​​There is a way to ask a question that sounds rhetorical but is actually an indictment. There is also a way to ask a question that exposes a moral contradiction so stark that the only honest response is repentance. The question before us belongs to both categories, and it deserves to be stated cleanly, carefully, and without euphemism. ​Why, in American public life, is the desire to be left alone so often interpreted as defiance? Why does quiet withdrawal, silence, or stillness provoke suspicion rather than respect? And more pointedly, why does Western society routinely interpret the silent, peaceful stillness of an African American man as a threat, a potential crime, or an intolerable disruption that must be interrupted, tested, and provoked until any human response can be used as justification for violence? That question is not exaggerated. It is not emotional excess. It is not anecdotal noise. It describes a pattern that has been studied, named, measured, and normalized across decades of social science, criminology, racial psychology, and policing research. What makes it especially grievous is that this pattern persists in a nation that repeatedly claims to value freedom, peace, contemplation, and Christian love. 

​

I write this troubled in spirit, because this is not merely about race. It is about moral imagination. It is about who is allowed interior life. It is about whose silence is sacred and whose silence is suspect. And it is about a Christianity that has grown comfortable blessing a social order that punishes Black peace as provocation.

​

Why Being Left Alone Is So Often Read as Defiance

Modern Western public space is governed by unwritten rules that are rarely named and almost never questioned. These rules insist that people be legible. To be legible is to be visibly occupied, socially intelligible, and purpose-driven in ways others recognize. One must appear to be consuming, commuting, exercising, conversing, or producing. In short, one must perform harmlessness through motion. Sociologists have long observed that silence in public disrupts this choreography. Stillness introduces ambiguity, and ambiguity unsettles societies built on surveillance and control. When someone withdraws from participation without explanation, others often experience discomfort that quickly morphs into suspicion. Silence interrupts the script, and interruption is easily misread as refusal. 

​

At the baseline level, this misreading applies broadly. A person who sits quietly, avoids eye contact, and does not signal intent can be perceived as aloof, judgmental, or withholding. In highly socialized environments, opting out is interpreted as opting against. That is the general condition. But it is only the beginning, because race radically reshapes how silence is interpreted.

​

Why Monks Are Read as Spiritual and Black Men Are Not

Western culture has spent centuries curating distinct mythologies around different bodies. Eastern religious figures such as Tibetan monks, Shaolin practitioners, and Sikh men have been framed through a lens of mysticism. They are imagined as disciplined, inward-facing, peaceful, and ultimately non-threatening. This framing emerged through Orientalist traditions that rendered Eastern spirituality as exotic, ancient, and contemplative, but also as non-competitive and safely distant from Western power. When such a figure sits silently in a public space, Western observers have a ready-made interpretive category. Meditation is assumed. Silence becomes depth. Stillness becomes virtue. The observer feels no urgency to intervene because the silence has been pre-classified as meaningful.

​

African American men carry the opposite burden. They are subject to a racial mythology that codes them as hyper-visible, hyper-physical, emotionally volatile, and perpetually suspect. This mythology did not arise organically. It was constructed to justify slavery, surveillance, segregation, and aggressive policing. It has been reinforced through law, media, and institutional practice.

When an African American man occupies the same posture of silence, observers do not reach for a spiritual explanation. They reach for a criminal one. The questions that arise are not contemplative but accusatory. What is he hiding. Why is he not moving. Is he watching someone. Does this count as loitering. In this racialized logic, silence does not signal depth. It signals danger. Stillness does not indicate peace. It indicates threat.

​

Why Police Escalation Follows with Grim Predictability

Policing in the United States has never been a neutral practice of law enforcement alone. It has also functioned as a mechanism of social boundary maintenance. Scholars of policing have documented how officers are trained, both explicitly and implicitly, to treat ambiguity as danger and non-responsiveness as resistance. Within this framework, calm silence is frequently misinterpreted as failure to comply. Officers are socialized to resolve their own discomfort by initiating contact, even in the absence of a crime.

 

The encounter begins not because of unlawful behavior, but because the officer experiences unease. When the subject is a Black man, that unease is intensified by racial scripts that associate Blackness with threat. The officer approaches to test, to question, to provoke. The goal is not safety but reassurance. The Black man is expected to perform harmlessness on demand. Eventually, any human being responds to sustained prodding. A word is spoken. A tone is expressed. A boundary is asserted. That response, however mild, is then reframed as uncooperativeness. Official reports often use language such as “the suspect became uncooperative,” which translates in plain speech to the failure to perform reassurance indefinitely.

This pattern has been documented repeatedly. It is not the result of individual malice alone. It is the product of a system that treats Black quiet as an unresolved problem requiring intervention.

​

The Cruel Paradox That Calm Makes Things Worse

One of the most devastating findings in research on racialized policing is that composure does not reliably protect Black men. In fact, calmness is often reinterpreted as arrogance, defiance, or concealed hostility. Where monks are praised for serenity, Black men are punished for it. This asymmetry exposes the hollowness of advice that urges compliance and calm as universal solutions. Such advice assumes that calm is read the same way across bodies. It is not. The same behavior produces radically different interpretations depending on race. This is why so many encounters escalate despite the absence of aggression. The problem is not behavior. It is perception. And perception is shaped by history.

​

The Deeper Issue of Who Is Allowed an Inner Life

What makes this phenomenon especially painful is that it reveals a hierarchy of interiority. Western culture readily grants inner life to some and denies it to others. Monks are presumed to have minds. White individuals are presumed to have complexity. Institutions are granted nuance. African American men, by contrast, are often treated as bodies without privacy, presences without inwardness. Their interior lives are not assumed. Their silence is not respected. When a Black man claims interior space through stillness, contemplation, or meditation, he violates an unspoken rule. He becomes unreadable.

Unreadability is intolerable to systems built on surveillance. And so it is punished.

​

Why This Is Exhausting and Why Withdrawal Makes Sense

To live in a society where one’s stillness is provocation and one’s silence is criminalized is to live under constant interpretive threat. In such a society, the desire to withdraw into nature, solitude, or quiet is not antisocial. It is rational self-preservation.

This logic explains why the fantasy of disappearing into peace is not escapism but sanity. When presence alone invites interrogation, absence becomes safety.

​

Why This Is a Clarion Call to White Evangelical Christianity

Here is where the grief deepens. Because this pattern persists in a nation where millions of people identify as peace-loving, Jesus-following Christians. A faith centered on a Savior who withdrew to lonely places, who sat in silence, who refused to perform reassurance for power, has been domesticated into a moral framework that tolerates the violent interruption of Black peace.

Jesus was repeatedly left alone in contemplation. He was unreadable to authorities. He was calm under pressure. He refused to explain Himself on demand. These traits were not celebrated by the powers of His day. They were interpreted as threat.

And yet, modern American Christianity often sides instinctively with the interrogators rather than the one sitting quietly.

Why does a society that praises prayer closets tolerate the harassment of a Black man who prays silently in public. Why do churches that preach peace remain silent when law enforcement escalates encounters with men who are doing nothing at all.

These are not political questions. They are moral ones.

​

Why America Permits the Provocation of Peaceful Black Men

Toward the end of this examination, the question must be asked plainly. Why does American society, especially those who claim allegiance to Jesus, permit law enforcement officers to provoke peaceful African American men and then punish them for responding as human beings. Why is peace not protected when it wears Black skin. Why is solitude not respected when claimed by Black bodies. Why is silence treated as criminal only for those whose existence has been historically policed. 

​

If Christians truly believe that every person bears the image of God, then interior life should be sacred. Silence should be honored. Stillness should be protected. Yet in practice, these virtues are selectively applied.

​

The Final Truth, Stated Without Softening

Being left alone is treated as defiance only for people whose existence has been historically controlled. For others, it is a lifestyle choice. For Black men, it is often treated as a threat.

That is not an accident. It is a legacy.

And legacies can be repented of.

This moment calls for more than awareness. It calls for moral courage. It calls for white evangelical Christians in particular to examine why their theology has made room for the violent policing of Black peace. It calls for a repentance that does not stop at words but extends to advocacy, accountability, and solidarity.

Until silence is sacred for everyone, peace will remain conditional. And a peace that is conditional is not peace at all.

The question is no longer whether this pattern exists. The question is whether those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace are willing to confront the systems that punish peace when it appears in Black flesh.

​

​