Online Articles TV USA

Harry, Meghan and Oprah: An interview fit for a kingless society

Going by responses already I suspect I am going to regret writing this.  Some Christians in particular have been visceral in their response.  Apparently I have committed blasphemy!   It appears that touching people’s idols and questioning cultural shibboleths is not permitted in some circles.   Too late. Here is this weeks Christian Today article.  As Oprah would say ‘its my truth’ so don’t condemn!

Harry, Meghan and Oprah: An interview fit for a kingless society

UNSPECIFIED – UNSPECIFIED: In this handout image provided by Harpo Productions and released on March 5, 2021, Oprah Winfrey interviews Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on A CBS Primetime Special premiering on CBS on March 7, 2021. (Photo by Harpo Productions/Joe Pugliese via Getty Images)

It’s a good rule not to get involved in other people’s family squabbles. It’s another not to listen to gossip and to remember the proverb “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).

That thought came to mind as – much against my desire – I watched the Oprah interview with Meghan and Harry. There were many things that one could sympathise and empathise with – indeed you would have to have a heart of stone not to do so. But I did not watch it for the gossip, nor the personal story. I really am not a fan of celebrity culture, whether royal or not.

I watched the interview because I felt it would give us a good indication of where much of our society is headed – and it did.

1. Celebrity counts – and sells. I also realise that it catches most of us and that even my writing this contributes to the chatter.

2. The private becomes public and the public becomes therapeutic. The public interview is used as a form of therapy for the celebrity. It’s one thing to have a private conversation with Oprah about your personal struggles with your family – it’s quite another to have it knowing that billions will watch, and that you and the people you have a quarrel with will see that played out for weeks, months and years afterwards.

If you complain that all you want is privacy for your family, then seek publicity through Oprah at the same time, this is the prime example of having your cake and eating it! There is undoubtedly a problem with tabloids and others seeking to publicise celebrities’ personal lives, but the bigger problem is when the celebrities want to tell us intimate and personal details of their own private lives.

3. We are obsessed with skin colour. Martin Luther King’s dream that we would be judged by our character and not the colour of our skin now seems a distant dream. Skin colour in the world of identity politics and celebrity victimhood is constantly weaponised. Meghan said Harry had had a conversation with a member of the royal family who asked what colour the baby would be. This unsubstantiated report of a conversation she did not hear has already been taken as Gospel – and the worst possible interpretation has already been made. Clearly this was explicit racism of the deepest sort.  Or maybe it was an innocent comment?   It sounded like the kind of clumsy remark that the Duke of Edinburgh is infamous for – but despite not saying who it was, Oprah was wheeled out on morning TV in the US today to say it was not Prince Philip or the Queen.  Which just leaves the rest of Royal Family to play the ‘pin the tale on the racist’ game.    Meghan spoke of how she thought African girls would be glad to have someone who looks like them.  Apart from the inconvenient fact that she doesn’t – why the obsession with judging people by their skin colour?

4.  Truth is whatever you want it to be. It’s your truth. When Oprah asked Meghan to tell her truth, I was reminded of the Manic Street Preachers album title, ‘This is my truth, tell me yours’. The trouble is, when it’s ‘your truth’ it can’t be questioned. Let’s take two examples – the idea that Archie was not given the title of prince because of racism, or a family squabble. Meghan told us: “it’s not their right to take it away.” But nothing was taken away. Under a 100-year-old convention, it is only the children of those who are in the direct line of succession who are called Prince or Princess (in this case William and Kate’s children). I was also struck by the dishonesty of saying “I don’t want to disparage them”, and then immediately disparaging them.

5. Personal experience trumps everything. My experience can never be questioned, or challenged. It was so sad to hear of Meghan speaking about how she felt suicidal. But that is not a unique experience – nor is it something that the rest of the world should automatically assume is the fault of the family. Many of us have felt suicidal. For some the reason appears obvious, but for others it is deeply complex and complexly deep. Suicide and suicidal feelings are to be taken seriously. They are not to be mocked or dismissed. Nor are they to be weaponised or used to manipulate. I’m not sure that parading them on TV for all the world to see and scrutinise is conducive to good mental health.

6. Marriage and weddings have been cheapened and devalued. If Meghan’s claim that they actually got married three days before the wedding were true it would be shocking. It would make the wedding a lie and the Archbishop of Canterbury a participator in a fraud. But it’s not true. The legal wedding and vows were on 19 May 2018, not three days before.

7. Our society does do forgiveness. It just doesn’t do it well. Nor does it do justice. Can you imagine if Prince Philip had dressed up in a Nazi uniform – how it would be endlessly retweeted and numerous opinion columnists would pontificate about the institutional racism within the Royal family? But it wasn’t Prince Philip, it was the 20-year-old Prince Harry – and his family stood by him. Now that same Harry is complaining about an unnamed other in the family asking about the potential colour of his babies’ skin – and allowing his whole family to be trashed because of it.

8. We live in a world where even the most privileged can claim victimhood. Privilege comes in many shapes and sizes. I would suggest that living next to Oprah, touring Los Angeles in an open top bus with talk show host James Corden, and wearing a $4,500 dress to an interview does not really entitle you to claim to be a member of the oppressed classes. Harry complained about being cut off financially, yet he inherited £14m from his mother, and the Queen Mother gave him over £10m – more than William precisely because he was not to be king. They also have multi-million-pound deals with Netflix, Spotify and Disney. This is hardly the poorhouse or indeed any kind of deprivation. But there is a wider implication here. The new elites claim victimhood in order to justify their elitism.

9. We are prepared to trash our most precious institutions in the name of ‘authenticity’ and individualism. In terms of the Royal Family, it was the cult of Diana that deeply wounded and almost destroyed them. Who knows the damage that the revenge of Meghan will reap? Anti-monarchists can hardly contain their joy! I confess I am not a monarchist (although I do admire the Queen) and I would be happy to see the monarchy gone if it were not for one thing – what would replace them? Give me the Queen and Prince Philip any day – at least compared with the woke Californian celebrities and multi-billionaire technocrats. I find more reality in the privacy and aloofness of the Queen than in a couple of millionaire celebrities claiming that keeping chickens and baring all on the Oprah show makes them ‘authentic’.

10. Our society is inconsistent and confused. There was so much evidence of this in the interview. At times I wondered if the fairy-tale Princess and Prince Charming who just want to be ‘ordinary people’ but with Royal incomes, privileges and celebrity get confused between real life and fantasy. I wouldn’t blame them if they do – many of us struggle with that. It’s just we don’t have a fantasy that is so close to the reality.

Aside from all that, there were so many contradictions. Harry complained about colonialism, while accepting all the privileges of belonging to a monarchy which has benefited from it the most – and while serving as a soldier in Afghanistan, a former colony of the Crown. Both demand privacy and then cut deals with media companies to take away that privacy.

This interview in so many ways reflects the shallowness and confusion of the celebrity culture which our society is dominated by. On subjects from climate change to covid, we need celebrities to tell us what to think, do and feel. And therein lies the rub: this interview was a Godless interview – there is no room (or felt need) for God in the lives of many of our rulers. And this interview was a good signpost on the road Western culture is headed down. It does not point to a good destination. Rather, we need to turn!

I wish Harry and Meghan well. I pray that their personal issues with both their families will be sorted out (preferably in private), that they will know peace and above all that they will come to know the King of kings.

The Wedding, the Sermon and the Reaction – Article on Christian Today

The Queen – AP

 

53 comments

  1. David I agree with what you are saying in your blog. In the interview ,there was no mention about Megan’s family? Where was the question about why was it only her mum at the wedding? Her own father sharing a personal letter with the press. I believe her sister has a book out about the family gossip. Oprah has been paid reputably £7 million! The so called racist comment was not I think it is a normal question to ask if there is a bay from two people of different colours. She had suicidal thoughts so has millions of others this past year including myself. I feel Harry has been misguided in agreeing to all this and the media are making the most about it all. I feel for the Queen and the family at this time . My thoughts and prayers go out to all involved.

  2. Hmm – I was very much of a similar position to you David until I saw the interview. Now I am not so sure. Have I come round to truth from listening to Harry and Megan or have I been duped by good acting? I honestly don’t know.

    To my uneducated and possibly naïve eyes about acting, they both came across as authentic, particularly about mental health and as you say, you would need to have a heart of stone not to have empathy. Harry talked of protecting his family, and wanting relationships to heal with the royals being fearful and trapped according to his account. Megan talked of protection for Harry being removed as well as for her and the children when taking what appeared to be a convincing need for her to retreat to Canada away from UK publicity in order to heal and have needed support in healing.

    So, I’m not sure at this point in time what is true. Whatever the reality of this, it would be wrong to throw the royal family under the bus having heard only one half of the story. Will the royal family continue with the “don’t complain and don’t explain” approach? In which case could this be trial by media?

    I also wonder about Megan’s father. Harry talking of healing relationships wiht the royals but what of Megan with her father? I’m surprised that there was no question about him asked. Or comment about hum having a heart attack a few days before the wedding and being unable to attend. Or the dispute between the two of them over the publication of private letters. Isn’t it his claim that him going public with this was him reaching out to her and wanting to connect? It seems Megan dodged a bullet with this not being asked.

    At this point I have more questions than answers and I can perceive arguments for and against. On one hand Harry talks of healing in relationships over time and given the ministry of reconciliation that Jesus has, of longing to gather people as a mother hen gathers her chicks, this seems not dissimilar. On the other hand, there is a point that you make that is valid about courting the media and then complaining when it doesn’t turn out the way that they want e.g. the publication of Megan’s father’s letters. Or the spending of £2.4 million, say, of taxpayers money on renovations then abdicating royal duties.

    So – I don’t know.

  3. Another problem is that the other family members cannot and will not be able to respond. They have no voice in the dispute.

    Harry still wants to be included in celebrations yet does not want any obligation or duties.

    My opinion is if you feel the need to go to Oprah, you are already in the wrong. You need to look deeply at who is at fault.

  4. “Harry complained about colonialism, while accepting all the privileges of belonging to a monarchy which has benefited from it the most – and while serving as a soldier in Afghanistan, a former colony of the Crown.”

    …And fought and killed for a neo-imperialist power, no less!

  5. Utterly and totally agree. In fact I would go further and state that the whole charade was essentially dishonest.

    Melanie Phillips also has a good piece on this.

    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#search/melanie+phillips/FMfcgxwLsmlpcxZLhZwWrPxKzVTqvcpm

    If anyone believes that this confident brash woman ever seriously contemplated suicide, then they have never met a psychologically deeply troubled person with genuine suicidal thoughts.

    And Harry should, perhaps, remember the 5th commandment with its associated warning.

    1. That is quite a presumptive and dangerous take. It is possible for wealthy celebrities to experience depression and suicidal thoughts . It is possible to be v outward going whilst clinging on by a thread.

  6. Without entering into the meat of your post, just to note that you got the wrong Martin. The one with the dream had surname “King”… indeed a kingless post… 😀

  7. In my humble opinion – a brilliant response David. You’ve put into words what I think better than I could have articulated it myself. I agree 100% on each point you’ve made.

  8. “Under a 100-year-old convention, it is only the children of those who are in the direct line of succession who are called Prince or Princess (in this case William and Kate’s children”

    Incorrect. Archie would become Prince upon Charles being made King.

  9. It seems quite simple: Meghan has shown many signs that she never submitted in marriage. Indeed, she never seems to have left behind her country of birth.

    Of course, the church will not wish to address such an angle as “submission” of woman to a man has become a very obnoxious notion.

  10. Hey David. I read your piece in Premier Christianity, not knowing who you were, and its tone reminded me of some things I’d read previously, that I’ve seen shared by a facebook friend – and so I did some googling, and here I am. You are the man behind it all.

    Here’s the thing – I did have a reaction to your article, as I’ve had reactions to your other work – because your tone comes across to me, whether you intend it to or not, as frequently mocking, derisive, and superior. But I see your heart is for truth, and for the kingdom of God. So I’m here, writing this in full anticipation that you will label me a ‘snowflake’ or mock me as I’ve seen you mock many others – but I’m saying it anyway, because I believe we are called, as God’s people, to pursue unity. I’m sure countless others have done this before me – but I want to gently ask you – do you believe your tone brings glory to God?

    Because here’s the thing – in many ways, I find it hard to have compassion for Harry and Meghan. As someone who lives on a ‘deprived’ english council estate, it’s frustrating to see people not in full recognition of their privilege when there are people around me without the money to eat. But I can ralso recognise that there are many complex layers to our human experience. As a mother – I know the challenges of walking through pregnancy and childbirth and the postpartum period – without constant negative press scrutiny and slandering. As a friend of those who have lost parents – I know the pain and trauma of re-storying your life around that loss. I can recognise that in the midst of privilege, there can still be pain.

    And most of all – I want to follow the example of Jesus, who, ultimately, expressed compassion towards countless individuals who the world would not deem deserving of it. To me, Jesus was an expert at making people feel ‘seen’ – of course, he called out their sin, but he did so from a place of perfectly understanding them, and loving them. And I wonder – do you feel like that’s what you try to achieve, in amongst your satirical comments about society?

    I know you felt ‘compelled to watch’ the interview to provide comment on it. I wonder, perhaps, maybe it might have been better to watch – and to listen. To really listen, biting back every judgement that inevitably arose (as they do, for us all). And to sit with what you heard. And to let the places where you felt challenged, or angry, soak deep into your heart, and to wrestle with why you responded in the ways that you did. I wonder if this blog might bring more glory to the God of love, compassion, and justice if you did.

    With love.

    1. Thanks for the advice. I did watch and I did listen. My intentional judgement was to feel immensely sorry for her and Harry – but then I did what you said – and I stopped reacting emotively and went over what was said – checked the truth – looked at the wider context and then wrote what I did. I overcame my initial reaction – which unlike your judgement of my heart – was not anger etc. It was primarily sorrow and agreement. I realise that many people did feel anger – how evil the Royal Family are etc….but you are right, people should step back from the emotive soap opera, stop judging people’s hearts and deal with the facts.

      I find it interesting that you judge that what I wrote did not bring glory to the God of love, compassion and justice. With all due respect I will leave that judgement to Him. But thanks for the advice.

      By the way I think you are referring to the Premier article which they have now banned. So much for tolerance.

      1. Thanks for taking the time to reply – I respect it.

        I think if you re-read what I’ll find, I didn’t say that it didn’t bring glory to God. I merely wondered. Of course we should leave that judgement to him – but surely that’s what we’re all aiming for as believers? Nor do I seek to give ‘advice’ – I was very deliberately just wondering.

        It’s very interesting to hear your first reaction to seeing the interview. Perhaps a post exploring that further would be interesting. While our emotions can be flighty, they are also surely deliberate gifts from God – gifts that allow us to cultivate empathy, and compassion, and grace – those things which have to sit in perfect tension alongside ‘truth’. Because while it’s easy to mock the ‘speak your truth’ language (and I understand why it’s problematic) – it’s worth recognising that the stories people are telling themselves are important. And in my experience, people are more likely to reconsider their biased narratives when those are explored and probed with gentleness and grace – rather than just ‘refuted’ with ‘facts’. We can all find ‘facts’ on the internet to support our narratives, whatever they are.

        Finally, I want to call out your paragraph on skin colour. Your narrative is that it is ‘weaponised’. I wonder what part of you this comes from? Perhaps it causes you discomfort to admit that these conversations are only necessary because of the prevalence of systemic racism. Would you deny that that is an issue? I think that in areas where we have previously not been sufficiently ‘above reproach’ (either as individuals or groups) it’s all the more important to seek to be FAR above reproach. Sam Hailes’ article has a helpful paragraph on this:

        ‘ Racism is ugly. Like me, you might be tempted to ask questions such as, “What on earth was the context for those remarks?” (not that any context could ever justify them) in an attempt to understand how such things could be said, but a better response is to pause, to feel the weight of those words, and to resist any attempts in ourselves to explain them away. We can’t kid ourselves that racism is confined to the past. We also can’t kid ourselves that other people are racist and we’re completely pure and innocent of any prejudice.’

      2. Thanks Jennifer – when someone says I just simply wondered but didn’t make the accusation it doesn’t work. Take for example the phrase ‘I just wondered if you committed adultery!’. How would you feel about that?

        Your first post told me not to go by my emotions and prejudices – because you assumed wrongly that they would be negative. Now that they are more empathetic you are telling me they are a gift from God and I should go with them!

        I realise its much more easy to condemn without facts and reasons – but its not the way I work. And its not helpful.

        I also don’t agree about systemic racism – except in so far as Sam points out – all of us, of whatever race are guilty of racism….The notion that you actually have to be FAR above reproach is nonsense. Are you?

        Sam Hailes remark is wrong. There is plenty context in which the remarks could be fine. Sam is just virtue signalling whilst at the same time admitting he is a racist. Does he really believe that?

      3. Thanks for your reply again.

        I disagree about the difference between ‘wondering’ and ‘an accusation’. I don’t think I was accusatory at any point – my apologies if I came across that way. It was a genuine invitation to you to pause to ‘wonder’ with me about whether your approach is the most glorifying it could be. Sometimes I know I get caught up in my thoughts and I need a gentle, questioning outside voice – particularly when I’m talking about topics that I feel passionately about.

        Secondly, I want to draw a clear distinction between ’emotions’ and prejudices. Emotions (feelings) and judgements are two very different things. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. I initially asked that you put your JUDGEMENTS to one side – I didn’t mention feelings. A judgement, to me, in this context, is a decision we make about someone, or something – often very visceral. Judgements arise for us all – it’s a human thing. As are emotion – the feelings we experience. I am intrigued that you felt more compassionately, but made a choice to bite that back down. Maybe sitting in the space of those initial emotions for a while might, before rushing to form ‘an opinion’, might allow empathy to grow. And empathy can sit well along the pursuit of ‘truth’ – they are not mutually exclusive.

        Of course I am not ‘above reproach’ – I fall short often, and I definitely have on issues of race. But the reality is that people of colour have had their very real experiences of abuse denied by white people for a long time. Where there has been systemic hurt, we have a duty to make systemic amends. Racism is far more complex and subtle than deliberate, stated, direct racial slurs. We have learned from the recent abuse scandals in the church that we should listen to victims. I want that to be my approach with race too. If someone has experienced something they perceive to be racism, I want to acknowledge the hurt and harm of that, even if it was never the intent of the ‘offending’ party. In many ways the ‘truth’ around the intent is less important. Our failure to do that in the past has led to many of the current conflicting conversations around race.

        I wish you well, David. We disagree on many things. I want to affirm your value, and your worth, and your position as a loved child of God. May you know the truth of those things today, and may you live deep into them, knowing that you don’t have to hustle for your worth. Peace and love.

  11. Meghan and Harry, as well as many other celebrities, have set themselves up as their own gods. I feel bad for the royal family because Harry and Meghan are determined to get their pound of flesh by dragging unnamed people through the mud. What a vicious young woman she is! I would feel bad for Harry, too, but he made the choice, so he is now stuck with it.

  12. You don’t need me to say it, but well written, David. If there had to be an interview, it would have been much better with you as the interviewer but then we know that would never happen, because you’re male and white.

  13. Hi David,

    My husband and I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written today, the inconsistencies seemed glaring obvious to us from the outset, not least the very first problem regarding curtseying to the Queen.
    What? Harry hadn’t told her Celebrity and Royalty were different, she had no clue of this?
    Fair enough, she is American but I thought we understood that they as a couple had discussed these things so she could fit in to a different life? She also said she saw no need to read up on anything as Harry would tell her anything she needed to know? Well obviously he didn’t.

    Then the story of the skin colour, which actually took place a year before with Harry, NOT concerning Archie in particular as it was made out, it was concerning any offspring they might have but was conveniently brought into the discussion as a jaw-dropper and made out to be about a baby she was later to carry.
    The same with what you mentioned David, over the marriage vows.
    Again the double-speak.
    Just this morning the Bishop was interviewed about that very thing, it being so important in the overall scheme of things, obviously it has great connotations, but again it turns out these “vows” were what we all know as a rehearsal!
    Where has Megan been? This is stretching things beyond credibility and quite frankly puts anything said into question.
    More importantly, what is she trying to achieve here by twisting circumstances to make herself a victim.
    We can make any story fit the facts, if we choose to see things as we want to see them and not as they are and we certainly need help for this but after saying she could not cope with the media she then gives a world interview. How would this help?
    I know the wealthy can be birds in gilded cages, wealth is nearly as hard to handle as poverty but who of them would swap places with any one of us?
    And who with even a modicum of decency would wash their dirty linen in public.
    The Royal family have not always done what is right, they are flawed individuals like the rest of us, but do neither of these young people know what integrity or loyalty is?

    This had done neither them nor the Royal family any favours and indeed may well have repercussions way down the line.

    We were reading Proverbs Ch.4 this morning and it struck us how the scriptures have the answer to all life’s problems, if only folk would turn back to the Word they could save themselves many heartaches in this life, even Royalty.

  14. If it is only direct line of successions children who have titles why do Eugenie and Beatrice have Princess titles?🤔

  15. Dear David, It is fascinating that you talk about rich and powerful people claiming victimhood. I note that you protest vociferously if you feel that you are done an injustice when people challenge you and your writing. This despite you being one of the most well connected Christian writers with magazine columns and one of the top read blogs. There is surely some recognition there that it is possible to be the victim even from a position of seeming privilege. Your comments here and in your Premier Christianity blog miss the point. Wealth and popularity do not give you immunity from bullying, abuse, racism and especially from mental illness and suicidal thoughts. I can no more read into Meghan and Harry’s hearts than you and I am no more able to assess the facts as to whether she experienced bullying or racism or what has been the state of her mind. But we know that it is possible for people who seem to be “up there” to be carrying deep pain. We’ve seen prominent public figures including football managers take their own lives. This week I will take the funeral of someone who sadly took their own life. I think it is possible to challenge the media culture, and to identify things we see wrong in these interviews but it is also possible for us to do so with compassion and to recognise the challenge there is in encouraging people to acknowledge when they are struggling emotionally.

    1. I don’t claim to be a victim. And I know that everybody hurts. And I disagree with your judgement that my article lacks compassion. I’m afraid you have given in to the bullying culture which says unless you agree with my story then you lack compassion.

      1. Response above “I don’t claim to be a victim” comment below “I’ve been bitterly attacked” Today’s article “Why I got cancelled.” I think the evidence suggests different David. Then the response to people who challenge you and critique you. Isn’t is possible that they disagree for thought through reasons. Isn’t it possible that your article was not as good as you thought it was, that it actually was a stinker? But instead, if I challenge you, it is because I’m somehow compromised and corrupted by a culture around me. That itself is similar to the cultural norm where if anyone who disagrees with my truth it is their fault/they are deluded.

  16. Thank you for this sober reflection. It espouses much of my own feelings re this very sad saga. Nothing good can come of this public conflict.

  17. There is nothing new under the sun.

    I reckon we could find a number of proverbs and scripture that reflect the Oprah Opera.

    Firstly, this is primarily about money. Big money. This interview has been sold worldwide. Oprah’s suggestion that this was in some way a platform to help this couple resolve issues is a sham. It’s a big time pay day on an OJ scale.

    Resolve disputes? If your brother has anything against you, go to your brother, …..don’t let the first time they be aware of the issue be 12 months later via international media.

    Love covers a multitude of sins.
    The wrong is personal, between A and B, and should be kept between A and B, not the rest of the alphabet!
    I.e. it does not keep a record of wrongs for international publication. That’s not love.
    This is not our business. We have not been wronged. It’s gossip and mud slinging.

    Thou shalt not bare false witness: This is the biggy.
    Just because I think and feel something during a situation, does not mean that is the way it truly was, or was the others intent.
    If a motive is not one of love, but selfish, and only seeks to convey my perception, it bares a false witness to the truth. It’s possible to relay facts, and bare false witness, because this is about motive.

    Lastly, this is about sin. Self. Me. I.
    What is elevated is the individual above all else, ‘my right to myself’. Nothing or no one else matters but me!

    Who has given a thought to the mental health of Megan’s father?
    Who is interested to know if he has ever felt suicidal when the international media published the fact he was not going to his own daughters wedding? Who cares?

    Who cares about the mental health of those people inferred, but not named, but objectified by the term ‘institution’? These are people and staff who have served faithfully for years, who have made comment, taken out of context, publicised internationally on such a way they could never admit to saying such things because the damage to their reputation would be done! It’s been inferred! It was racist. It was ignoring mental health. Therefore is to be vilified.

    One point I do disagree with David (just 1).

    We as a nation don’t do forgiveness. We don’t pardon. We don’t know how to.
    We demand justice. Akin to that whereby Oscar Schindler had to highlight to Amon Goeth.
    People today are like Goeth. They cannot pardon, they demand justice, on their terms as Goeth did. Wrongs must be punished. They aren’t forgiven.
    It’s just a different term of justice we use than the extreme taking of life by Goeth, but still absent of a means to pardon.

  18. Queen Charlotte, wife of George III and great great-great grandmother to Queen Elizabeth II almost certainly had black ancestry. In fact she is listed on the site “100 Great Black Britons.”
    I am sure the Royal Family is well aware of this fact and would have very little reason to hold anyone’s racial background against them.

    100greatblackbritons.com

  19. My wife and I have a friend – a clever and savvy young woman who is Indian (Sikh) married to an Englishman. They are expecting the birth of their first child any day now. Today she said to my wife, ” what’s the fuss about the babies skin colour? Both our families have been discussing this for months! It is no big deal”.

  20. As someone who has studied and worked in mental health, as well as seeing the effects of racism on mental health up close being married to a black man and having mixed race children, I have to disagree with so much of this. I think this post has the potential to be very damaging, in a myriad of ways.

    A clearer grasp on what racism is and how it actually affects black people is necessary, rather than making assumptions from a position that will always be distanced from actually experiencing racism. No obsession with skin colour here, just experiencing a reality that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge and your post perpetuates.

    1. Again you sit in judgement on something and someone you do not know. I am married to a mental health officer. I have a great deal of experience of mental health…and of racism. Both of which I take seriously. So stop your bigotry and judgementalism. please.

  21. Well sir, what an article. Hit the nail on the head every time, every paragraph. However it needs to be aired for wider than this blog but probably won’t.

    I had been thinking too along the lines of which of the 10 commandments, our standard for what is right and good. He certainly violates the 5th commandment the first commandment with promise of course, and you touch on the privacy aspect of their troubles very nicely.

    Thank you again for such an excellent contribution.

    1. Feel free to share it….there is more to come…but I have been bitterly attacked by Premier Christianity – so will let you know the real story behind that.

      1. You have not been bitterly attacked. The magazine received feedback that an article that plenty of reasonable including many conservative evangelicals saw,, explained and reasoned was needlessy offensive and pastorally unhelpful in the context of bullying, racism and emotional health.

      2. I have been bitterly attacked and you have joined in the pile on…but there are none so blind as those that will not see…

  22. David, if you really believe that Dr Martin Luther King Jr was referring to “we”, as in white as well as black, indigenous and people of colour you are even more deluded when it comes to issues of blackness than previously appeared. How dare you (again) attempt to water down the experiences of racism and discrimination that black people face by casually trying to claim its a collective experience that white people also face?!

    I would wholeheartedly recommend some wider reading of Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s thoughts but for now I’ll leave this with you:

    “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom”

    1. Yes – when MLK was referring to not judging people by the colour of their skin – he didn’t just mean that black people should not be judged by the colour of their skin – but others should. He was not so stupid as to contradict himself in the one sentence!

      Are you speaking on behalf of black people? And why do you think that my article ‘waters down the experience of racism that black people face’? It doesn’t and your narrative is too simplistic.

      I have read a lot of MLK – I would suggest you do the same.

      MLK sought justice – not the kind of injustice that you are espousing.

  23. I’m not being silly or facetious: Maybe God is using the high-profile debacles of Meghan and Wallis Simpson to make clear to us by example Christ’s injunction against divorcees remarrying. In His grace, Hemight be warning us all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: