An important debate is swirling around our country. It was triggered by President Trump, but the controversy goes back thousands of years. It is a debate about human nature and ethics, about good and evil, and about what we should do if, whether individually or collectively, we have committed evil.
People and cultures influenced by the three great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) ground their moral code in the nature of God. According to these faiths, humans are special beings created in God’s image, able to choose between good and evil. Most adherents of other religions, as well as agnostics and atheists, also have a sense of right and wrong. Traditionally, committing an evil act was called a sin, but that word is not so common today. It is not just a change of words, but also how we view ourselves and our actions. Back in 1973, a psychiatrist, Karl Menninger wrote a book called Whatever Became of Sin?, in which he argued that our modern world was shifting away from the concept of sin. It was being replaced with terms like illness, dysfunction, or mental disorder. He suggested that this shift would result in a gradual reduction in accountability for our actions. Behaviors previously considered as sinful would now be excused as normal consequences of our biochemistry (nature) or our environment (nurture).
This lack of accountability now permeates our society. We either blame others for our errors, or we reclassify past sins as now morally neutral or necessary. This is a re-writing of history and is taking place today right before our eyes. An important example of this took place last Tuesday. President Trump ordered his lawyers to conduct a review of the Smithsonian museums because their description of the history of the United States was too negative, and they focused too much on “how bad Slavery was”. He continued, “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
This is Trump’s rewriting of his own description of the Smithsonian portrayal of U.S. history. Trump had previously praised the Smithsonian museums, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which he toured during his first term as president. “I’m deeply proud that we now have a museum that honors the millions of African American men and women who built our national heritage, especially when it comes to faith, culture and the unbreakable American spirit,” Trump said during remarks at the museum in February 2017. Later that month, Trump said the museum “tells of the great struggle for freedom and equality that prevailed against the sins of slavery and the injustice of discrimination.”
Why did Trump make this complete about face? Here are some possible reasons:
- Trump wants to distract the U.S. people from paying too much attention to the Epstein files.
- Trump wants to deflect criticism of his failed diplomacy attempts to bring peace to Ukraine. Putin has yet to make any concessions (such as a temporary ceasefire) and the Russian leader is slow-walking bilateral or trilateral peace talks. Is Putin playing him again?
- Trump wants to draw attention away from the rate of inflation that is starting to rise due to his tariffs.
Whatever his motivations, Trump is not alone in minimizing national sins and exaggerating national virtues. Rulers from long ago (Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors) and in more recent times (Hitler, Putin) have appealed to a cheap “patriotism” in attempts to justify their evil actions. The British claimed their imperial expansion was “beneficial” for their colonies. George Washington and other Revolutionaries saw through the hypocrisy of these claims. Prior to the U.S. war with Mexico (1846-1848), Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln brought legislation before the House of Representatives which denounced President Polk for taking our country into an immoral, imperialistic war against our neighbor to the south. Evidence demonstrated Lincoln was right, but the citizens of his district did not re-elect him to his House seat.
Jesus warned about rulers who cover up their evil deeds and falsely claim they are seeking the well-being of their subjects. “The kings of this world lord it over their subjects; yet want the people to address them as ‘Doers of Good’ (=Benefactors). But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-26)
It is not just rulers who deny their own evil deeds. It is quite common for most of us to ignore or minimize our sins, whether they be personal or national. Almost two thousand years ago, the Apostle John wrote, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” John continues with the remedy, “But if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9-10) Justice requires that we seek reconciliation with those we have damaged and that we pay compensation that is appropriate.
Some of us are sensitive to “individualistic” sins, like drunkenness or sexual infidelity, but are not nearly as attuned to social or national sins. Nevertheless, religious Scriptures deal with both individual and national sin. For example, the prophet Amos denounced the national/social atrocities of Israel’s neighbors. The Syrians, the Phoenicians, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and others were guilty of slavery, expansionist warfare, and the oppression of foreigners. The just God would bring judgment upon those who committed such evil acts. You can almost hear the Jews cheering as Amos railed against his nation’s neighbors and enemies and announced their impending judgment. But being God’s “chosen people” did NOT mean that Israel was guiltless. If anything, it means the Jewish people are probably more accountable for their actions because they have received more of God’s revelation. Therefore, Amos turns his attention to Israel and Judah. (Amos 2:4-16) He denounces their idolatry, their oppression of women via prostitution, their corruption, and their cruel mistreatment of the poor. Yes, social sin is real, and can be just as bad as individual evil… or worse. Yes, slavery in our country was truly atrocious and evil. If many of the slaveowners were “Christians”, their faith did not sanctify their actions. It merely added “hypocrisy” to their list of sins. The supposed “exceptionalism” of the United States does not justify nor sanctify our national sins.
Of course, I was not alive during the time of U.S. slavery. It ended nine decades before I was born. Nevertheless, some of my ancestors were slaveowners. Some of the inheritance I received (property, money, education) was due to the sinful exploitation of slaves. What should I do to make restitution? I’m just beginning to take some small steps.
Just as it is impossible to overemphasize the horrors of the Holocaust, I believe it also impossible to give too much importance to the horrific sins committed in our national slavery. Slaves were beaten and killed. Families were separated. In most cases, slaves were not allowed to learn how to read or write, nor to get married, nor to own property, nor to vote. The Christian faith they heard was heavy on “Slaves, obey your masters” and weak on “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”.
The presidential order quoted at the beginning of this post criticized the Smithsonian for showing “how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been”. This is the epitome of hypocrisy. I, and many of my fellow citizens, celebrate the resilience of those who endured slavery, and we are deeply impressed by the great accomplishments of Black Americans in all fields of endeavor. Two examples are the Tuskegee Airmen and Jackie Robinson of baseball fame. Nevertheless, Trump has previously ordered the removal of these two outstanding examples from governmental agencies because they are “bad” expressions of DEI. Mr. Trump, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t criticize the Smithsonian for omitting great black achievements and also order the removal of these examples from government agencies. Your blatant hypocrisy is damaging the moral education of our nation’s children.
Esteemed readers, do we know who we are and where we are going? An article in the Smithsonian Magazine tells us part of the purpose of its National Museum of African American History and Culture. “It was to help a nation understand itself — an impossible task without the full recognition of the horrors of slavery.” Some truths are quite painful, but they are necessary for our own self-understanding. If we learn from these painful truths, instead of trying to bury them, we are on the path of growing up.
Lindy Scott 