Man is a religious animal. It is a fact which presents itself with such force across the centuries that denial of it ought to be considered a sign of insanity. Halloween, known to Christians as the eve of All Saint’s Day, is on first blush the poster child for secularization. A formerly religious holiday is now remembered for pumpkins, ghosts, goblins, gouls and hordes of children going door to door asking for free food. The religious observations which used to mark the last day of October have been soundly replaced by reveling in the secular tent poles of society. Children get to pretend they are super, invincible and immune to corruption. High schoolers and college students blend in a sexual element captured perfectly in that line from Mean Girls: “Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.”
But, besides the Christians who still observe the holy day with reverence (and sanctify the secular activities as well), another religion has begun to use Halloween as a time for evangelization and a time for reflection. The religious animal has risen again and this Halloween, secular liberalism is claiming a space for its own observances.
The primary observance of evangelical secularism is the preaching of the gospel of political correctness. For no particular reason, I have remained facebook friends with several people I went to high school with, despite a lack of a continued friendly relationship following the reception of our diplomas. One of them attends Gustavus Adulphos, a private college in St. Peter MN, and recently liked the following post on their “Overhead at Gustavus” page:
Please try and understand that it is NOT okay to dress as ”Pocahontas” or ”Indian Princess” or other costumes based on racial stereotypes this Halloween. It’s offensive and disrespectful and we Gusties are better people than that! This is a problem for people of many cultures and the ‘Pocahontas’ phenomena is just one example.
Think about what your costumes are saying before you go out instead of misrepresenting your likely wonderful self and offending others. Halloween is supposed to be a fun time of the year, so let’s keep it that way for everyone.
Attached to this post was a link to an “Open Letter to the PocaHotties and Indian Warriors this Halloween.” The post, like the letter, is rife with the symptoms of secular moral outrage. “I was going to write you an eloquent and well-reasoned post today about all the reasons why it’s not ok to dress up as a Native person for Halloween,” begins the author, “but I can’t. I can’t, because I know you won’t listen, and I’m getting so tired of trying to get through to you.”
She asserts (rather than argues) that: “you don’t understand what it feels like to be me. I am a Native person. You are (most likely) a white person.” “You don’t have to worry about the vast majority of your people living in poverty, struggling with alcoholism, domestic violence, hunger, and unemployment caused by 500+ years of colonialism and federal policies aimed at erasing your existence.” “By dressing up as a fake Indian, you are asserting your power over us, and continuing to oppress us. That should worry you.” “there are so many other things you can dress up as for Halloween. You can be a freaking sexy scrabble board for goodness sake. But why does your fun have to come at the expense of my well-being? Is your night of drunken revelry really worth subjugating an entire group of people?”
The issue here is not that racism against Native Americans isn’t a problem or that racism isn’t at all a problem. The issue is that so much of this moral outrage is really a mask for a self-indulgent pity party. For the record, I also have Native American blood. That neither renders me a lesser person or a greater person. In other words, I am not entitled to take moral offense at anything that could possibly be construed as being racist.
It is silly to think that every person who dresses up as Pocahontas is being intentionally, viciously racist. Surely no one is going to assert that all the “sexy nurses” this Halloween represent an intentional stigmatization of the medical industry. Neither will anyone argue that dressing up as a firefighter somehow calls into question the goodness of the men and women who put out fires. To determine what is respectful and what isn’t you need more than a costume, you also need behavior.
For example, a friend of mine is a teacher at a private high school. During her time there, the school suffered from this rising tide of political correctness and everyone who could possibly be construed as being racist was hauled in before the tribunal. A young man showed up on Halloween in full Native American regalia, complete with moccasins and head dress. Assuming the worst, a teacher hauled him into the principles office and accused him of using his “costume” to mock the culture of the Native tribes. It looked bleak for the poor boy, until he pulled out his tribal membership card, told the teacher where she could stuff her politically correct superiority complex, and walked back to class.
Or take another example, from my alma mater. The grade behind me at Hill-Murray School had its share of pranksters. A group of them discovered that it was possible to buy both a banana suit and multi-colored gorilla suits. So, it became a “running” joke at sporting events to have the banana be chased around the stadium by the gorillas. It was hysterical, until the PC police came forward. At a basketball game against a predominantly African American school, the costumes were mistaken as a racist joke. The news media was called and the students were accused in the court of public opinion for a crime they did not commit.
Racism, when it is real, is a big deal. It is a sin against the Body of Christ to look down on our brothers and sisters. But, it is also an injustice to assume that everyone, at all times, is secretly being racist and…you are the judge of them. The students who “liked” the link and commented on it ought to realize that there is a difference between someone who uses Native American dress in an intentionally mocking way and those who simply wear it. The PC Police aren’t going away anytime soon, but we should at least recognize what is under the costume: a false notion of superiority masked by a superficial concern for the oppressed. To think that these students will one day occupy the positions of power in our world is perhaps the one thing that has actually scared me this Halloween.
Comment by Kevin on November 3, 2013 at 3:08 pm
I am reminded of Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor 8 regarding eating food that had been offered to idols. Paul makes it clear that there is nothing wrong with the food in and of itself, and Christians should have no qualms about eating it. However, there are some that are offended by that, and states explicitly that causing that offense in them is a “sin against Christ.” The author you cite above states that she is of Native descent, and she is offended by people who appear to be mocking her culture. Since she has stated her concern, the Christian thing to do would be to acknowledge her concern and refrain from offending her further.
The problem with the anti-PC crowd is that you are trying to force others to conform to your interpretation of your own behaviors. You are correct that many of these people mean no offense, but the intention behind an action often does not matter to the person who is seeing it. For example, I could be a major film buff, deeply in love with early cinema, and choose to dress in blackface as an homage to that era of film. Regardless of my intentions, there are many people who would be offended by such a costume, and rightly so.
We are responsible for each other whether we like it or not. As an American, I have absolute freedom of expression, but as a Christian, that right is curtailed by my concern for those around me. It’s not about you or your rights. It is about someone else’s pain, and whether you think that pain justified or not has absolutely no effect on the way that person feels. As ministers of peace, we should strive to avoid causing pain on issues such as this, even if that means denying ourselves the pleasure of a night as a sexy Pocahantas.
Returning to the example above, most people today realize that blackface was an intentionally racist stereotype that was designed to mock people of African descent. Most people do not realize that the majority of our Native American costumes fall into the same category. We have an image of Native Americans that is largely shaped by racist cartoons and derogatory film representations. Whether you intend to offend or not, the fact is that these images were composed originally with that intent, and many people will find the racist aspects, well, racist.
Even those few Native American costumes that aren’t racist in origin often are insensitive or offensive in practice. Many of the “costumes” we associate with Native Americans have religious and cultural significance, and we offend by failing to understand this aspect as well. How many Christians are offended by Naughty Nun costumes? How about a pedophile priest costume? Or a televangelist with overflowing pockets and a fake TV smile? Or a Westboro church member, complete with inflammatory troop protest sign? These are, of course, offensive stereotypes of Christians that most of us would rather not be associated with our faith, yet we have to acknowledge a right for such costumes to be worn.
Yet, all arguments aside, the fact remains that you do NOT have the right to decide what is offensive to another person. Whether it is reasonable or justifiable, when someone becomes offended by something that we do, we have crossed a line. The Scriptures don’t leave much wiggle room here. If something we are doing offends another, even if it is perfectly justifiable on it’s own, it becomes sin if we continue in it once we have been made aware of the offense. Sin against the person whom we offended, and sin against Christ himself.
Does the PC movement occasionally go to far? Yes. Should there be a legitimate push back against some of these things on artistic or free speech grounds? Sure. Should Christians brush aside someone whom we have offended because we can’t understand their reasons? Absolutely not. Whether you agree or disagree with their reasoning or their position, you have an obligation as a representative of Christ to be sensitive to their needs above your own.
As Paul stated: “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak…Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”
Comment by John Goerke on November 3, 2013 at 3:34 pm
“Yet, all arguments aside, the fact remains that you do NOT have the right to decide what is offensive to another person. Whether it is reasonable or justifiable, when someone becomes offended by something that we do, we have crossed a line. The Scriptures don’t leave much wiggle room here.” – You
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” – Jesus (Matthew 10:34)
Comment by Kevin on November 3, 2013 at 9:49 pm
But that is the point, Mr. Goerke. The gospel of Christ is an offense and a stumblingblock to the world. We should not do anything that makes it more difficult for people to come to the knowledge of Christ. We must accommodate the weak and faithless in as much as we are able in order to allow them to accept the offense of the cross. Paul said “I am become all things to all men that by all possible means I might save some.”
The cross is its own offense. We should in no way compromise that, but neither should we add to it by offending people for no spiritual reason.
Comment by Helen on November 3, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Thank you for your words. While I do not agree with everything you’ve said, I am saddened that Mr. Goerke cannot even find it in him to fully respond to you.
Comment by Kevin on November 3, 2013 at 9:52 pm
I mean no harm, Helen. I am not a regular reader of this blog and I’m sure that Mr. Goerke has more than enough to keep him busy. I am grateful that he allowed the post to pass moderation and continues to allow it on his page. That is a mark of courage in itself. Reasonable dialogue is a hallmark of a civilized people, and Mr. Goerke has done much by simply allowing the dialogue to occur.
Comment by Andrew Laird on November 5, 2013 at 6:42 pm
The little country church I grew up in had a Fall Festival every year around Halloween, as a fund-raiser, and the big money-maker was the haunted house walk-through. In those days (the 1970s), Christians saw no big deal about kids dressing up as ghosts or monsters or vampires or whatever. We took our own kids trick-or-treating, and of course they loved it. On the one hand, I understand that the world has changed and there are sickos out there who take all the satanism and witchcraft seriously, so Christians ought to keep our distance from it. On the other hand, I think of people I know who grew up as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and were not allowed to even celebrate Christmas or Easter, and such people will tell you quickly that this sort of legalism was a big factor in making the break from the JWs. Parents do what they feel is best for their own kids, of course, but I can’t imagine denying a kid the innocence of the usual Halloween goings-on. Doing so can turn them against faith.