Taking the Knee

Kneeling is generally a symbol of respectful submission to a superior. It is a way to show yourself to be a friend, presenting yourself in a defenseless position. One reason for this sign of humble submission is a feeling of shame and guilt, seeking forgiveness and mercy. This can be appropriate before a person you have deeply offended or sinned against; it is certainly appropriate before God.

But what does it mean to kneel when the national anthem is played? How does kneeling differ from standing? Some try to dismiss it as an alternative way to show respect, but for most people it is obvious that this is not the intent. When you stand up for the anthem, it indicates that you are proud of the nation, and proud to be an American. In contrast, kneeling indicates shame: being ashamed of the nation, apologetic, ashamed to be an American.

This interpretation is confirmed by Colin Kaepernick’s explanation: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” By kneeling, he refused to show pride, he was expressing shame.

This explains why taking the knee is so offensive to most Americans. It expresses the widespread belief on the political left that America is fundamentally evil, and that we have much more to be ashamed of than proud of. It is the attitude expressed by Michelle Obama, when she said that the event of her husband’s election was the first time in her adult life she could be proud of her country. Subsequently, president Obama showed the same attitude in his “apology tours”. It is the shame engendered by the historical negationism of Howard Zinn, and more recently expressed in the 1619 project.

Symbols and symbolic actions matter. Some symbolic acts unite a people under a common cause, other symbolic acts incite tribal divisions and strife. “Taking the knee” in response to the national anthem is of the latter kind, and is nothing less than a rejection of our nation as one nation. It dishonors our history, our founders and those who fought and died for her. Those who take the knee are expressing more than a grievance, they are expressing a much broader hate and ingratitude. They of course have a legal right to such expression, but the rest of us also have every right to be offended.

Corporate Identity and Collective Guilt

In the present troubles, the ideas of corporate identity and collective guilt have become crucial subjects of discussion. What should be the Christian position, based on scriptures?  A summary statement, at the outset, would be that we are all social beings, bound together both synchronically and diachronically, such that we in fact suffer both good and evil consequences of the deeds of our ancestors. And, in various ways, we all share in collective sin and guilt.

From the Torah, consider Exodus 34:7b  — “He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations”.  Turning to the prophets, Isaiah regarded himself to be unclean because: “I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:4). These texts confirm the principle of corporate sin and consequent collective guilt.

On the other hand, we are given the promise that there will be a new covenant where God’s people will be accountable only for individual sins. “In those days they will not say again, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.” (Jeremiah 31:29-30).

Then, in the writings, we see explicit identification of two categories of sin: “Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins” (Psalm 10:12-13a). Note that the requests are different for the two categories: acquittal for the hidden faults, and prevention for presumptuous sin.

Then, in the gospel of the new covenant, Paul also speaks of two categories of sin: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). There is the corporate sin of the one man, Adam, and there are the sins of each and every individual since Adam.

Of the two kinds of sin, 1) non-presumptuous/hidden, and 2) presumptuous/willful, corporate sin would be a subset of the first category. This pertains to the sickness of unwilled sinfulness, which includes non-malicious prejudices and privileges. This collective guilt is between us and God, and He has forgiven us. We are all acquitted, covered by grace, by universal atonement. Roman patricians and soldiers who became Christians were not held accountable for the sins of their colleagues and ancestors. But sins of the second category, those that are individual and presumptive, require individual repentance. And for these we have accountability to the victims, to seek forgiveness and offer restitution (as with Zacchaeus).

What then are our social obligations regarding corporate sin? There are some things that can be done to partly ameliorate the evil consequences of such sins, and we are obliged to do what we can. But such deeds are to be acts of love, because we are forgiven, not deeds of penance to win forgiveness. Those who would demand repentance and penance for sins that are not willful, in order to win their forgiveness for what God has already forgiven, do not serve peace; they rather create and aggravate strife. Furthermore, we must realize that any attempts at peacemaking using the methods of this world have severely limited effectiveness. In the world, racism, tribalism, profiling and identity politics are to some extent forever incurable and inevitable. And attempts to eradicate such sins by coercion are ultimately counterproductive. Institutional systems and structures can sometimes facilitate or sometimes hinder people’s efforts to do either good or evil, but genuine and lasting transformation can arise only voluntarily, from the hearts of individuals. The only truly effective answer is in Christ, by the Spirit.

And what should be our corporate identity? Everyone who is of the world shares in both the corporate sins and sufferings of their ancestors, because their connections and heritage are according to the flesh. But Christians are new creatures, born from above, in the Spirit. Our corporate identity is not found in the flesh, but in Christ. Our brothers and sisters and ancestors are the spiritual brothers and sisters and ancestors we have in Christ, where there is no distinction of tribal or racial lineage (see Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:13-16). Our pedigree is not established by DNA, but by the one baptism.

What is the prognosis? The outlook for the world is quite pessimistic, as is well established in scripture. But we have the assured hope that in the kingdom of God all walls of division are torn down, and there shall be peace. And it is within the church, among those who are in Christ, that there is both the possibility and the obligation to put this peace into practice in the present age. “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33b).

The God Who Polarizes

Our present cultural and political climate is in many respects overly and detrimentally polarized. Instead of seeking a knowledge and understanding of issues, there is an unprecedented drive to spin everything into self-serving narratives and agendas. This kind of polarization, which does not value rational and civil truth-seeking, is lamentable. But there is another kind of “polarization” that is proper and plays a necessary role in realizing God’s purpose.

In the process of purification, separating good from evil, evil is not immediately destroyed, but rather becomes more concentrated and intensified. Each side of the conflict becomes more “pure” in its extremity. In refining gold, not only is the gold purified, but the slag also becomes more concentrated. This sets the stage for major battles, and therefore major victories. Genesis 1 presents this polarizing / sanctifying process as foundational to creation: the separation of light from darkness, and the separation of the waters (of chaos) from dry land.

God’s actions against evil generally provoke a response of intensified evil. Things must get worse before they can get better. For example, Moses’s initial confrontations with Pharaoh resulted in greater oppression for the Hebrews. Pharaoh’s army was eventually enticed into a final assault, in which they were decisively destroyed. When God gave His people the Torah, Sin became utterly sinful, before Torah could have its fulfillment in Messiah, at the height of “polarization”.

As a general principle, the full measure of God’s wrath must be filled before the day of judgment. At that time, as the wisdom literature teaches, those who dig a pit will fall into it. In like manner, whenever Christians oppose evil, they are likely to provoke persecution, and the consequences will be that our enemies incur greater judgment.

There are times when we are to be a force for peacemaking and reconciliation – when engaging those who respect truth. But there are other times when we must not shy away from the battle, when faithfulness to truth will be inevitably provocative. The word of truth is a sword of judgment when engaging those who are defiantly committed to self-deception. To refuse this duty to confront darkness with light and to bear the brunt of the counter-attacks – to shy away from “polarization” – is to be lukewarm. In that, our Lord takes no pleasure.