Did you read the Oct. 11 Associated Press story about the new leader of a religious denomination in the United States?

Never mind which denomination. That’s not the point.

The focus of the story is that the denomination’s membership is almost entirely white, while the new leader is black.

♦♦♦

What really matters is the new leader’s ideas, character, and ability, not his melanin level.

Nevertheless, the denomination should be proud in this sense: It’s not all that many decades ago that no almost entirely white denomination would have elected as any leader, much less the nationwide leader, someone who isn’t white. It just wouldn’t have happened.

That this denomination, indeed this country, has crossed this bridge is a good thing. It’s a very good thing. Applause, applause.

Nothing–including what’s in the rest of the Oct. 11 story–diminishes this accomplishment in any way.

And no one should let what’s in the rest of the Oct. 11 story diminish this accomplishment in any way.

Keep reading the story though, and you’ll find reactions that are, shall we say, not only mistaken but also unfortunate.

♦♦♦

The Oct. 11 story quotes someone who is both a recent regional leader in the denomination and a friend of the new nationwide leader: “He is representing a very white denomination as a black man from the United States. I think it’s a daunting, daunting call.”

To paraphrase the familiar saying: With friends like that, the new leader doesn’t need any enemies.

Why is it “daunting,” much less “daunting, daunting,” much less “a daunting, daunting call” for the new leader as “a black man from the United States” to be “representing a very white denomination”?

Please re-read the friend’s remark carefully. Whatever she means by this, please ask yourself what her remark implies. It doesn’t exactly speak highly of the new leader, the denomination’s membership, the denomination itself, blacks in general, whites in general, the United States, or men.

All of them deserve better than this, especially from a recent regional leader of the denomination.

To put it mildly, she would do well to bolster her confidence in the new leader, the denomination’s membership, the denomination itself, blacks in general, whites in general, the United States, and men.

♦♦♦

But there’s more.

According to the Oct. 11 story, a current regional leader of the denomination also chimed in: “There can be a temptation to believe that calling a leader of color is enough,” she said. “But the reality is that it means creating support and infrastructure and actually allowing that person to lead out of all of (his) gifts and (his) identity, not just one piece of (his) identity.”

Please read the previous paragraph again and ask yourself: What does “enough” imply?

Whatever it implies, what she says is that upon “calling a leader of color,” the denomination should “creat(e) support and infrastructure.”

But why should the denomination “creat(e) support and infrastructure” upon “calling a leader of color”?

The answer is in the rest of the sentence: Because “creating support and infrastructure” facilitates “actually allowing that person to lead out of all of (his) gifts and (his) identity, not just one piece of (his) identity.”

The implication is that “a leader of color” needs–needs, mind you–“support and infrastructure” in order “to lead out of all of (his) gifts and (his) identity, not just one piece of (his) identity.”

What does that imply?

And please notice the rest: She speaks of “allowing” “a leader of color” “to lead.”

Allowing?

Allowing?

♦♦♦

One response to both of the regional leaders is what some southern ladies say when they mean something much less polite: “Isn’t that nice?”

Or as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in Adarand Constructors, Inc v. Peña in 1995, “racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So-called ‘benign’ discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence.”

Racial paternalism and patronizing indulgence toward the new leader are out of order and fundamentally wrong, especially–but not only–from denominational leaders.

♦♦♦

Randy Elf joins those who would rather focus on ideas, character, and ability than on melanin level.

COPYRIGHT © 2025 BY RANDY ELF