In the midst of all the hoopla surrounding Covid-19 and the approval and distribution of vaccines—not to mention the January 6 assault on the Capitol and the drama associated with the resulting Senate impeachment trial of a former president—a somewhat under-the-radar, but significant, development got lost. PepsiCo, the parent company of the Aunt Jemima brand, announced that they are moving on from that name and rebranding the company as the Pearl Milling Company.
Like many Americans, I grew up on Aunt Jemima pancakes and syrup. I saw the logo—the depiction of an African-American “mammy” on the box or bottle—and thought nothing of it. But the reality is the origin was based on a regrettable and damaging racial stereotype … a minstrel song from the 1880’s entitled “Old Aunt Jemima” which portrayed her as a devoted and submissive servant of her white master and mistress that cared for and nurtured their children while neglecting her own. The logo perpetuating such racism was apparently created in 1889 by two white men. As a result, PepsiCo decided rebranding was the way to go.
I applaud the move, as I am increasingly aware of the ingrained and entrenched cultural assumptions that are embedded in our society … assumptions that most black people have been aware of, and lived with, for generations. I believe racism is evil—it should be repudiated and renounced whenever and wherever it is found. I would call into question anyone who would try to claim biblical or religious justification for a position that claims one race is superior to, or better than, another. I renounce the Aryan nation and white supremacy movement in the strongest terms possible. I would endorse the development of school curriculum that teaches racial equality to young children. While I’m a proponent of free speech, I’d draw a line and limit racist speech in a way that rivals the restrictions we place on pornography. I would ban racism in governmental agencies and create pathways so those who’ve been denied opportunity because of the color of their skin in the past can have legitimate access to such. I would do what I could to overcome this scourge.
But then the thought hit me: What if I was to substitute “LBGTQ equality” for “racial equality”? No movement has achieved such a radical reversal of the cultural tide as the LBGTQ movement—61% disapproving of same sex marriage in 1999 and 67% approving of it only twenty years later. Does the way I believe racial inequities ought to be remedied model the approach that most of our society takes towards LBGTQ behavior? And, if so, could faith-based hospitals be required to provide gender-transition procedures that violate their religious beliefs? Could foster agencies that have a conviction about placing children with same sex couples lose their license? Could churches that don’t allow transgender persons to use the public restroom of the sex with which they identify lose their tax-exempt status and face other penalties? It is an uncertain situation—a slippery slope.
When I was in seminary, I was introduced to Richard Niebuhr’s classic book Christ and Culture where the author talks about how followers of Jesus handle situations where Kingdom values conflict and clash with those of the surrounding culture. He identified five ways we typically respond:
1. Christ of culture. We modify our beliefs to bring them more into line with the shifting cultural tide.
2. Christ against culture. We demonize those who disagree with us and withdraw from social engagement so we can practice our faith without opposition.
3. Christ above culture. We adhere to biblical morality when around fellow Christians but make concessions in our secular and work lives that compromise our witness.
4. Christ and culture in paradox. We engage secular society and work to guarantee ourselves a standing that affords us the right to be wrong in society’s eyes.
5. Christ transforming culture. We speak biblical truth with equal amounts courage and compassion—reaching out in love and viewing those who reject God as those who most need Him.
Out of these five options, I believe the latter is the most practical and effective way to respond to rising cultural opposition. And whether we like it or not, we are going to have more of it to deal with in the coming months and years. My prayer is we can, like those first-century followers of Jesus, be winsome and compelling agents of the One who is “the way, the truth, and the life” and both speak and live the truth in ways that are engaging and captivating.