A GOOD HEART by Esther Nelson

In spite of organizations such as “Black Lives Matter” and the three or four waves of feminism over the past century, both racism and misogyny remain stubbornly alive.  We’ve made positive strides on both fronts, yet much remains to be done.  Curiously enough, I’ve noticed more sensitivity in our current society regarding racism than misogyny.  People claiming to be “woke” seem more inclined to be woke to the manifestations of racism—not so much to misogyny.

According to Merriam-Webster, the term woke is about being “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”  Merriam-Webster’s second definition of the term is “politically liberal (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme.” 

Here’s a youtube video about the term woke:

More and more, I hear the term woke used pejoratively—the second Merriam-Webster definition of the word.  I think of woke in relation to the Buddha.  As the story goes, shortly after the Buddha’s enlightenment, he was approached by several men.  They asked him if he was a god, a reincarnation of god, a wizard, or just a man.  The Buddha answered negatively to all their questions.  They then asked, “So what are you?”  The Buddha replied, “I am awake.” 

In our present-day context, one way we demonstrate we are awake (or woke) is by empathetically listening to another’s reality and actively pursuing any change possible that moves us all closer to equity and justice.  In other words, woke people are all about dismantling the master’s house (Audre Lorde, American writer/poet, 1934 – 1992) built on hierarchy, fear, and oppression.

One way racism and misogyny live and thrive is reflected in the comment I hear by well-meaning people who often “go along to get along.”  When these well-meaning people are reminded that someone’s speech is racist and/or misogynistic, they inevitably say, “Yes, I know, but they [whoever made the comment] have a good heart.” 

One of my former colleagues, a nurse, spoke about working for a doctor in rural Virginia some years ago.  As was the norm at the time, the doctor had office hours set aside at the end of the day, twice a week, for Black people.  “But, he [the doctor] had a good heart, treating them the same way he did his white patients.”  The treatment my colleague spoke about, obviously, had nothing to do with caring that Black people were marginalized, set apart purposively so white patients would not have to share the same space with them at the same time.  The doctor had a good heart, though.

I know a former pastor who also had a good heart.  He made himself available to several people who called him from the local bus station asking for financial help as they were just “passing through.”  The pastor responded with aid because he, indeed, did have a good heart.  Yet, this same pastor preached against homosexuality as being “an abomination unto the Lord,” and would beg God to turn gay people from their sin.

My husband’s stepmother also had a good heart.  She loved cooking Thanksgiving dinner, inviting family, friends, and neighbors to her table to feast.  Yet, she resented immigrants—the ones from Central America and Mexico coming into her town, getting a handout from the local government, and spoiling the town (I guess by just existing) for the residents. 

My missionary parents both had good hearts.  It’s what propelled them to Argentina as they attempted to “remove the blindness from the heathen.”  My parents believed their particular message, based on biblical interpretation and exposition from 19^th and 20^th century fundamentalists such as Dwight Moody, Donald Barnhouse, Billy Sunday, Bob Jones Sr. and Jr., Jack Wyrtzen, and Carl McIntire, Jr.—to name but a few.  My parents sought to replace people’s beliefs with what they considered ultimate Truth “for the people’s own good.”

This “good heart” rhetoric has been (still is) quite loud within heterosexual marriages—much having to do with husbands not equitably sharing responsibility for the household.  Should a wife be unsuccessful in finding an appropriate solution, it’s not unusual to hear voices from her community tell her, “I know, but he’s a nice guy and has a good heart.  At least he doesn’t beat you.  Be grateful for that.” 

Lots of people have “good hearts.”  So, what’s the problem?  Some of these good-hearted people dismiss the narratives of others regarding their own situation and experience.  Good-hearted people can dominate and control the conversation that often fixes policy and law as we move forward.  Spare me that kind of good heart.

Jim Rigby, a minister at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, understands what it means to be woke without ever using the term.  He recently wrote this on his Facebook page:

ON FROGS AND CIGAR BOXES

“When I was a kid I often tried to capture frogs to make them my pets.

Time and time again I would tenderly put the frightened creatures in cigar boxes lined with napkins.

To my dismay, the frogs would always eventually stop moving.

Even if I tried to set them free at that point they would still die.

From that sad legacy I learned it is not an act of love, but of murderous indifference, to try to make another being live in my context.

Our paths may intertwine, but no other sentient being is here to decorate my world.

I do not love another if I do not love them AS other.”

I wish my parents, along with the good-hearted doctor, pastor, and stepmother-in-law had understood this.  Heck, I wish I had understood this early on—especially when raising my children. 

Why DO we try to make people our pets by putting them into cigar boxes, forcing them to live in our context?  Short answer:  Our patriarchal social system.  Domination is at the core.  We all swim in those waters.