Influence and Reputation

I just heard a message about how we should not be around certain people by a prominent pastor.  He is certainly correct.  Bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor. 15:33)  I suppose the major problem with avoiding people who are not "at your level" is that you also avoid people who may indeed be flawed in many areas that can influence you (rub off) but they genuinely desire to improve; but because you avoid them, they don't have your example in their life to help them to grow.  It seems to go against what Jesus actually DID in the incarnation.  (That is, come to a people who had nothing good to offer Him).

When I served in college ministry, I recall a student of mine who saw a young woman around dusk under a light pole.  He clearly felt like God wanted him to engage her in conversation.  But because the evening was becoming dark, he said he was concerned about people's perception of him talking to a sister in the dark (he had a great reputation as both a believer and a bridge builder and generally speaking, it is right to be concerned about our reputation) so he did not go.  I reminded him about Jesus, who also risked His reputation to help people see God more clearly.

Surely, we should be concerned about how people perceive us and also how we influence them. It seems to me, that a most important role for us is to be influencers and not so much influenced by people who might rub off on you the wrong way. So...to the degree that you are able to influence or be influenced, that is a good gauge by which you may consider to be around people or not.

But by all means, don't simply avoid people who are "not on your level" or aren't yet perfected in everything. That seems to be arrogance.

I believe two significant adjustments must be made in the thoughts. Specifically about numbers two and three. First, number two: Three people know the answer.  Martin, Zimmerman and God.  I'm not trying to get overly spiritual.  But as a Christ follower I trust that God was watching.  He saw what happened and will judge fairly.  Who knows, He may conclude just what the jury did.  At least then, we will know that it was based on all the facts and not just the ones the court allowed or could see. Second; number 3: I have heard many people after this case say that "our justice system worked". I think to determine whether or not it worked, it's necessary to understand what one means by "justice".  OUR system of justice consistently fails people of color (especially African Americans). So, even when OUR system works, justice is still not served.  The system of "justice" in our nation, is broken.  So when we say our justice system "worked", if we mean that due process was provided, then all can agree that our justice system "worked" the way it was designed to. (However, this is what the cry of many people is. The way it is designed consistently fails)  [Thank God that some convictions that seemed to demonstrate that justice was served are being overturned by DNA results, but I digress] However, if we mean that the right verdict was reached as to the innocence or guilt of George Zimmerman; I don't think we can say it worked.  We can only say that due process for Zimmerman worked. We can only say that the jurors saw 'reasonable doubt' as to why Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted. This does not mean that justice was thoroughly served (and we can not speak for whether Trayvon Martin received justice or not since his story was not told).  This remains to be judged through the perspective of the third eye of that evening; God. BTW, if you believe our system worked then you should stand and fight for OJ Simpson.  For as much as so many believed him to be guilty, the jury came back with a "Not Guilty" verdict.  Now I ask you, if OJ actually did murder Nicole and Ron, does the "Not Guilty" verdict reflect a just verdict or simply a verdict that reflected the way our system works or does not work?
     Continuing; some things do not matter to the shooting.  It does not really matter whether Trayvon was a thug or not.  This is a moot point.  It does not matter whether he liked to fight. It does not matter whether or not marijuana was in his system.  While on the surface these accusations seem valid because they set the stage for potential causality of his attack, we know that other factors played more significant causal roles in the altercation (like the fact that he was followed, and the fact that Zimmerman did not identify himself as a watchman).  No matter what drug, or how much of the drug was in his system; Martin could not have attacked a neighborhood watchman that had actually listened to the advice of a dispatcher.  And even for those who say, "There is no law against his decision to continue his pursuit". As we all see, it was not a good decision to go against that advice. Neither does it matter that Martin may have been paranoid (due to Marijuana or any other reason).  (In fact, what the case revealed more than the fact that Martin may have been paranoid is that Martin was right about being paranoid - Helllooooo Zimmerman WAS ACTUALLY FOLLOWING HIM....Paranoia is the unreasonable, obsessive anxiousness one has.  It turned out that he was reasonably anxious. Again, he was not unreasonably paranoid, he was right. Someone was following him.
     Some things do not matter as we dialogue about race in relationship to this case either.  I'll just talk about one of them.  It should not matter (as a point of conversation about the Zimmerman/Martin incident) that blacks kill other blacks.  People say, "Well, look at all the black on black crime. Black people need to worry about that".  Let us concede that blacks kill blacks and that this is tragic and that people are right.  But let's talk about that when we are speaking of cases of black people killing other blacks. Today, we are talking about the case where a white man killed a black young man. To decide now to talk about "black on black crime" is DEFLECTION. Let's not deflect and say "look at all the blacks killing other blacks".  That fact IN NO WAY absolves Zimmerman. Neither does it absolve the justice system of its need to correct disproportionate rates of victimizing people of color in contradistinction to their "racial" counterparts. 
     Some say this case was not about race.  I think we should distinguish that just because the shooting may not have been about racism [and I don't totally buy that it wasn't] that the Zimmerman/Martin trial was not about race.  We can not prove Zimmerman's motives, but this does not exclude race from the case.  Racialization (a term that scholars use that means "race" matters profoundly in processes of everyday life) is thrust upon the case without media exacerbation. [I personally don't believe the media exacerbated the race dialogue. They made us aware of a moment where race MAY have played a significant role. That's their job.]  Racism (a term that seeks to express the prevailing attitude of superiority of one over the other based on some physical characteristic) may not have been the primary factor.  But, race certainly was involved.  The fact that it was not allowed in the case seemed to overlook a significant reality with in the course of due process. I don't know who Martin was talking about when he said, "These &%(# always get away..." But it seems that he should have been asked the question.