, and police dogs when they exercised their rights, protected the mass marches of the KKK a generation earlier (most of which were met, to our ancestors shame, not with governmental oppression, but with cheering crowds).  The right to protest is available to liberals and conservatives, and has helped advance causes dear to the hearts of both groups in American history.  While this is not a right enshrined in the Bible, it is certainly one that Christians should cherish, utilize when their conscience compels them to do so, and Christians should also be willing to protect that right when others seek to exercise it, even if we strongly disagree with their motives/goals.  {FYI, Christians should likewise be willing to fight for Freedom of Religion, when it affects fellow Christians, AND when it affects those who follow other religions}

In the song and video, however, images of protests (mostly after the murder of George Floyd, especially images of flag burning that have a very emotionally impact on many Americans) are combined with those of theft, looting, and street violence.  When these two ideas are put together like this, casually, the impression (desired or not by the creator of the content) is that they are in the same legal/moral category, that in effect, to be a protester is just as immoral and undesirable as to be a criminal, and as the song says, people in small towns know how to respond if you try it there.  Intentional or not, and I know nothing of Jason Aldean motives and heart, nor of the songwriter's, the conflation of the two ideas is very dangerous in a society that should value the right to protest, even of those with whom we disagree.

Let's be honest, politicians and pundits pull this trick all the time.  It is such a common staple, that if you spend an hour watching cable news you will see it over and over: two ideas/people linked together so that the one the audience doesn't like already has its stink smeared onto the one the politician/pundit wants them to dislike moving forward.  It is manipulation plain and simple, and it is sadly very effective.

One of the most dangerous examples I have seen of this in recent years is the near constant use by a number of pundits of George Soros as the boogeyman rich Jew whose efforts to support causes he believes in (as is his right) are tied to many a cause that the politician/pundit doesn't like (truthfully or not), allowing the despicable age old "rich Jews are secretly running the world" trope to do its work.  The audience is left angry at the idea/cause in question and wanting to oppose it because the pundit has left the impression that it is the puppet of a "rich Jew."  Conflation is a staple of antisemitism (and racism in general).

Another example occurred in 2019 when Founders Ministries released a trailer for their upcoming documentary which smeared sex abuse victim advocate Rachel Denhollander with images/audio that suggested she was part of a "godless conspiracy" {see my post on this, "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}

What am I hoping for?  Perhaps a more honest discourse, a bit more integrity from advocates, less anger from the people who are being manipulated in this way.  A pipe dream?  Perhaps, but if we don't at least try to be better, how can we expect better results in the future?  In the end, as Americans, and as Christians, we need to do better than this, we need to be willing to judge people and ideas on their own merits and not simply find a convenient way to smear and dismiss them through conflating them with something else we already dislike.

"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

In the original version of the "By What Standard?" documentary trailer released by Florida based Founders Ministries , among other highly objectionable tactics (which I will get to in a minute), the trailer chose to portray Rachael Denhollander as a wolf in sheep's clothing, an enemy of the Church using the sexual abuse of women and children as a Trojan horse for "godless ideologies".  If you don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, and why it is despicable to choose to highlight her involvement in helping the Southern Baptist Convention comes to grip with the widespread sexual abuse in its midst, read this amazing article about Rachael that highlights her faith (paying particular attention to the role she played at the last SBC gathering, making her a target of Founders Ministries):

She surrendered her secrets to put away a sexual predator. But her sacrifice isn't over - by Matt Mencarini, Louisville Courier Journal

Did you read the whole article?  If not, go back and read it, otherwise you might not understand why I'm upset, actually really upset, when a self-proclaimed defender of evangelical Christianity behaves in this way.  Following the release of the trailer for "By What Standard?" (watch it here, I have been unable to find the previous version containing Rachael online) uproar ensued on behalf of those targeted in the trailer and from those who had been interviewed for the documentary who strenuously objected to being a part of this finished product.  In the end, three of the board members of Founders Ministries resigned when the board as a whole refused to admit that it had erred and needed to repent publicly.  And while the portion of the trailer containing Rachael Denhollander has been edited out, the trailer was then re-released after Founders Ministries president, SBC pastor Tom Ascol, defended the original trailer and rejected the stand taken by the three board members who resigned in a letter about their departure: Resignation Letter

"Our conversations led to an impasse regarding the nature of sin, unintentional sin, unwise acts and what faithfulness to Christ requires in the wake of each. Though each of these three men formulated his own arguments, their views led them all to conclude they could not conscientiously continue to serve Founders without agreement on these points as it relates to elements in the trailer. As the statements of Fred Malone and Tom Hicks below indicate, they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that. This is the fundamental point of the impasse that we reached." - Pastor Tom Ascol
Following significant push-back about the trailer, Founders Ministries issued the following clarification: About That Trailer , for the three board members who resigned, this defense was not sufficient.
"Some expressed concerns about a 1-2 second clip of Rachael Denhollander, accusing us of presenting her as demonic. Certainly, no one at Founders Ministries believes that and we did not foresee people taking it that way. That was not our intention and, admittedly, not our wisest editing moment. We regret the pain and confusion we caused by this unwise alignment of image and idea. We have removed the clip and have reached out to her and to her husband, Jacob. We are grateful for so many of Mrs. Denhollander’s efforts to serve victims of abuse." - Pastor Tom Ascol
If you appreciate the work of Rachael Denhollander, why did you group her with the "godless ideologies" bent upon the destruction of the church?  Why include her at all?  This defense, "we didn't think people would react that way" is shallow, at best.  The entire trailer features an us vs. them mentality, those opposed to, so we are being told, sound Biblical teaching (Are they really?  That's a serious charge requiring a serious discussion, not a slick hit piece), must be confronted in this manner.
If the portrayal of Rachael Denhollander was the entirety of the issue with the trailer, it would be enough.  But there is more.  The trailer utilizes slick video production techniques to portray the "good guys" in color and the "bad guys" in black and white.  In addition to claims made by several of those interviewed that their words were taken out of context, the screen flashes with images of protests, a figure being burned in effigy, a female clergy member, and United States Senator Bernie Sanders, all clearly being shown as the "enemy" {in brief flashes, like the psycho killer in the next horror movie, complete with sound effects}.  Perhaps the inclusion of Bernie Sanders, an openly Jewish politician, is a random choice, but in a trailer highlighting a conspiracy theory, a subtle takeover of a cherished institution by nefarious outside forces, how could it not occur to the creators of the trailer that they would be invoking the anti-Semitic trope that the Jews are the ones trying to destroy Western civilization?  Of all the liberal politicians that could be shown (if you must portray a politician and thus bring politics into this as well, another questionable choice), why the only well known Jewish politician the one?  If this is an oversight and the creators did not make this connection, it is a significant one, because it seems highly unlikely that those who swim in cesspool of anti-Semitism won't see it as a "nod, nod, wink, wink".
If Christians treat each other this way, no holds barred, take no prisoners, is it any wonder that we're treating fellow Americans as an infection to be eradicated when we disagree with them but don't have the spiritual bond that is supposed to make such behavior unacceptable?
Founders Ministries has been called to task by many in the leadership of the SBC, but that rebuke is insufficient, this behavior needs to be rejected far and wide, and those who watch the film need to be aware of the unethical way in which it was promoted.  No matter what the virtues or faults of the final documentary end up being, it was promoted in a way that has more in common with a political PAC hatchet job than anything connected to Christian brotherhood.
If Founders Ministries believes that they are fighting for the soul of the SBC, and maybe for all of evangelical Christianity, and if they believe that soul is in mortal danger, they still must adhere to Paul's words, "Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!"  We, as Christians, are not allowed to "fight fire with fire".  We cannot justify slander, hit pieces, and treating fellow Christians as an "other".  I know that Pastor Tom Ascol has stated that such is not the intent of the documentary or its trailer, but such is certainly the reality.  Watch the trailer.  Does this look like an invitation to a debate on a serious topic, or a political ad meant to portray the other side in a negative light through slick editing?  Calling those one disagrees with "well intentioned"(as Pastor Ascol, to his credit, has done) is not good enough, when the tactics one uses to respond drown out that statement.  Pastor Ascol has made his position clear, "they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that."  Intentions do matter, but not all sin is intentional.  The resignation letters from two of the three board members who resigned admit this, that among other things, showing Rachael Denhollander's picture with the audio "forces of darkness" was wrong, even without intentionally conflating abuse victims with those labeled as dangerous to the church.
Read the article about Rachael, watch the edited trailer, consider the resignation letters and the defense of the trailer by Pastor Ascol.  When you are done, ask yourself this question, is this what Jesus had in mind when he said, 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' (John 13:35).  I cannot see how it could be.

For an additional perspective on the tactics used in the trailer see: Video links Beth Moore, Russell Moore, James Merritt to ‘Trojan horse of social...Religion News Service  Notice in particular the greater detail on the now deleted Rachael Denhollander scene and her husband's response.

For a previous blog post I wrote about how Christians ought to engage with their adversaries (both within the Church and without): How a Christian must respond to adversaries

The Culture War rages on; the Church's role in it is toxic.

The recently concluded United Methodist Church General Conference 2019 is the latest example in a disturbing trend of the politics and viciousness of the Culture Wars finding a home within the Church.  Previously, various Christian leaders, churches, and denominations would at times choose to become involved in various political/cultural issues, attempting by doing so to bolster their viewpoint within society as a whole, but largely remaining outside of the debate itself which was taking place between those advocating positions inspired by a Christian worldview and those coming from a secular viewpoint.  And while fights like that continue to rage over a broad range of issues, they are now being joined more and more frequently by fights within groups of those claiming to represent Christ/God's Word/the Church.  In other words, issues like abortion and human sexuality which once enjoyed a reasonably unified response from a variety of American Church sources are now not only polarizing American culture and politics, but the Church here as well.  This is not unexpected, it has been coming for some time.
On its own, division within the Church is troublesome enough whatever its cause or content might be, what makes it more dangerous here is the extent to which the tactics which are currently devastating our political/cultural discourse are being, or already have been, adopted by those within the Church for both battles in that exterior arena and internal fights against fellow Christians.  Even if it is conceded (and part of the point is that it no longer is) that those on the opposite side of these issues dividing local churches and denominations are wrong in their reasoning or conclusions, and even if one believes that the viewpoint of the opposition is dangerous, it is still a massive moral step to take to act in response as if the, "ends justify the means" to defeat them, or that the confidence that one is right justifies a "win at all costs" mentality.
It has been a consistent warning of mine that the marriage of the Church and political ambition/power is an uneven one that eventually sullies the reputation of the Bride of Christ.  Advancing a cause through political means (or its cousin, judicial) regularly entails deception, character assassination, double-talk, evasion, what-about-ism, moral relativism, alliances of convenience against one's convictions, the corrupting influence of money, and the every present corrupting influence of power itself.  And while it ought to always be inexcusable for a politician to use immoral tactics, whether he/she claims to be a Christian or not, and it ought to be out of the question for Christians to knowingly encourage and support such unethical behavior even when it advances "our cause", it is not contrary (and actually beneficial at times) to the oath taken by a politician to support and defend the Constitution for him/her to forge alliances of convenience and to make compromises for the sake of governance.  It is the job of a politician to represent all of the people, even a Christian politician needs to consider the rights/needs of their non-Christian constituents.  Is it in the best interest of the Church to enter with them into alliances of convenience and compromises for the sake of governance?  Corporations, Unions, special interest groups, and lobbyists all have their own agenda; in what way is that agenda a fitting partnership with the Church?  Is it not better for the Church to focus upon seeking God's will through the Word of God and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit?  Do we not have sufficient issues within the Church to address (like the sexual abuse scandal which is certainly not limited to Roman Catholics) and sufficient mission priorities outside of the Church to fulfill?
At this point I don't anticipate the possibility of an American Church that isn't knee deep in the Culture Wars in partnership with politicians/parties.  That ship has sailed, and once involved in the fight, like grasping the tiger's tail, it isn't easy to stop.  The politicians will not stop looking for support (i.e. votes) from Church representatives, and those within the Church who are zealous for various issues will continue to seek help for their cause from politicians.  But make no mistake about it, if the culture as a whole continues to secularize, which seems extremely likely, the battles being waged will occur more and more often within the Church, splitting churches asunder, causing rancor and ill will, and tempting people within those churches to fight back "by any means necessary."  If Republicans and Democrats, at least publicly and on TV, act as if their opponents hate America and want to destroy the country, how long will it be until disagreeing factions within churches and denominations are calling those they disagree with enemies of the Gospel?  {If reports from UMC General Conference 2019 are true, such venom was there in abundance}.  Solutions are not easy to come by, I don't pretend to know the right way to move forward, for our UMC brethren or anybody else, but it is important that we recognize the danger of the path the Church is currently walking upon.  The Culture War rages on, and the role the Church is playing is becoming more and more toxic.

Christians must not advocate falsehoods

This really shouldn't need to be said, but given the current political climate in America, it has become clear that many people who call themselves Christians, from both sides of the political spectrum, have decided that the truth must be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.  In other words, the truth is getting in the way of winning in politics, therefore the truth has become a luxury that can no longer be indulged in.  The goal of winning against political foes has been valued more highly than the character trait of being a disciple of Jesus Christ who honors honesty and the truth.  The resulting common use of half-truths and outright falsehoods, knowingly, is not only weakening our democratic republic, but the ministry of the Church itself and the effectiveness of the Gospel, for it demonstrates that those who have placed the pursuit of power above the pursuit of the truth, have also placed their allegiance to Jesus in a secondary role, at best.
If you are a disciple of Jesus Christ, a true and committed follower who has been washed clean in the blood of the Lamb and given the gift of the Holy Spirit, you cannot serve another master.  The contrast between the kingdom of God, its priorities and methods, and the world in which we live, is very stark.  To "win" by the standards of this world, is to fail in the kingdom of God.  The world values power, fame, and wealth, the kingdom of God values humility, submission to God's will, and service to others.

Psalm 34:12 "Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days, keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking lies."
Proverbs 12:22 "The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful."
Proverbs 30:8a "Keep falsehood and lies far from me"
John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John 8:44 "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.  He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Don't lie to yourself, if you've embraced falsehoods, if you are willingly believing and spreading lies, you're not serving the kingdom of God.  Whatever your goal is, no matter how worthy it may be, pursuing it this way is sinful.  It isn't worth it, to tarnish your character for the sake of power in this world is a fool's bargain.  The people of God must be speakers of the Truth, and we must have no patience for those who have chosen instead to embrace lies, nor any part in spreading them.

Sermon Video: Should my word be my bond? - James 5:12

In all manner of aspects of business, politics, and personal relationships, the world is rife with the deceptions of lying, cheating, and stealing.  In many ways, those who find "success" in this world live by the mantra that "if you're not cheating, you're not trying".  For the people of God, such things are entirely unacceptable.  God's people, in contrast with the world, must live by honesty, integrity, and faithfulness.  We don't need oaths to strengthen our word, for our actions, day by day, ought to confirm to those around us that our word can be trusted.  It will cost us to live by a higher standard, we may lose out on business to an unscrupulous competitor, we may lose out on friendships with those live by deception; so be it.
Christian businessmen must choose to be honest and true in their dealings, Christian politicians must choose to abandon the back-stabbing, lying, and character assassinations so common in our current political scene (and those who claim to represent Christian values, but wallow in these vices, are in no way representing God's people), and Christians need to deal with their family, neighbors, and friends in honesty and integrity.  These are not optional choices for the people of God, but demands upon us by our Father.
FYI, this also means that in our arguments and debates, with fellow Christians or with unbelievers, we must embrace the truth, quote people fairly, eschew dirty tactics and character assassination, and treat our opponents with dignity.  That this behavior is sadly lacking, especially in what passes for debate on the internet, is painfully obvious.

To watch the video, click on the link below: