Aaron Edwards has written about the Henry Nowak case and compared it with the George Floyd case and resulting Black Lives Matter movement. Edwards has openly aligned himself with Christian Nationalism. It’s worth observing that Christian Nationalism is increasingly offering not just an ideology but as is the case with philosophies and ideologies, a hermeneutic or lens through which to interpret events, culture, politics, art, texts etc. So, as well as evaluating the ideology to see how the philosophy holds up, it’s important to evaluate the hermeneutics as well. Edward’s article offers us a good opportunity to do this. I’d encourage those seeking to understand the Christian Nationalist movement to do the same with articles, interviews and vlogs from other key proponents too.
In his article, Edwards writes about the demonstrations and violence in response to Henry Nowak’s case:
“”For many Christians, such a reaction will be difficult to understand. We observed the violence of the George Floyd riots during Covid and saw how silly it seemed for that one death to incite socio-political chaos over a “systemic” problem which did not seem to add up to reality.
As a result, evangelicals might therefore be more inclined to say that if the George Floyd reactions were deluded and weaponised by the Left to reassert liberal values in general, the same must be so for similarly strong reactions to mass immigration by white people, who arguably have a similar-sounding “systemic” claim about multiculturalism.
There are already a few faulty assumptions there. First, that “many Christians” shared Edwards’ perspective. Second that his perspective was right or at least credible. Many Christians whilst deploring violence understood fully how one death could become the tipping point for those who have experienced racism and injustice. Far from this being “a ‘systemic’ problem which did not add up to reality, we were both able to see the data that pointed to long term discrimination, and we were able to hear the testimony of people who have experienced a lifetime of discrimination, racial slurs and even physical attacks.
Later on, Edwards asks:
“But the two claims need to be understood on their own terms. Was Floyd a “victim” to the same extent as Nowak? Was Floyd’s death appropriate as a symbol for systemic anti-black racism to the same extent as Nowak’s death was for anti-white racism?
This is rather peculiar speculation. First, we have the question about whether or not George Floyd was a victim. I’ve over the past years, and especially in the past few weeks seen that kind of questioning. It tends to relate to the fact that Floyd had a prior criminal record. There was significant evidence that he had sought to get his life back on track but the police were responding to a reported crime. However, this does not change the fact that he was a victim and the police officer who murdered him was convicted for the crime. Victim status is not about whether or not the person is a sympathetic figure. Even if Nowak had been unpleasant and said something racist, the crime against him would still have been inexcusable, he would still have been the victim. Floyd was a victim of murder. We don’t get to chose our victims to turn into poster boys for our campaigns.
There are some significant differences though. Floyd became symbolically associated with the well documented racism that black people face at the hands of the US police. Significantly, Floyd was murdered by the police who were supposed to protect him; Nowak was not. Indeed, though initially mistaking him as the perpetrator (based on the 999 call they received), within one minute on the now widely posted body cam footage, the police discovered their error and tried to resuscitate Nowak, with the judge insisting earlier intervention would not have changed the outcome – Nowak was unsavable at the point of arrival. He did not die because of the police or their view of him.
Perhaps most notably of all, there is no serious evidence for “anti-white racism” in the Nowak case. It is worth noting that the Sikh perpetrator was soon after arrested, went on trial and sentenced heavily. He was not treated leniently because of his religion. In fact, there was a sense that his misuse of religious privilege to cause harm was viewed particularly dimly. George Floyd, by contrast, was treated by the American police in the very ways that have been well documented for black Americans. Yes of course, people from all ethnic backgrounds can be prejudiced. Yes, it is true that white, working-class men face disadvantages. However, neither of these is the same as systemic racism, not least because class and gender are much more significant factors in terms of male, white, working-class challenges.
Edwards continues:
“But what if the furore behind George Floyd’s death was not, in fact, a separate event, but a key component of the kind of thinking that leads to the continual enforcement of multiculturalism within formerly “white” nations? How? By perpetually insinuating that white people are racist, thus disempowering them from challenging it.
That was the problem with both the Floyd and Nowak situation, both of which demonstrated the obviously slanted weights of multicultural ideology, whereby “minorities” within western nations are given license to view white people through a cynical lens irrespective of what they have done, and denying them a due right of reply to the accusations.
Leaving aside that even with significant immigration, the UK remains a majority “white” nation, and leaving aside that this kind of language gives far too much space for “skinnism” – defining a nation by ethnicity, indeed by colour- note that primarily what we are seeing here is a sheer unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of racism. It is this form of denial that many people black people find so wearying.
Edwards goes on:
“Ultimately, it comes down to whether we see multiculturalism as a problem which needs to be removed, or whether we see multiculturalism as some kind of benevolent good for society because it is supposed to bring people together, perhaps even as some perfect picture of “the Gospel” which secular liberalism magically happened to stumble upon accidentally.
But can anyone honestly look at this “multicultural” age of the West and say that it has led to greater unity and peace between different races and cultures?”
Well, let me throw back some questions in return.
- What is the alternative in terms of any form of “picture” that might best reflect the Gospel. How does monoculturalism relate to what we look forward to when we gather before the throne of God?
- Who is saying that multiculturalism is “perfect”?
- Has Aaron spoken to people who live, work, serve in multicultural contexts?
The reality is that here in Birmingham, life is far from perfect. I’m not just referring to the bin strikes. There are parts of the city and wider metropolis where there has been violence. There are areas that look segregated. That’s true for white working-class areas just as it’s true for those areas that seem primarily to be Muslim.
However, there are areas where you see something different at play. You do see a mixture of ethnic backgrounds and different cultures. The multiculturalism is genuine. It’s not about assimilation or blending into one culture. Living in such contexts isn’t without its challenges. Worshipping in such churches has its difficult moments too. I speak as someone with experience. However, I am happy to say that yes, there has been greater unity and peace in such places and yes, there is something good, beautiful and gospel shaped when it goes right.
Edwards’ comment piece is relevant because it reflects some of the significant misunderstandings I’ve seen or heard concerning the two cases, that of George Floyd and Henry Nowack. The risk is that we build our understanding concerning issues based on internet memes and rumours rather than careful analysis of available evidence. One particularly concerning aspect of the comparison is the way in which the concerns in the former case have to be quickly dismissed in order to enable concerns relating to the newer case to be escalated. The problem here is exactly that what so many people from ethnic minorities have expressed is that so often their concerns are dismissed.
I think too that what we see in this kind of commentary is that nationalism, whether secular or Christian Nationalism consistently does end up being ethnic nationalism. Yes, we are told that it’s really about protecting culture but so much of the rhetoric is about perceived grievances from the majority culture and that is unavoidably linked to ethnicity.
Christian Nationalism therefore is not just an unhelpful and unbiblical ideology. It also demonstrates itself to be an unhelpful hermeneutic or lens through which to view the world.
Faithroots 