# On racial expectations



## TimV (Mar 7, 2009)

I lived in South Africa under Apartheid, where different races were only allowed to vote in their own area, for for their own leaders. Apartheid ended, and there were democratic elections for the first time.

We got our first Black President, and during the run up to the election there were passionate emotions in all the ethnic groups. Whites, Coloured and Indians were all nervous, because they knew a Black was going to win, and that there were historic grievances between those groups and Blacks. Blacks were excited, since they had been taught that getting the vote meant that the Huxtables on the Bill Cosby Show was really the way all Blacks in America lived, and that by putting their "x" under a picture of Nelson Mandela they would get cars, a nice house, lots of money and a beautiful family.

During the run up to the elections Blacks in the back of the pick up trucks used to transport labor would call out to each other slogans praising the New Era. They would be overcome by excitement.

Then after Mandela came into power things really didn't change. Actually they got quite a bit worse. And the feeling in the Black community turned from unrealistic expectation to a sort of melancholy hopelessness.

I see history repeating itself now. And since I'm in kind of an unusual position of having seen it before from an place where I could stand back and objectively watch it unfold, I'd like to offer a few observations.

There won't be any major changes. White people here in the US don't need to start hording guns and food. People should always have weapons that they know how to use, and a bit of food etc.. on hand for emergencies. But that's all. The world will go on, and there will be grocery stores open in even the long term future. 

Black people have be given great opportunities here in the US, but they haven't always had a fair shake. That doesn't excuse bad behavior on the part of Blacks any more than the Irish mistreatment by the British (and it did happen, even if the Irish exaggerate too) excuses an Irish American punching a British tourist. But the righteous indignation expressed towards the behavior of some Black people needs to be tempered with the realisation that we're dealing with individuals rather than the whole race, and there isn't a secret conspiracy by Blacks against White Americans to destroy all of us anymore than there is a secret conspiracy by Arabs to destroy the West.

I have noticed that much of the anger projected against Mideasterners is a sort of transfer of the anger and fear many White demographics have towards Blacks here in the US. For me sitting a bit on the sidelines it's as clear as day. 

And for Blacks, of which thankfully we have many here on the PB I have noticed the long suffering with which you have treated so many of the Obama diatribes here that have had an 'edge' to them. I was so thankful for Jessica's post yesterday since she was so clear in making her sorry story very fair, and crediting one of that crowd for helping her husband.

And while I am not so concerned about the Black people here getting the same sort of unrealistic hopes up that my Black workers in South Africa did, I'd still suggest my Black brothers and sisters keeping an eye on that as well.

It's just so easy to forget what the other guy is feeling. Those of you who remember especially my older posts will know that I'm not being falsely contrite when I say that the slow realization of myself having not considering other peoples feelings is coming back to haunt me in a way I hope no one reading this is haunted.

Even something that is so fair and just, like patrolling our boarders can offend the many Hispanics we have reading, if we forget our audience and deviate from the just and righteous indignation into offensive stereotypes.

The Kingdom isn't going to be built by any particular race or human political structure. It's us working together under the rule of the Great King who has adopted us into the same family.


----------



## Tim (Mar 7, 2009)

Just a quick question, and sorry if this has been addressed before here on the PB.

Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?

This is really just a rhetorical question because I resent when people only feel satisfied when 'one of their own' is in power. I would hope we would all be glad if a godly man were in power, no matter what he looks like or what ethic group he identifies with. It should be that 'one of our own' refers to someone who is a Bible-believing Christian man who fears God.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Mar 7, 2009)

> That doesn't excuse bad behavior on the part of Blacks any more than the Irish mistreatment by the British (and it did happen, even if the Irish exaggerate too) excuses an Irish American punching a British tourist.



Tim

Another sweeping generalization that would be hotly contested by many Ulster Presbyterians. If you want to pull rank on this, I was brought up in Ireland and it is frankly nonsense to claim that the British mistreated the Irish. You have swallowed the Kennedy family propaganda hook line and sinker! You have also insulted thousands of Reformed believers who have spilled their blood defending their right to preach the Reformed faith in Ireland.

Did you know that the various kingdoms of the island of Ireland were initially handed to the English Monarch by Pope Adrian IV? Adrian IV during his reign issued a papal bull, Laudabiliter, granting dominion over Ireland to the English monarch, Henry II. He hoped that Henry II would conquer the Christian Church of Patrick and bring it under Rome. You may want to read up on the 1641 rebellion or the true history of St Patrick before indulging in revisionism again:

St. Patrick


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2009)

Tim said:


> Just a quick question, and sorry if this has been addressed before here on the PB.
> 
> Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?
> 
> This is really just a rhetorical question because I resent when people only feel satisfied when 'one of their own' is in power. I would hope we would all be glad if a godly man were in power, no matter what he looks like or what ethic group he identifies with. It should be that 'one of our own' refers to someone who is a Bible-believing Christian man who fears God.



Tim, 

Obama attaches his identity to being black. He has never embraced his partially white heritage. That was his choice.


----------



## Tim (Mar 7, 2009)

Fair enough.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 7, 2009)

Tim said:


> Just a quick question, and sorry if this has been addressed before here on the PB.
> 
> Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?



Black was considered a "bad" thing. Any amount of it would stigmatize one as Black. Laws against miscegenation once popular in part of this country, for example, would have prevented Obama from marrying a "white" woman. For historical reasons, therefore, Mr. Obama had little choice but to call himself Black. Oh, btw, have you ever looked at him? With his 50% Kenyan pureblood, he is quite a bit darker than a lot of the people claiming to be African-American activists.

I'm not surprised that he calls himself Black. What choice did he have? A more interesting issue is that when he was vying for power, some of the activists in his party did not consider him "black" enough in the sociological sense: he did not have slave roots which many of them take to be the sine qua non of "understanding" the Black expeience in America.

I was amused to see some commentators observe that with his African roots, his ancestors might have been among the ones that *sold* other Africans into slavery in America. Now that he is POTUS, most of this stuff has passed by the boards. He is the most powerful man on earth and earned his spot in a free election.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 7, 2009)

Tim said:


> Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?



In addition to Bill's answer, Tim..... 60 years ago the 'half-white' explanation wouldn't have flown if Obama was alive and went to a 'white only' water fountain. One look and there would've been nothing but 'what's wronng with you, boy ? cantcha read thuh' sign ? It sez white onleh'" and the bats and bricks would have come out to help with the 'literacy lesson'.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 7, 2009)

ThomasCartwright said:


> > That doesn't excuse bad behavior on the part of Blacks any more than the Irish mistreatment by the British (and it did happen, even if the Irish exaggerate too) excuses an Irish American punching a British tourist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The British did mistreat the Irish, this mistreatment was however generally hundreds of years ago which for me largely invalidates it as a justification for the recent and present troubles. 

In recent times (albeit forty years ago now) the majority protestants have "mistreated" the Catholics in Northern Ireland (thats democracy for you and took the form of favouritism by local government and some rather brutal policing) but this was largely corrected by means of Westminsters attempts at benign interference which just upset eveyone concerned and ended up in a veil of tears.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Mar 7, 2009)

> The British did mistreat the Irish, this mistreatment was however generally hundreds of years ago which for me largely invalidates it as a justification for the recent and present troubles.
> 
> In recent times (albeit forty years ago now) the majority protestants have "mistreated" the Catholics in Northern Ireland (thats democracy for you and took the form of favouritism by local government and some rather brutal policing) but this was largely corrected by means of Westminsters attempts at benign interference which just upset eveyone concerned and ended up in a veil of tears.



Both unsubstantiated allegations. I lived through the latter period and this is not an established fact. Where was this "brutal policing" occurring? No evidence of systematic discrimination has ever being objectively documented. For instance, the so-called "one man one vote" civil rights movement actually was the application of a UK wide law of local government franchise that actually resulted in the 1960s of less Protestants having a local government vote. Still believe the propaganda if you like.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 7, 2009)

ThomasCartwright said:


> Still believe the propaganda if you like.




Likewise.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 7, 2009)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?
> ...



But at the same time, from having a friend that grew up in EStL during that same time period, he would have been picked on by blacks for "not being black enough" looking. Oh and TCK's claim him also...because he spent quite a few formative years, totally out of our home culture...so I'd say he doesn't fit in either box.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 7, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Tim said:
> ...



I think that the importance is not that Obama is mixed race, it is that his black heritage does not derive from the african american civil rights tradition. This is why he was quite unwelcome to many balcks in the USA black establishment.

This adds an interesting dynamic to the whole situation, he does not have the same "victim" baggage as some so he may actually tread the middle ground which has so far not been possible in American racial politics.


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2009)

Hippo said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > BlackCalvinist said:
> ...



Mike, make no mistake, Obama is not treading the middle ground. He is displaying every sign of governing from the far, far left. You're right in assessing that his racial identity does not stem from the civil rights era. I believe he views his racial identity as a means to further his socialist ideology.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 7, 2009)

Politics is very complex, right now Obama has to satisfy those who backed him but in a year or two he may have some more freedom. Whether he uses this freedom to reach out beyond his historic agenda is what will be interesting. Politics is rarely made up of good guys and bad guys with no middle ground (of course Ted Kennedy is the exception that proves the rule).


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 7, 2009)

This is all well and good but what are the racial expectations of our Reformed brothers/sisters. We can talk all day and night on the only race being the human race however I bet dollars to doughnuts if I walk into 95%+ of the congregations board members attend it would be a smorgasbord of the different shades of white skin.

We are all depraved and the depravity of the lingering racism in American Christianity is very real and prevalent. It even sneaks up into those who would never for a second believe that they could be accused of being racist. In my short stint now as a PCA member I have met with more than a handful of elders and not once have I been asked if God's call on my life has been academia or seeking a call to a church in suburbia. Without fail what has come up is "inner city church planter." I've had RE's ask how best to approach Black people. I've told them it is the same way you approach a Cuban which leaves them baffled because "who's Cuban?"

What needs to happen is loads of prayer and open meetings on racial reconciliation. White America has wronged and continues to propagate the theology of a slave doctrine. Where people of color are only seen as workers who need to go into the field and harvest. No different now except the "field" is the inner-city and the "harvest" are increased membership on the rolls. Now I am very, very aware at the wrongs that the "Black" Church promotes. Having come out of a Black church steeped in the traditions of the Black Church and attending seminary where Black Liberation Theology is emphasized I know all too well how blackness has taken priority over holiness and how salvation is seen as corporate because of the Middle Passage.

As my rant continues perhaps the problem is not that Reformed folk are afraid to speak to people of other races but just afraid in general. Everyone prays like a Calvinist but in our evangelism we are more hyper-Calvinist. _"If God has saved that Black/White/Latino/Asian...over there then he will end up in a church somewhere....I hope it's mine so we can at least say we are now 'multi-ethnic....."_


----------



## BJClark (Mar 7, 2009)

SemperEruditio;




> In my short stint now as a PCA member I have met with more than a handful of elders and not once have I been asked if God's call on my life has been academia or seeking a call to a church in suburbia.



Have you asked THEM about it?? Or expressed such calling on your life to them? If not, why not?? Or did you just walk away in frustration and disgust when they mentioned inner city churches? and how to address a black person??

Did you attempt to open the dialogue or is it your expectation they they should be asking you about it?? (on that note, how many of the men here, have had their elders come to them and ask them about such things?? or have you gone to them to seek advice on that?)


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 7, 2009)

Tim said:


> Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?



YouTube - Barack Obama IS WHITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ww (Mar 7, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?
> ...


----------



## Ravens (Mar 7, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> As *my rant* continues ...



Well, you were right about one thing: It certainly is a rant.


----------



## Theognome (Mar 7, 2009)

Comparing South Africa to the US, culturally and politically, is a bit of a stretch for me. The folks I've known who are from Africa, either visiting or working in the US (I know many that are going to school here as well) are some of the most polite, industrious, courteous and conscientious people I have ever met. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the folks born and raised here. In the Mid Western inner city I live in, the expectation is not of liberation from oppression with a new black president, but rather license to riot, steal and overthrow the rule of law. Thankfully, such 'hotheads' are in the minority, but that may not remain the case if the economy doesn't pick up soon.

Theognome


----------



## ww (Mar 7, 2009)

The greatest issue I see in reaching folks of other ethnic backgrounds has been the fact that it is human nature for people to be around people who are "like" them. Who understand them, etc. I married into a Filipina family and my sister and brother-in-law and family started a Fil-Am non denominational church in Austin, TX. Why didn't they just join up with one of the other orthodox, evangelical Christian Churches in the area? Because for them, Church is "COMMUNITY". It is about understanding one another, enjoying one another's fellowship, eating Filipino food, carrying each other's burdens as immigrants from the same country. It is the same reason that we have Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches, Black Churches, etc. Reformed Presbyterianism is predominantly White, Irish, English, Scottish descendants. Lutherans are primarily German and the CRC, URC are of Dutch descent. So all of these folks came over to America to worship freely among their countrymen and people groups and it continues until today. 

We are a melting pot in America and as more generations are born here, raised here, and educated with others from other ethnicities the more prepared we need to be as Reformed Baptist, Presbyterians, etc to understand and embrace those from other ethnic backgrounds other than our own. Some folks will respond and others will choose to remain with those they can identify with and understand. But we should be welcoming of all ethnic backgrounds into our churches. Some Reformed Churches are better at this than others. And what will surprise some is that in many cases those who do it best are those who were once part of the segregated South. It isn't about geography but philosophy of ministry more than anything else.


----------



## Herald (Mar 7, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> This is all well and good but what are the racial expectations of our Reformed brothers/sisters. We can talk all day and night on the only race being the human race however I bet dollars to doughnuts if I walk into 95%+ of the congregations board members attend it would be a smorgasbord of the different shades of white skin.
> 
> We are all depraved and the depravity of the lingering racism in American Christianity is very real and prevalent. It even sneaks up into those who would never for a second believe that they could be accused of being racist. In my short stint now as a PCA member I have met with more than a handful of elders and not once have I been asked if God's call on my life has been academia or seeking a call to a church in suburbia. Without fail what has come up is "inner city church planter." I've had RE's ask how best to approach Black people. I've told them it is the same way you approach a Cuban which leaves them baffled because "who's Cuban?"
> 
> ...



Frank, you certainly have opened up a can of worms, but I'm glad you've done so. I can't comment on what the elders of your church believe or have said. One thing I do know, especially living in the D.C. Metro area, is that there is a fear among some whites that anything they say will portray them as racist. This has resulted in segments of the white community measuring every word and deed in their interactions with blacks. It's a disservice to blacks because it often appears as patronizing and disingenuous. It's a disservice to whites because it creates a paralysis of fear. For that reason I disagree with this following comment of yours:



> White America has wronged and continues to propagate the theology of a slave doctrine.


The black community has done an admirable job of finding its identity. But with each legitimate success comes those who would take advantage. Black celebrities such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farakhan have sent a consensus message to white America. That message says, "We're black and proud of it, and we don't need you!" Government leaders, businesses and individuals have learned to change what they say and how they do things out of fear of being called a racist. Your "theology of a slave doctrine" is actually propagated by some blacks in order to gain influence and power. 

This fear has found it's way into some of our churches. "Whites don't understand blacks. Whites can't possibly meet black needs. Lets train blacks to go and minister to other blacks." I would argue those whites who think this way do so partially because of fear. It's not a matter of propagating a slave doctrine. Far from it. I believe that it is dependent on blacks to tear down some of the barriers they themselves have erected. These barriers have created fear and misunderstanding. In the quest to eliminate racism, some of the actions taken were an over-correction. I'm stupid and bold enough to make these statements because I believe they're true. If nothing else I hope it spurs dialog.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 7, 2009)

Thank you, Bill. I refrained from commenting because I feared that it would be in frustration and not in love. You said what I wanted to but couldn't.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 7, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> This is all well and good but what are the racial expectations of our Reformed brothers/sisters. We can talk all day and night on the only race being the human race however I bet dollars to doughnuts if I walk into 95%+ of the congregations board members attend it would be a smorgasbord of the different shades of white skin.



95% 

Well, maybe. But the church I attend will be composed of the following congregation tomorrow morning . . .

45% Asian (of various kinds - just over from China, Filipino, Burmese, Japanese, misc. Pacific Islander)

35% Hispanic (Mexican, Central American, with a smattering of South American)

3% African American

17% Clear folks like me

(average worship attendance = 375-425)


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 7, 2009)

Bobbi and Joshua,
The majority of my conversations are about race. I mention race and point out the fact about the demographics at, say Presbytery do not even come close to resembling the presbyteries region much less the county we're in. No I am not the angry minority in the room, I am the Cuban who will bring up in conversation how I prefer cafe cubano to Starbucks or Maxwell House. Unfortunately until you walk into a room where you and one other person are the only white faces will you understand what it is like. Not just once but for a couple of decades. Then be the one who always mentions race and what you'll become is _"that's the guy who always talks about race."_ Yet I have no choice because very few are doing it. I am so thankful because Carter, Thabiti, Voodie, Leach, Lewis and others are making noise and being heard and listened to. 

Bill,
Thanks! I am not only talking about the DC-MD-VA area. When a White PCA pastor has to resign because of his mention of inter-racial marriage in a sermon that is a problem. When a Latino NewYorker at RTS Orlando is told quite frankly that he will never be ordained in that areas PCA because he is Latin as well as from New York there is a problem. When they send a Mexican TE to the heart of Little Havana in Miami to start a church plant there is a problem.

Of course we are dealing with entrenched ideologies. Scared? Open up and talk about race but be willing to do more listening. Just so you know there is NO majority of Black Americans which view Jackson, Farrakhan, nor Wright as Black leadership. There is no Black leadership. The guys mentioned are seen by the majority of Black America as having stayed too long at the party...the party is over. 

Now I agree that it is difficult for Whites to talk about race. That is why I bring it up at every opportunity. I open the door as much as possible to let those I am around know it is okay to mention race. Ask questions. What is the difference between a Puerto Rican and a Cuban? Why would sending a Mexican to Miami be a problem? Do all Black people know each other? What's up with the youth and their pants? What is black tax?.....

Now...realistically speaking how many would be willing to worship with an Arminian charismatic Black church? We cannot even agree amongst Presbyterians about the RPW much less want to rub elbows with Arminians to take it even further. All this requires work on everyone's part and taking everyone out their comfort zone. We cannot get guys to smile at each other and say "Good Morning" and I am dreaming of people from different races to worship. 

As far as TimV's post I am waiting for the shine to fade on Obama. I think his election is great for America as far as race relations but only if it encourages dialogue. I have been told that now Blacks have no excuse because after all Obama is president. Yet you have the New York post print a picture of a monkey getting shot and not make the connection as to how that is offensive. The wounds of slavery go deep and Jim Crow was not that long ago but we figure that with the new birth all that is washed away???

We need to dialogue and fellowship. Appreciate the difference and focus on how we are the same. Learn from the past, embrace the mistakes, and get to the work of the kingdom. Trust nor reconciliation happen overnight nor corporately.

-----Added 3/7/2009 at 09:18:47 EST-----

DMcFadden...you're too much. Looks like a good spread there. I would like to see a Cuban or two...


----------



## py3ak (Mar 7, 2009)

> The majority of my conversations are about race.
> Then be the one who always mentions race and what you'll become is "that's the guy who always talks about race."



Frank, from your own words, that sounds like an accurate assessment. If the majority of your conversations are about race, why is it a problem that people think that about you?

By the way, I'd like to know two things:
1. What was the Mexican TE thinking?
2. If missionaries are supposed to be adaptable, what's wrong with sending the guy who speaks Spanish? I expect my Venezuelan coworker to be able to interact with the Mexicans he meets on the job.


----------



## Edward (Mar 7, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > Laws against miscegenation once popular in part of this country, for example, would have prevented Obama from marrying a "white" woman. For historical reasons, therefore, Mr. Obama had little choice but to call himself Black.
> ...


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 7, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Frank, from your own words, that sounds like an accurate assessment. If the majority of your conversations are about race, why is it a problem that people think that about you?
> 
> By the way, I'd like to know two things:
> 1. What was the Mexican TE thinking?
> 2. If missionaries are supposed to be adaptable, what's wrong with sending the guy who speaks Spanish? I expect my Venezuelan coworker to be able to interact with the Mexicans he meets on the job.



I'm not "that" guy. My point is you have to open the door to the conversation but when you're always the one who opens the door then a doorman is all you will be remembered for. However Lord-willing once I become a TE I pray that will make a difference.

1. Not sure it was the Mexican TE's fault.
2. Missionaries yes. What about taking the culture you are sending the missionary to into account? Little Havana is North Cuba. Much better to send an Anglo who speaks Spanish versus sending a Mexican. I take it your Mexican or at least latin so you should be familiar with the Latino caste system. Sending a Central American Latinos to Carribbean Latinos is a mistake. It would take a very adaptable Mexican and a congregation of Cubans who will look past their culture...so you would have to have everyone put culture aside....who does that?


----------



## Ravens (Mar 7, 2009)

Having a frank and open discussion about race is all but impossible. In the workplace it can get you fired, in real life it would often lead to altercations and broken relationships (between males), and on the Puritanboard it could probably lead to infractions and banning, even if you never actually said anything that was unbiblical, rude, or "racist."

Your posts themselves are laced with innuendo, assumptions, and disdain, probably the very same things that you decry in "white people". They have the very same "edge" that the O.P. talked about, except that edge cuts in an opposite grain.

In my opinion (since you want to be frank and honest) "open and transparent conversations" are code for minorities loading up 00 verbal buckshot into a conversational 12-gauge, unloading right into the lily white faces that irritate them so much, and white people putting on _Whiteface_. That's a term that I like to use as the opposite of the "black face" of yesteryear. 

Except it doesn't present a happy-go-lucky caricature, it presents a Clown Frown, wherein the white person speaks in a Stewart Smalley voice, wrings their hands, and simply listens, nods, and accepts all the blame. So to cite Beowulf, I could open up my word-hoard and and unleash non-sinful, non-accusatory, non-Kinist, non-racist (I'm none of those things) things that every white person thinks, but I won't. It simply isn't done nowadays, and it has nothing to do with fear (at least, fear of minorities).

There are probably a plethora of people on this board who know exactly where I'm coming from, but even the suspicion of racism can get you banned (probably), black-listed, or fired (in the workplace). So I just mind my business and go about my day. But to log on to the Puritanboard and see (to be frank), an irrational diatribe against people and churches that I care about... yeah, it kind of bothers me. And I'm sure others know exactly where I'm at on that, but they feel the same "vibe" I do, and probably won't even "thank" this post because of how it _sounds_, *even though I've said nothing even remotely verging on "racist."*

But of course none of us want that "tag". None of us wants to be viewed as the secret Klansman just for stating facts that almost every normal, hard-working, average white person thinks. So yeah. I'll keep my thoughts to myself. Maybe someday if I have a level of sanctification that I don't currently possess we can discuss facts, history, and demographics. But right now I don't have that level of sanctification.



So for my part,


----------



## calgal (Mar 7, 2009)

Edward said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Tim said:
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Mar 7, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> I'm not "that" guy. My point is you have to open the door to the conversation but when you're always the one who opens the door then a doorman is all you will be remembered for. However Lord-willing once I become a TE I pray that will make a difference.
> 
> 1. Not sure it was the Mexican TE's fault.
> 2. Missionaries yes. What about taking the culture you are sending the missionary to into account? Little Havana is North Cuba. Much better to send an Anglo who speaks Spanish versus sending a Mexican. I take it your Mexican or at least latin so you should be familiar with the Latino caste system. Sending a Central American Latinos to Carribbean Latinos is a mistake. It would take a very adaptable Mexican and a congregation of Cubans who will look past their culture...so you would have to have everyone put culture aside....who does that?



I'm sorry, Frank, I'm still not understanding. What do you mean that you are not "that" guy? 

1. My point is that the Mexican TE was more likely to know than most of the rest of his presbytery if it was going to be a problem.
2. I am not Latin, but I have some familiarity with Central America, and more so in Mexico, which has involved me in being the only undercooked man shaped object in many a room. Look, there is no doubt room for prudence - but at the end of the day you most certainly do expect people to get over their prejudices and petty regional prides; a cosmopolitan type needs to learn to love campesinos, and vice versa.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 7, 2009)

Edward said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Tim said:
> ...


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 7, 2009)

I find this all a little weird. 

You know, you have to _teach_ children that blacks and whites are different. You have to _teach_ them that people will look at them and stare at them because they are different. I am a white father to four black sons, the first four blacks to ever warm a bench in the church we attend. And (I do find this hilarious), our pastor is a white Boere from South Africa who wants to adopt now from Ethiopia!  

My children thought that Obama was cool (becasue he was black), but after being told what he believes in, don't care for him in the least.

Here's a cliche that we live every day: skin color doesn't matter. People have real issues with this, but in part because our boys are Ethiopian, and have no real history of colonization in the typical historical sense, they don't see what all the fuss is about, though they now understand there is a gulf of difference between what they call "American Blacks" and "Africans". I'm sure a sociologist would be fascinated and horrified at what they would see in our house: Children being raised in our home without a racial context. They revel in their Ethiopian-ness, but don't see why people look at them as 'different' because of their skin color - it is not a defining attribute that makes them one kind of person or another (though their nationality definitely is). *I* am the one that thought it would be a big deal. 

It doesn't have to be.

It really isn't.


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 7, 2009)

Kevin that is so true. You don't have the least bit of discomfort until people make you uncomfortable by starting to make you conscious of how you have to feel comfortable. It's really not an issue for most of us until pc-ness makes it one. I respect Frank's desire but I wonder if talking too much about race isn't what gave us (people of my generation) such a discomfort level in the first place. I hate what my race did to other people's races. I have some Jewish ancestry, and Ruben is largely German. I hate what his ancestral people did to my ancestral people. It has nothing to do with my consciousness of him or myself.

I used to ride the busses alone in Mexico, with all the dirt poor country people. Of course you are looked at oddly once or twice by about everyone on the bus; not only are there racial but very great background and current lifestyle differences; but if you don't care, they stop caring either. I experienced a great deal of courtesy and smiles on those rides, conversations with children etc. I never felt any need to talk about race, even when they asked me about the color of my hair. I have never felt more 'at home' than I did in Mexico.


----------



## JoeRe4mer (Mar 7, 2009)

> Even something that is so fair and just, like patrolling our boarders can offend the many Hispanics we have reading, if we forget our audience and deviate from the just and righteous indignation into offensive stereotypes.



Are you trying to say that if we as Americans are vocal about boarder security then might we run the risk falling into stereotypes? I don't think that is the case, we need to defend our boarders even if certain liberal sections of the population are offended by it. 

Truthfully anybody could come across the boarder right now because of our lousy security and that is a true national threat. Boarder security is not some high minded philosophical debate it is a real threat to our nation.


----------



## SolaGratia (Mar 7, 2009)

Sadly, skin-color in Anglo-America does matter, especially with Protestant America. Good thing the face of Protestantism is changing, not because of Anglo-Protestants per se, but becuase of the Holy Spirit drawing Non-Anglo's to the Church.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 7, 2009)

JDWiseman said:


> *Having a frank and open discussion about race is all but impossible. * In the workplace it can get you fired, in real life it would often lead to altercations and broken relationships (between males), and on the Puritanboard it could probably lead to infractions and banning, even if you never actually said anything that was unbiblical, rude, or "racist."
> 
> Your posts themselves are laced with innuendo, assumptions, and disdain, probably the very same things that you decry in "white people". They have the very same "edge" that the O.P. talked about, except that edge cuts in an opposite grain.
> 
> ...


This sounds more like a plea that this thread be closed because it makes you uncomfortable.

See your post is exactly what I am talking about. _*"There are probably a plethora of people on this board who know exactly where I'm coming from"*_ Guess what...it should be clear that I am not one of them. So then how are we supposed to dialogue when you expect that my intention for an open dialogue is code to attack you? How are we going to talk openly when you make it clear that a plethora of people know where you're coming from but the one who is asking for the conversation does not? Why are you talking in code?

See this is the problem. Irrational? So my post is neither logical nor reasonable. What makes you think that I don't care about the churches I am being "irrational" about? See you're giving me thoughts of what _"almost every normal, hard-working, average white person thinks"_ and I'm telling you what I and those I know personally have been through.

As an FYI, I am an equal opportunity decryer. I have no dog in this hunt. I am too light to be Black, too dark to be White, lips are too big to be Latino...I have experienced an issue in a denomination I believe has got its doctrines right. I know and have met well-meaning White and Blacks who want to see reconciliation but no one is talking. Even here, a discussion forum, we cannot discuss such matters? The issue of race is the polka-dot elephant in the room that everyone just politely ignores.

I am not speaking in code and I am not out to blast anyone. I would just want to have people begin to talk. If not at church then can't we do it here? Can we? Is this truly a matter of major sanctification or just a matter of speaking open and honestly without fear of attack?

If this thread gets closed I would ask you to PM or email me. I am not looking to blast anyone. I want to talk about what you and I are afraid of.

-----Added 3/7/2009 at 11:47:12 EST-----



a mere housewife said:


> Kevin that is so true. You don't have the least bit of discomfort until people make you uncomfortable by starting to make you conscious of how you have to feel comfortable.



I'm with you. The issue I encounter is when, in order to be made more comfortable some of these people say such stupid things. In their discomfort with their own issues they project that I am uncomfortable. Ridiculous, just plain nervous ramblings and then poof some slip up about race and they all but douse themselves in ashes to apologize. That is when I make them laugh about race and their assumptions about mine or vice versa. People have questions about race but are too scared to ask. Make them laugh and open up and everyone realizes we're all just trying to be better Christians as best as we think we know how.

-----Added 3/7/2009 at 11:49:18 EST-----



JoeRe4mer said:


> > Even something that is so fair and just, like patrolling our boarders can offend the many Hispanics we have reading, if we forget our audience and deviate from the just and righteous indignation into offensive stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm all for protecting the borders. Just have the Coast Guard loosen up on the South Miami coastline. Got some family that hasn't made it over just yet. 

-----Added 3/7/2009 at 11:54:00 EST-----

Kevin,
I agree. However we are as you noted not dealing with Africans but African-Americans. There is a difference. Race is a huge issue in the US because it is not talked about. If we were to talk about it we would see that it is not a big deal and be able to move on. We would get rid of the fear of engaging someone else from a different culture and inviting them to the Lord's Supper.

God bless you and your family. My wife and I are in the beginning stages of domestic adoption. I joke that I would like to adopt my own "Rainbow Coalition" but only because I really wish I could. It is a shame how much one has to pay to adopt.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 9, 2009)

a mere housewife;



> You don't have the least bit of discomfort until people make you uncomfortable by starting to make you conscious of how you have to feel comfortable.



Someone can't make you feel something you do not feel, if they can, then you are giving up something of yourself..

SemperEruditio;



> The issue I encounter is when, in order to be made more comfortable some of these people say such stupid things. In their discomfort with their own issues they project that I am uncomfortable.



I find the same thing, they are uncomfortable so they assume myself or others are..when in reality, we aren't uncomfortable in the situation at all.



> I agree. However we are as you noted not dealing with Africans but African-Americans. There is a difference. Race is a huge issue in the US because it is not talked about. If we were to talk about it we would see that it is not a big deal and be able to move on. We would get rid of the fear of engaging someone else from a different culture and inviting them to the Lord's Supper.



The real problem is not a race/nationality or even skin color issue, the problem is ultimately a heart issue and not being able to see beyond a persons skin color to who they are as person, as God's creation..and it's people of all colors who have that problem, and until there is a change in the heart it will remain a 'skin color or race issue'...

And I would disagree to a point, when you say it's not a big deal, for many people no matter the color of their skin, it is a big deal.

Take for example college scholarships..they have scholarships for people who are Mexican, Cuban, Asian, American Indians, Blacks et el..and only recently have there been any scholarships specifically for white people..and those are only offered at predominately black colleges..and have come about through lawsuits against those colleges and the states that fund them. But there are still some All Black Colleges, and All Women's colleges, but there is not one single All White College..or even an All Mexican or all Cuban, or All American Indian college either..and those all black and all women's colleges continue to fight against allowing any white men into their colleges...Now, if white men were to open an All White male college there would be an uproar and screaming of racism/sexism...just as there was when Boston University students created a Whites only scholarship as the college offers other 'race' scholarships, but none based on being "Caucasian'..and the last all male college was VMI, and it was forced by lawsuits to begin admitting women.

So tell me (I realize you can't answer this), but why is it, that Blacks get to continue segregation policies--while no one else is allowed to continue that?? They fought to desegregate, yet they continue to fight to keep segregation...it appears to be completely contradictory..so it comes across that many blacks are more concerned about the color of skin, than most others are..and given these schools are in Alabama, I can certainly understand why someone (be they white, Mexican, American Indian, Cuban) who lives in that state or the surrounding states would have a completely different perspective on the skin color issue...

The Daily Free Press - ENG sophomore wins $250 whites-only scholarship

CNN - Whites-only Alabama scholarship program raising eyebrows - October 30, 1999

It certainly appears the blacks at this college, have an issue with people of other races attending their college...

http://www.tuskegee.edu/

And there is no "White History Month" or "Asian History Month" or "American Indian History Month" Or "Arab History Month" et el why not just have an American History Month?? Why designate it to a certain color of people?? Isn't that just as much discrimination to all other races of people??


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 9, 2009)

How long ago have schools been desegregated in the US? Is there any other race in the US which has undergone and undergoes the issues African-Americans face because of slavery and the mentality it has instilled in people of all races? Money for school is based on guidelines set by whom? Is there a shortage of White males getting into college? Has the White male become an underrepresented group in any country much less the US? Which "All Black" college denies admission to whites? Morehouse's valedictorian last year was a White gentleman. There is no "all black" university in the US that I am aware of. There are schools which are "women only" but there is no school which is "black women only." The argument is the reason that there are no "All White Male-only" schools is because that is what the oldest schools in the US started as.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 9, 2009)

Tim said:


> Just a quick question, and sorry if this has been addressed before here on the PB.
> 
> Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?



For centuries our society considered any person with 50-50 black/white mix as black. So this isn't something new to just Obama, it is a part of our culture. In some areas of the country if you were 75% white and 25% black you were considered black and treated as such.


----------



## brymaes (Mar 9, 2009)

> All American Indian college either..


Just for the record, there is at least one such institute here in the Great Southwest...
SIPI


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 9, 2009)

I read somewhere that the colonial spanish in the Americas had over a dozen terms to describe the different shadings and race mixes, from mestizo, mulatto, etc.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 19, 2009)

Ahhhh.

Firefox crashed on me and I didn't save my response.

I'll retype and repost in a day or three.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 20, 2009)

SemperEruditio;



> How long ago have schools been desegregated in the US?



Honestly, which schools? I can go to any of the local high schools and most colleges and see people 'segregate' themselves by skin color...not in classrooms, but sitting in the lunch room or out in the court yard..



> Is there any other race in the US which has undergone and undergoes the issues African-Americans face because of slavery and the mentality it has instilled in people of all races?



Which issues are those that they face today? there are some that yes, who make less money than others..but there are some who also make a lot more than others..

Slavery was a long time ago in this country, and I have never owned a slave..there have been many African-American's who have over-come many sins committed against their ancestors and have led some awesome lives in this country..yet, there are some who continue to live in the memories of those sins..believing they were committed against them personally, and believe they are some how 'owed' something for their ancestors having being sinned against..my ancestors were sinned against, am I 'owed' something for that?? I have been sinned against, am I 'owed' something for that? Or do I at some point move past that victim mentality, and begin to take responsibility for myself and improving my own life? Or do I sit back and wait on someone to pay me what I think I am 'owed'? 

Why would someone 'owe' me something because my ancestors were sinned against??



> Money for school is based on guidelines set by whom?



If it's government money, the guidelines are set by the government in most cases..



> Is there a shortage of White males getting into college?



In some areas of the country yes, there are..but the real question is, who is more apt to get a college grant based on the color of their skin?



> Has the White male become an underrepresented group in any country much less the US?



Which country are African-American's under represented? And in what way are they under-represented? And can that really be blamed on 'white' people anymore? Or is it more because they just aren't stepping up?



> Which "All Black" college denies admission to whites?



I was referring more to things like this.

http://www.verdictslaska.com/phbcu.pdf



> There are schools which are "women only" but there is no school which is "black women only."



nor are there any 'white women only' so your point?

There is the Miss Black America Pageant, but no Miss White America or Miss Cuban American...or Miss whatever...American...pageants...(maybe I should encourage some non-black friends to enter that?)

There is also Black entertainment Television, but no White Entertainment Television channel--is that racist? or prejudiced? If some one were to start a White Entertainment Channel, you can be assured they would be called racist..



> The argument is the reason that there are no "All White Male-only" schools is because that is what the oldest schools in the US started as.



no, the argument is that ALL are equal under the law...and should be treated as such..if people are doing the same job with the same experience, same education level ect..they should get the same pay..nobody should be hired merely because 'a company' has to meet a quota of hiring so many people of one color or ethnic back ground..

but I must ask..If it was WRONG and a Sin for one group of people to do such, why is it not equally Wrong and Sin for other such groups to do the same?? Is it really your argument that because it was that way years ago--it is some how now right for them to treat others the same way?? Two wrongs make a right?? The truth of the matter is, their sin's are not mine to bare--they have either been paid for on the Cross of Christ or they are being paid for, for all eternity by those who committed them...and personally, I find it offensive for people to assume I should for some reason feel guilty or ashamed for what someone else did. 


This to is racism..and prejudiced..

http://www.blackbusinessgrants.com/

as there are no whitebusinessgrants from the Government..but there are Small business grants available to people of ALL colors..so I fail to see how African-Americans continue to believe things are still some how against them..

If people wish to truly live in a color blind world, then even these things need to be done away with...then people need to stop screaming racism merely because someone disagrees with them, does not hire them, or whatever,
because of the color of their skin..

for example..I am sick of people calling me a racist merely because I did not vote for the current president, some people assume I didn't vote for him because of the color of his skin, because to them it couldn't possibly be I disagree with his politics..and yes, I get this a lot..and as I said before
..racism is a heart issue..and not seeing the value of people for who they are as God's creation..and unfortunately, until the heart issue is dealt with..it will continue..the sad thing is..many of my more conservative Darker complected friends who didn't vote for him...get the same thing..they must be trying to be 'whitey's' --

people seem to assume that because a person is white..then they must be racist..and therefore everything they do or think or say is filtered through the 'they are racist' lens...is it at all possible they need to turn that mirror on themselves to see if they might be the one with the 'skin color issue' and not the other person???


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 20, 2009)

TimV said:


> The Kingdom isn't going to be built by any particular race or human political structure. It's us working together under the rule of the Great King who has adopted us into the same family.


Excellent!

Let's remember that we are all prejudiced in one way or another. It comes with our upbringing, socializations, and perhaps our genetics. But there is a difference between prejudice and racism. *Racism is negative prejudice in action*. When we act negatively on our prejudices based on color/ethnicity, we have become racists.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 20, 2009)

> Honestly, which schools? I can go to any of the local high schools and most colleges and see people 'segregate' themselves by skin color...not in classrooms, but sitting in the lunch room or out in the court yard..



I guess I should be clear that the desegregation of the schools was a matter of governmental involvement. I am not talking about human nature in that people will get together with others of the same culture. You may also take note that it is not purely skin color but culture. I have seen and know plenty of “goth” African-American kids as well as “metal heads” who are African-American. It should not escape you the amount of Anglo kids who listen and behave more like the idiots in rap videos and are essentially more “ethnic” than any African-American.




> Which issues are those that they face today? there are some that yes, who make less money than others..but there are some who also make a lot more than others..
> 
> Slavery was a long time ago in this country, and I have never owned a slave..there have been many African-American's who have over-come many sins committed against their ancestors and have led some awesome lives in this country..yet, there are some who continue to live in the memories of those sins..believing they were committed against them personally, and believe they are some how 'owed' something for their ancestors having being sinned against..my ancestors were sinned against, am I 'owed' something for that?? I have been sinned against, am I 'owed' something for that? Or do I at some point move past that victim mentality, and begin to take responsibility for myself and improving my own life? Or do I sit back and wait on someone to pay me what I think I am 'owed'?
> 
> Why would someone 'owe' me something because my ancestors were sinned against??


Without going to the outliers of those who seek reparations there is the very real problem that while slavery was “a long time ago in this country” its affects are still very apparent. By your post it is clear you are ignorant to the sins committed against African-Americans. They are not “owed” anything but the same respect you would extend to anyone else. 




> In some areas of the country yes, there are..but the real question is, who is more apt to get a college grant based on the color of their skin?


The student with the grades. Are you naïve enough to believe that grants are based on skin color alone? A student must also have the grades for those grants. You speak as though there is money just sitting out there and all some Black/Brown kid has to do is reach out. There has to be a financial need as well as academic requirements met to qualify. Skin color is not the only determinant. 




> Which country are African-American's under represented? And in what way are they under-represented? And can that really be blamed on 'white' people anymore? Or is it more because they just aren't stepping up?


Um? America? What percent of the population do you believe is African-American? How much of those who govern are African-American? In what field besides sports are African-Americans equal with any other race?



> I was referring more to things like this.
> 
> http://www.verdictslaska.com/phbcu.pdf



The decision of Howard and other schools is the problem which happens to everyone who gets into power, they begin to treat others the same way they were treated. This is equal to the rhetoric spewed by Dr. Jeremiah Wright and others. It was wrong when it was Whites doing it to Blacks and it is just as wrong now when the tables have turned.

Now how much experience do you have in academia? Whites have trouble in Black schools. Women have trouble in most all schools. Christians have trouble in secular schools. Academia proclaims how much we must diversify and be inclusive however promotes an environment of academic incest. If you do not tote the party line you will not earn tenure and gender as much as race is involved. This disease affects Black schools just as it does White.



> nor are there any 'white women only' so your point?
> 
> There is the Miss Black America Pageant, but no Miss White America or Miss Cuban American...or Miss whatever...American...pageants...(maybe I should encourage some non-black friends to enter that?)


Ignorance is bliss. There is a Ms. Latina, Ms. Cuban-America, Ms. Asian-America…..there are pageants for just about every ethnicity in America. I can also see you have not watched the Ms. Black pageant because there have been White women who competed.



> There is also Black entertainment Television, but no White Entertainment Television channel--is that racist? or prejudiced? If some one were to start a White Entertainment Channel, you can be assured they would be called racist..


At this point I believe you are just being silly and argumentative. Now where did African-Americans get the idea of being separate from the rest of America? Where did they get the idea that they must have their own diners, churches, communities, schools,…. In order to avoid confusion I will tell you that it was and still is the mentality of slavery held by Whites and Blacks in America.

White Entertainment Television? How long has it been that African-Americans have been on TV? Before the advent of BET or the like there was a “white-out” of TV. You would think by watching TV that the only work for African-Americans was housekeeping. There is no need for a “white-only” channel because that is how they all started. I take it this is an attempt to have it the way it was in the “good ole days?”



> no, the argument is that ALL are equal under the law...and should be treated as such..if people are doing the same job with the same experience, same education level ect..they should get the same pay..nobody should be hired merely because 'a company' has to meet a quota of hiring so many people of one color or ethnic back ground..


Yes however the law cannot stop a person from exercising their prejudice. Yes I agree with you however I hire people. I know full and well in discussions with my colleagues at other institutions that if _”Shaneequa Jones”_ applies for a position she will not be considered. Never mind that Ms. Jones is a White woman. The reason? Oh, they “thought” she was Black. There is no law for our thoughts nor presuppositions we bring which stem from our ignorance. 



> This to is racism..
> 
> http://www.blackbusinessgrants.com/
> 
> as there are no whitebusinessgrants from the Government..but there are Small business grants available to people of ALL colors..so I fail to see how African-Americans continue to believe things are still some how against them..


That is site is a bait & switch. It is not even close to being a credible source. There are no such things as “black” grants. There are grants that go to minority owned business as well as to women-owned business and even just run of the mill small business grants. Is it wrong for the government to help people start business? 




> If people wish to truly live in a color blind world, then even these things need to be done away with...then people need to stop screaming racism merely because someone disagrees with them, does not hire them, or whatever,
> because of the color of their skin..
> 
> for example..I am sick of people calling me a racist merely because I did not vote for the current president, some people assume I didn't vote for him because of the color of his skin, because to them it couldn't possibly be I disagree with his politics..and yes, I get this a lot..and as I said before
> ...



Here is where we are finally beginning to get to the heart of matter. There will never be a color blind world so we can stop that nonsensical talk. As long as there are people of different ethnicities there will be talk of color. The problem is not in the differences but in the assumption that different means deficient. 

You are White and did not vote for the Black candidate. I am Latino and did not vote for the Black candidate. You are labeled a racist and I a “sell out.” Who cares? I think for the issues of race Obama is a great choice. Simply for the fact that my nieces and god-daughter can look and see that the most powerful man in the world is African-American….and he screws up just as bad or even worse.

I believe you are projecting onto minorities. Why? A sensible person will judge you based on how you treat them and what you say. The two must be congruent. For some, you being White are a racist until proven otherwise. That is not the majority. Are African-Americans suspicious of Whites? Of course. Do African-Americans have “color issues?” Yes. Their issue is the fact that they have dark skin and must live in a world that judge them based on that color. You are experiencing the same judgment at the hands of African-Americans and you don’t like it. The mindset that _"You people just need to get over the past and move on...it's 2009 and Obama is President."_ is not a helpful mindset. The wrongs committed 40 years ago are still very fresh. When people are arrested, brutalized, and shot and they were not guilty of a crime that is a problem regardless of the race. 

There is a lot of finger pointing on both sides and we’re both gouging out each others eyes and going blind in the process. However we must continue to talk and ask _“why x?”_ Suffice it to say that only Jesus Christ can heal this and that will take time. Our sins may have been washed by the blood of the Lamb but that does not mean the affects of our past sins have disappeared. When there is a church in 2007 that will force a TE out because he mentions inter-racial marriage not being a problem that is a problem. When there are Latino men leaving the PCA because they are told they will never be ordained due to their place of birth that is a problem. There are racial problems in Reformed denominations and having the _"just get over it"_ mentality to be how you approach the problem is just as wrong as those Black/Brown brothers/sisters expecting every White American to give them their 40 acres and a mule.


----------



## Gloria (Mar 20, 2009)

Tim said:


> Just a quick question, and sorry if this has been addressed before here on the PB.
> 
> Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?
> 
> This is really just a rhetorical question because I resent when people only feel satisfied when 'one of their own' is in power. I would hope we would all be glad if a godly man were in power, no matter what he looks like or what ethic group he identifies with. It should be that 'one of our own' refers to someone who is a Bible-believing Christian man who fears God.



You make a good and very valid point. It always puzzles me though when this question is asked. The reason he is considered black...is because well...his skin is black. If you saw him or another man that looked like him in a store and had to describe him later to a friend, you'd no doubt describe the man as "black" or even my personal favorite (not really) "African-American." What if I told you that I'm not black, but that I'm Dominican or Panamanian? I'm NOT...but I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming that you'd be surprised that I'm not "black" but rather hispanic...Do you get my point?

Additionally, to ask this question denies the FACT that there was a time in this country's history that if you had even "on drop" of black blood in your ancestry, you were considered "black." I think that what we see today has MUCH to do with this concept.

I totally agree with your last point. I attend a predominately white church and I treat them as my family...why? Because they are the body of Christ! Thanks for making that point.




-----Added 3/20/2009 at 11:21:11 EST-----



BlackCalvinist said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?
> ...



Thank you, sir...Thank you VERY much...

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 11:35:49 EST-----



Joshua said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > 60 years ago the 'half-white' explanation wouldn't have flown if Obama was alive and went to a 'white only' water fountain. One look and _there would've been *nothing but* _'what's wronng with you, boy ? cantcha read thuh' sign ? It sez white onleh'" and the bats and bricks would have come out to help with the 'literacy lesson'.
> ...



Wow...I read Kerry's comment and COMPLETELY agreed. Wanna know why? I've talked to my grandmother who actually had to drink from the "colored fountain." I mean, seriously. We don't like it...but it happened...I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here...Frank is making some great points here. I don't agree with EVERYTHING he's saying (the monkey cartoon thing is a stretch to me) BUT to deny his points are valid only speaks to the extreme gulf in the American experience between so called "minorities" and the majority...

This is *exactly* why we need to treat each other like Christians...not "white Christians" "Black Christians" or "Cuban Christians."

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 11:39:06 EST-----



BJClark said:


> a mere housewife;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of your questions are addressed and answered in Shelby Steele's _White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era_ It's a great read.

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 11:40:23 EST-----



BlackCalvinist said:


> Ahhhh.
> 
> Firefox crashed on me and I didn't save my response.
> 
> I'll retype and repost in a day or three.



HCR anyone? Ever taken over 3 minutes to post on a thread only to be timed out?


----------



## BJClark (Mar 20, 2009)

Gloria;




> So tell me (I realize you can't answer this), but why is it, that Blacks get to continue segregation policies--while no one else is allowed to continue that?? They fought to desegregate, yet they continue to fight to keep segregation...it appears to be completely contradictory..so it comes across that many blacks are more concerned about the color of skin, than most others are..and given these schools are in Alabama, I can certainly understand why someone (be they white, Mexican, American Indian, Cuban) who lives in that state or the surrounding states would have a completely different perspective on the skin color issue...



That is my question as well..why do they continually fight to KEEP themselves segregated if that is NOT what they really want? 



> Without going to the outliers of those who seek reparations there is the very real problem that while slavery was “a long time ago in this country” its affects are still very apparent. By your post it is clear you are ignorant to the sins committed against African-Americans. They are not “owed” anything but the same respect you would extend to anyone else.



The truth is you can not ignore them--because they scream the loudest...

And with all due respect, I am well aware of the sin's committed against them, but the truth is...there is no amount of ANYTHING on this earth that can be done to make up for those sins..because whatever is done..will never 'BE' enough..it is just like a works based salvation..No amount of works is going to save one's Soul..Only the Blood of Christ can do that..



> I am not talking about human nature in that people will get together with others of the same culture.



But you can not divorce this from the issue, because THIS IS the issue when certain groups of people demand to be treated special because of past sins against them...

But I'm curious why do try and justify their Sin??



> There are no such things as “black” grants. There are grants that go to minority owned business as well as to women-owned business and even just run of the mill small business grants. Is it wrong for the government to help people start business?



Yes, actually, there is something wrong with it..when they are based on them being a Minority..(how is that being treated EQUAL if it offered BECAUSE they are a minority??)



> The student with the grades. Are you naïve enough to believe that grants are based on skin color alone? A student must also have the grades for those grants. You speak as though there is money just sitting out there and all some Black/Brown kid has to do is reach out. There has to be a financial need as well as academic requirements met to qualify. Skin color is not the only determinant.



And I would beg to differ with you...are you so naive to believe their aren't??
And it's irrelevant if they are required to have certain grades ; most scholarships have those same requirements--so if they have scholarships based solely on someone's skin color no matter what the skin color..it's STILL discrimination!! 

BlackNews.com - Black Scholarships | African American Scholarships

Grants for African American Students at Colleges and Universities

And so you know...I disagree with scholarships based towards ANY minority group..merely because they are a Minority..because no matter how it's spun, it's NOT equality and will NEVER LEAD to equality..

If someone were to start a scholarship fund for whites only like they have the United Negro Fund..They WOULD be called racist..whether you choose to believe this or not..



> Um? America? What percent of the population do you believe is African-American? How much of those who govern are African-American? In what field besides sports are African-Americans equal with any other race?



And that is "white peoples' fault in what way?? Can they not run for political office?? If not, who or what is preventing them from doing so?? what do you consider EQUAL?? Equal numbers?? should there be a law on the books their must be equal numbers of each color person working in a particular field????
IS that what you believe??? Because it certainly comes across that way...



> As long as there are people of different ethnicities there will be talk of color. The problem is not in the differences but in the assumption that different means deficient.



Ah but don't you recognize that when the government demands their be quota's of certain groups..or offer scholarships for certain groups there is the assumption they are some how deficient?? they aren't smart enough to get there on their own..and in the case of the military the women's training is NOT the same..so they are not truly being treated equally...if they were they would have the same training requirements the men do..

Let me share a little story with you..

My son made a comment at school...one of the kids who heard the comment got angry and reacted by fighting..My son got a referral for making the comment, and not being able to control his tongue..yet, the other child was not given a referral for not being able to control his reaction..If my son who is white is expected to learn self control of his tongue..then the other child who was black should also be expected to learn self control of his reactions..


The attitude and words of the Vice Principal was they expect MORE from white children than they do from black children..and it tells me he thinks the black child is not smart enough to learn how to control his actions...but the white boy is smart enough to learn to control his tongue..I told the man he was discriminating against both children..by holding one child to a certain standard and not holding the other child to the same standard...in other words his words and attitude were that people of color are to stupid to learn to control themselves..I disagree with the man..and told him he should NOT be working in the education system..the other young man never did get in trouble, but I can tell you the lesson my son learned..was that it's okay to discriminate against others...



> I believe you are projecting onto minorities.



No, I'm not..I know not everyone is like this...but there are some people who live in my neighborhood that ARE!! And there are many who live in my community that are..not all of them...but there are some..



> That is not the majority.



That really depends on where you live..




> Their issue is the fact that they have dark skin and must live in a world that judge them based on that color.



Ahhh, but see, now whose projecting something on to someone else?? Who is judging them based on their skin color?? Are they not projecting their own assumptions of what they think someone else believes on to others?? 



> You are experiencing the same judgment at the hands of African-Americans and you don’t like it.



I don't like it towards anyone..but you apparently can't see that..



> The mindset that "You people just need to get over the past and move on...it's 2009 and Obama is President." is not a helpful mindset. The wrongs committed 40 years ago are still very fresh. When people are arrested, brutalized, and shot and they were not guilty of a crime that is a problem regardless of the race.



Your assuming MY mindset..but I'm curious why do you wish to justify their sins?? Because that is what's happening when you to try explain away someone's actions based on how they were sinned against in the past..and again why we CAN NOT divorce the heart/sin/human nature issue from the equation..



> When there is a church in 2007 that will force a TE out because he mentions inter-racial marriage not being a problem that is a problem. When there are Latino men leaving the PCA because they are told they will never be ordained due to their place of birth that is a problem.



Then I would say the men in that church have a sin problem..that needs to be addressed with the Presbytery--and if their Presbytery refuses to deal with it..then those men SHOULD leave..that is not where they belong..not because they are a different color, but because sin abounds and it is not being addressed... 

And to be perfectly honest..I think for the most part we agree on this more than we disagree..


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 20, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> I read somewhere that the colonial spanish in the Americas had over a dozen terms to describe the different shadings and race mixes, from mestizo, mulatto, etc.



Yep, and I want to know what "white" is supposed to be. Typically it means "without x, y, or z". But then you have those that have just a bit of this and they aren't considered "white", but then you have people that have a bit of that and they are still considered "white".


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 20, 2009)

I agree with you 100%, Bobbi. 

I have been called a racist on several occasions because I *gasp* disagreed and/or argued with a minority group member. The accusations were wholly unfounded, but they were bred from a _de facto_ racism that many minority group students learned from their families, not experience. That wasn't always the case of course, but it was the case more often than not at _my_ school. Some of them experienced racism firsthand by some guy at the grocery store or whatever, which seemed to be enough to justify their opinions about how prevalent racism is. Unfortunately, I have experienced real racism as well, except I wasn't allowed to play the victim since I am white--which obviously made a difference in how I felt when I was treated unfairly. It was "my people" who afflicted others, so I wasn't allowed to ever feel oppressed.

I know for a fact that there are many members of minority groups who are trying to end racism through intelligent discussion and other means. I love those people dearly and thank them for their efforts, but I do wonder if not enough is being done in one's _own_ racial group to make real change. I say this because the greatest impasse I have seen to meaningful discussion is the plethora of _de facto_ racists who always play the victim, want handouts, and feel that other groups of people are the reason for their problems. Out of fear the public school system caters to the "victims" because teachers don't want to be sued or accused of treating certain races unfairly. In this PC environment, the victim complex is only perpetuated. For whatever reason, the false victims always seem to have the louder voice.

_Thank God_ these issues will be resolved someday. Until then, I feel inspired to blame Adam. (He was white, wasn't he? )


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 20, 2009)

I am too Black for the Latins & too white for Blacks. I am not justifying either side. I'm with Paul Rodriguez and say that all the "race" mixing should just hurry up so we can all look Phillipino. 

So if starting today all schools and government funding would treat people based only on their qualifications and not gender, nor ethnicity how would things look? In the depravity of humanity do you think that things would get better for those that are underrepresented? What about government jobs? Then there should not be a 5-10 preferential points for veterans? What about Native Americans? Their living conditions are the worst in the US. They have the lowest academics, so we should just claim EQUALITY and let them sink or swim?

Removing the forced diversity which was brought about by the Civil Rights era would cause more diversity in the US or less?

The bottom line is not about "them" out there but you and me. What will we do today, tomorrow, and the next day in sharing the Gospel and having friends who are not of our same ethnic culture. My concern is no different than every Black/Brown I have spoken to in Reformed churches. The "frozen chosen" are ice cold when it comes to befriending Black/Brown people. 

I think we agree more than we disagree. I hope I have not offended but I have a way of doing just that. No, I do not believe you nor the others who have posted are racists. Everyone knows there is no race greater than the Cuban...I mean human race.


----------



## Michael (Mar 20, 2009)

Forgive me for barging in late to this discussion...

I attend a small "mostly white" PCA church just outside of Atlanta. We only have a handful of black families, however we have two black elders (out of 5). Both are outstanding shepherds to our flock, gifted in knowledge and example. I wouldn't say that our congregation is "ice cold" towards diversity in the slightest. However, if you look at the demographic of the area, we should have more black members. But the problem has nothing to do with the warmth of our church, in my opinion. The problem lies in the tremendous influence of the 'cult of personality' and 'prosperity gospel' churches that prey on the black communities in our area.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 21, 2009)

SemperEruditio;



> So if starting today all schools and government funding would treat people based only on their qualifications and not gender, nor ethnicity how would things look?



On the outside things would 'look' good, but the hearts of men would STILL be the same. People would still blame others for their problems, just like they do now. Again, which is why the heart/sin/human nature issue can not be divorced from the equation and needs to be addressed--



> In the depravity of humanity do you think that things would get better for those that are underrepresented? What about government jobs? Then there should not be a 5-10 preferential points for veterans? What about Native Americans? Their living conditions are the worst in the US. They have the lowest academics, so we should just claim EQUALITY and let them sink or swim?



For many I believe it would, yes, because more would be expected of them, they would learn the 'victim' mentality and 'you owe me because' wouldn't work anymore..and they would actually have to PROVE they are, what most people believe they are and what The Civil Rights Movement was REALLY ABOUT..that they are smart, and are fully capable of working--without handouts..

As for the American Indian's. I'd have to talk to my brother in law more indepth on that..as he lives on one of the reservations up in Washington State..

here in Florida,

Seminole Tribe of Florida: Seminole Tribune

what about Government jobs? The government needs to be smaller not larger..individuals need to start businesses NOT the government.



> Removing the forced diversity which was brought about by the Civil Rights era would cause more diversity in the US or less?



It wasn't the civil rights era that brought about the forced diversity..that came about by Affirmative Action..which has two completely different meanings..

Racially Correct Definition of Affirmative Action 



> Definition 1: Race-neutral, gender-neutral assurance against actual discrimination. This is the type of Affirmative Action contemplated by President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, in which he sought to ensure that individuals have equal opportunity WITHOUT regard to their race, sex, or ethnicity. In this 1965 Executive Order, President Johnson consistently and repeatedly used the term non-discrimination and never once mentioned racial quotas or preferences. The original, unamended version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 similarly emphasized race-neutrality and non-discrimination.





> Definition 2: Racial-preferences and gender-preferences for the correct races and genders. Under this defintion, Affirmative Action is comprised of programs and policies that grant favorable treatment on the basis of race or gender to government-defined "disadvantaged" individuals. Under this definition, racial or gender preference must be granted even when the favored / aggrieved minority or gender has no actual evidence or proof that a company, boss, individual, or government agency has discriminated against them due to their race or gender. Definition 2 is based upon the Constitutionally dubious notion of proportional representation based upon skin color or gender in all occupations and endeavors in the U.S.



Follow the various links on this website..and maybe you will understand why I ask what do you mean by 'under represented'...

Racially Correct Definition of Underrepresented

Racially Correct Definition of Overrepresented

Racially Correct Definition of Diversity

In the words of Ward Connerly:



> If ever there was a term that makes me nauseous, "diversity" is such a term. But, believe me, this term is more than nauseating; it is dangerous. "Diversity" is the antithesis of merit.
> 
> The pursuit of "diversity" by the government is legally sanctioned discrimination to achieve a fuzzily defined quota that is known only to [educational] admissions officers and other bureaucrats who want to play God with our lives.
> 
> "Diversity" makes a mockery of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and it's command that the government treat all of us equally "without regard" to the factors of race, gender and ethnicity. "Diversity" is an excuse to discriminate.




Racially Correct Definition of Affirmative Action

Something most people don't pay attention to about the south..

National Black Republican Association - DYK-Why MLK was a Republican

And this is why folks are against the NAACP and such groups..

AEI - Short Publications - It Will Always Be 1965 . . .




> The bottom line is not about "them" out there but you and me. What will we do today, tomorrow, and the next day in sharing the Gospel and having friends who are not of our same ethnic culture. My concern is no different than every Black/Brown I have spoken to in Reformed churches. The "frozen chosen" are ice cold when it comes to befriending Black/Brown people.



As I said, those are sin issues, and need to be addressed, with THOSE individuals..and if they refuse to listen take it to the Presbytery level if you need to..maybe encourage the pastors here to discuss it at the next GA..

but if people are not befriending a brother or sister in Christ merely because of the color of their skin..then the person refusing that friendship IS in SIN..



> I think we agree more than we disagree. I hope I have not offended but I have a way of doing just that. No, I do not believe you nor the others who have posted are racists. Everyone knows there is no race greater than the Cuban...I mean human race.



I'm not offended at all..and I believe you will understand why I asked some of the questions I did..including why I asked why you appear to support their sin..


----------



## Ravens (Mar 21, 2009)

Frank,

I had been planning on typing a weighty screed as an exercise in catharsis, but kept putting it off due to the volatility of emotions that this topic creates within me. As it stands, for now I'll just point out a few things that bothered me and happened to raise my internal thermometer. Also, as a point of clarification, my "thanks" to this post was an accident, as I was figuring out how to quote it.

For what it's worth, this thread is a perfect illustration of the importance of Galatians 5:15 (if I understand it aright), "But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!" I'm sure that I have violated this particular command already, and will do so again in the future, probably in this thread. But since you want open talks on "racial reconciliation", and this thread was bumped (I was hoping it would die, and something else would grab my attention, and that my subconscious would simply forget about it and stop boiling over...), I figure that I can reply. Thankfully I'm exhausted after days of little sleep, and just got off work, so maybe the engine is cool enough to type.

Had this thread simply addressed, in respectful fashion, the low numbers of minorities in Reformed churches, then I probably would have never been provoked. As it stands, though, I feel a number of bites and low-blows have been made by TimV (who has made disparaging racial remarks against whites on a couple of occassions...), yourself, and Kerry.

Let's be honest. I went to a public school telling me that my "race" was the cause of all the world's problems. I grew up in a media saturated environment that tells me that my race is the cause of all the world's problems. I went to a Christian college only to find out, in every Gen. Ed. course and most higher courses, that my race was the cause of all the world's problems. Then (oh the thought!) we had lecture series wherein special speakers were brought in to tell us that we whites were, indeed, the cause of all the world's problems! I turn on my television, and have various celebrities and upper crust types bemoan the actions of whites. I hear numerous vocal minorities talk about their plight, how the white man just wouldn't understand, etc. I have numerous black coworkers that talk about race in a way that would get me fired. I have Attorney Generals who after all this, after a lifetime of hearing about race, of one anti-white screed after another, come out and tell the nation that we are a nation of "racial cowards" because we refuse to talk about race. Then I log onto the Puritanboard and find absurd statements (by TimV), excessive rhetoric, or at least inflammatory posts, from you, and a hyped-up caricature of a Southern Accent by Kerry. 

It is ironic that you are still saying that we need conversations about racial reconciliation. In my honest point of view, we need a white perspective, because the black perspective has been proclaimed loudly enough by politicians, public schoolteachers, coworkers, celebrities, nameless strangers, etc. I think I can honestly say that the black viewpoint has been fleshed out and grasped by "White America", whatever that is. As far as the need for any further "racial talks", I'll simply quote the words of a book from 1997 that, despite many flaws, has a lot of truth to it:

As spectators, Americans seem to have an insatiable appetite for racial atrocity. The fact that they hold their noses and pretend it stinks doesn't mean they aren't fascinated with it to a degree that borders on the perverse. Dripping with holiness, some people tell us we have to face the past. If we keep looking back, we're going to drive straight into a wall. You repeatedly hear that Americans need to address racism. Listen, Mr. Postman, we haven't only addressed it, we've added a zip code. They say we need to start dealing with these issues. Maybe they've been in a coma for the past thirty years. America has Race Fever. It's not an actual race war, but a sort of racial Cold War. A grinding war of nerves. And it's impossible to escape. A race war would be anticlimactic at this point. Enough. Let's put the baby to bed. And let's cool down just a tad. We don't need MORE sensitivity. If we got any more sensitive, we'd all break out in a rash.

Anyway, on to your post:



SemperEruditio said:


> This is all well and good but what are the racial expectations of our Reformed brothers/sisters. We can talk all day and night on the only race being the human race however I bet dollars to doughnuts if I walk into 95%+ of the congregations board members attend it would be a smorgasbord of the different shades of white skin.



My immediate response when reading this was: "And?" First of all, let's just throw some cards on the table. In virtually every racial discussion that I've read or listened to, there are always unique ways of describing "white skin" in order to portray it in a negative light. Objectively and grammatically, could I prove in a court of law that you meant that comment in a negative fashion? No. However, we would all have to be fools or madmen to say that language does not have implicit statements and connotations. It is fairly clear to me that a "smorgasbord of the different shades of white skin" is not too far removed from the typical "lily white skin" wordplay. Perhaps I am wrong. My irritation at your post is not confined to this, so this point isn't decisive either way.

So let's assume you were only using linguistic flair. Okay. Still, I would respond with, "And?" There was a time when the _Ecclesia_ consisted primarily of ethnic descendants of Abraham. Was this not due, at least in terms of 1st Causes, to the fact that God had not yet blessed all the families of the earth in Abraham's Seed? There was a time after that when the church was primarily Latin, Middle Eastern, Greek, etc., and many Germanic tribes (along with the bulk of Asia, Africa, and the "New World") were left out. You could make the same case for "racism" based on demographics alone against the Jewish synagogues, and against the early Latin-Greek church... and even possibly against the Frankish church for not sufficiently attempting to convert other Germanic tribes north of them (modern day Scandinavia). Was the fact that pagan Slavic tribes dwelt around Christian Constantinople (until conversion) an issue of "race"? The Slavic tribes were certainly of a different "ethnicity". They were, thankfully, eventually brought into the kingdom. 

Point being, the history of the Christian church has always been one of expansion. It has grown in concentric circles for 2,000 years. The fact is, the northern sons of Japheth have, _en masse_, been members of the Kingdom for longer than many of those whose descent runs through Africa. To see this primarily in a racial context is, in a sense, to ignore all of the slow growth that preceded it, with family after family being added.

Now if you are talking about denominations specifically, which you appear to be: Granted that there is a "young, restless, and Reformed" movement, or whatever you would want to call it. However, in the grand scheme of things, most Christians don't even know what the Reformed church is. When most Christians, *even white Christians*, hear the term "Presbyterian", they think of liberal female ministers. Presbyterians are probably a very small part of "Christendom" in general, and the ancestral rivers of which they largely consist are, as a matter of history, primarily European. So if you and your's are being "brought in", why would you make this an issue of race? I would say you should be thankful for the Gospel, because you have received it just as the Germanic tribes, and the Latins and Greeks prior to them.



> We are all depraved and the depravity of the lingering racism in American Christianity is very real and prevalent. It even sneaks up into those who would never for a second believe that they could be accused of being racist. In my short stint now as a PCA member I have met with more than a handful of elders and not once have I been asked if God's call on my life has been academia or seeking a call to a church in suburbia.



Well. Maybe you aren't called.



> Without fail what has come up is "inner city church planter." I've had RE's ask how best to approach Black people. I've told them it is the same way you approach a Cuban which leaves them baffled because "who's Cuban?"



Here's one point of irony. In your opinion, a "problem" in the church is that it consists of "a smorgasbord of the different shades of white skin". I think it's fair to say that you think there should be more brown, red, yellow, and black skin in the church. So here you, of your own admission, attest that many ordained elders in Christ's church have seen, in you, an opportunity to do *precisely* what you want to happen, that is, increase minority membership in Reformed churches. 

Instead of being overjoyed that a bunch of Teutonic men are willing to: 1) Give you the right hand of fellowship as an 2) ordained elder in the church of Christ who can 3) preach the word and administer the sacraments, and have the same voting privileges in G.A. as your white counterparts, and then 4) send you to urban areas where you will be able to bring more "people of color" into the Kingdom (and by the way this would 5) all be funded by primarily white, *freely given* money... but hey, who cares, right?), you 6) Get online and disparage these elders who have personally dealt with you for not offering you a suburban church where you could pastor and sit in authority over white people. You even implicitly accuse them of racism, since you brought up this whole "situation" as an explanatory note of the statement that racism is found in "those who would never for a second believe that they could be accused of being racist. "



Hmmmmmm. _Lucy, you gotta lotta 'splainin' to do_!

But it gets better. Multiple times you have talked about how you always talk about race and open doors. You talk about "doors" more than Aldous Huxley:

Post #26: "The majority of my conversations are about race."
Post #26: "That is why I bring it up at every opportunity. I open the door as much as possible."
Post #29: "My point is you have to open the door to the conversation but when you're always the one who opens the door then a doorman is all you will be remembered for."
Post #38: "I would just want to have people begin to talk."
Post #38: "I want to talk about what you and I are afraid of." And for the record, this last one got a definite eye-roll from me. What a patronizing statement. The only thing I am afraid of is my flesh gaining mastery of me, or getting chastised or going to Hell for the amount of anger such patronizing statements evoke within me.

Regardless, apparently you are quite the "conversation starter". Yet, and I quote: " I've had RE's ask how best to approach Black people." What is your response to them "opening up doors" for you to walk through, and frankly addressing the paucity of blacks in the congregation? Apparently snideness on your part: "I've told them it is the same way you approach a Cuban which leaves them baffled because "who's Cuban?" So instead of being Jim Morrisson and walking through that Door and discussing the thing that you "always discuss", you are apparently offended that they fail to recognize you are Cuban, even when, in post #38 you say, "I am too light to be Black, too dark to be White, lips are too big to be Latino." 

So of your own admission you don't look like a "typical" Latino/Cuban/Whatever, and yet you fault these white elders for assuming you are black. Horror of horrors! That must have been traumatic. Tell me, do you know which of your elders are Slavic, Celtic, or Teutonic? Can you tell me from what tribes they descended? What nations? If not (and not only your elders, but everyone in your church), then why are you any more "naive" than they? To be frank, in my opinion you just portrayed your very own flesh-and-blood elders out to be imbecilic simians. That's exactly how they were portrayed, whether you agree with me or not, and I think you owe them an apology.

Huh. These men have probably given money that they couldn't afford to give to world missions and the promotion of the gospel among "people of color"; they take a Cuban under their care and are willing to make him as much of a minister as Ignatius, St. Patrick, or Martin Luther ever was (if Protestant Ecclesiology is correct); they are willing to fund and send him into inner cities just to promote the gospel, and all they get in return is to be portrayed to a bunch of online strangers as a bunch of Geico cavemen.

Well-played [sic], sir.



> What needs to happen is loads of prayer and open meetings on racial reconciliation. White America has wronged and continues to propagate the theology of a slave doctrine.



Here is where you begin to hit your stride. It's getting thick in here.



> Where people of color are only seen as workers who need to go into the field and harvest. No different now except the "field" is the inner-city and the "harvest" are increased membership on the rolls.



I realize that my attitude hasn't been perfect. I realize that there is a struggle within myself as to how much I identify with being "white" as opposed to being "Christian". Nevertheless, all rhetoric aside, the above statement was probably the most offensive part of your entire post.

I'm not playing a holier-than-thou card when I say what I'm about to say, I'm just being honest. But how anyone can take the words of the Lord Jesus Himself, who called his servants to the harvest, and who called his servants to work the harvest, and turn it into some racist metaphor is beyond me. A true servant of Christ would be honored to work in the Lord's harvest. 

Yet when whites take you under care and are en route to ordain you and fund you, you see this as a "slave doctrine".

Please. I don't need to say anything else, and if anyone doesn't see what I'm saying, then no amount of words on my part could make it plain. It's borderline reprehensible. Not to mention the fact that you impugn the motives of your white brothers by implying that their only or primary motive is to, and I quote, obtain " increased membership on the rolls." You imply the same thing in the bottom of the aforementioned post when you say, and I quote, "_If God has saved that Black/White/Latino/Asian...over there then he will end up in a church somewhere....I hope it's mine so we can at least say we are now 'multi-ethnic_....."

Stay classy, San Diego. Way to promote dialogue [sic] and open doors [sic].



> Now I am very, very aware at the wrongs that the "Black" Church promotes. Having come out of a Black church steeped in the traditions of the Black Church and attending seminary where Black Liberation Theology is emphasized I know all too well how blackness has taken priority over holiness and how salvation is seen as corporate because of the Middle Passage.



Somehow I have my doubts that you have altogether escaped the Liberation Theology in which you were educated... After all, white Americans are continuing to propagate a slave doctrine, and trying to spread the gospel among blacks is really tantamount to using blacks as slaves to do our Sinister White Bidding. Mwu-hahahahahahahahahah!



> As my rant continues



I agree with you here.



> perhaps the problem is not that Reformed folk are afraid to speak to people of other races but just afraid in general. Everyone prays like a Calvinist but in our evangelism we are more hyper-Calvinist. _"If God has saved that Black/White/Latino/Asian...over there then he will end up in a church somewhere....I hope it's mine so we can at least say we are now 'multi-ethnic....."_



Please...





>



I agree with you here also.

And by the way, that wasn't the only patronizing stuff you said on this thread (prior even to my full-fledged response). This was just one of many things that kept the mercury rising:



> Do all Black people know each other? What's up with the youth and their pants?



If you ever want to seriously discuss stuff with your Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavic brethren (or, at least those that still have remnants of a backbone), don't come on here with this claptrap. I don't know any other word to call it (actually, I do, and just deleted it...) If you seriously think that white people in general, and white people on this board in particular, sit around and wonder, "Hey Ethel! Stop breedin' and cummeer a minute! You think all those colored folks know one anuther? " "I don't know Earl, you mouthbreathin' trailer park King! My own personal Elvis! I wouldn't be surprised!"

Please. If you ever want serious dialogue, then this is not the way to go about it. All you are doing is increasing the psychological Middle Finger that is forming in my heart relative to all of these "open dialogues". Just keeping it real, folks. 

- Joshua


----------



## Knoxienne (Mar 21, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> I'm with Paul Rodriguez and say that all the "race" mixing should just hurry up so we can all look Phillipino.





White people would be banned here if they said the same thing here about Whites, and rightly so. It smacks of genocide/ethnic cleansing. It's what every dictator in our history advocated. 

So there should be no human beings that "don't look" Philippino? Didn't God create Caucasians, light-skinned Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and others who don't look Philippino in his image for his glory as He did the other ethnic groups? Do you really think that we should all look *one* way? What's the difference between that line of thinking and the idea we should all look White? Is that how God created humanity? Or is that the way globalists, One Worlders and socialists want the world to look (while calling it diversity) because they hate God-made real diversity?

I'm not attacking you personally, SE - just trying to get you to think about that idea/quote you typed. 

So, what's the purpose of diversity? Or when "people" say it, do "they" really mean something else?  

I always thought the way we as Christians were supposed to think about diversity went something like this: "Red and Yellow Black and White, they are precious in His sight".

If God wanted to create everyone to look Philippino, He certainly could and would have done so. But he didn't. I think we're better off accepting God's Way of making humans in His Image than seeking to make them in our image.


----------



## TimV (Mar 21, 2009)

> As it stands, though, I feel a number of bites and low-blows have been made by TimV (who has made disparaging racial remarks against whites on a couple of occassions...), yourself, and Kerry.



I first thought to ask you for examples of this. Then I read further, and realised we have such a difference in the way we see history that there wouldn't be much in the way of common definitions, so we could both look at the same remark and come to totally different conclusions on what the remark meant. Something as simple as the assumption on your part that the sons of Japheth live mostly in Europe gets my mind in all sorts of twists trying to fit the Chinese into that Armstrongite type white supremacy pseudo-scientific historical view. I've really tried before, but again, there's just no common ground.


----------



## Grace Alone (Mar 21, 2009)

I would LOVE to do to a racially diverse church, but where I live, I think churches are racially divided more due to culture than skin color. We have an adopted Asian child and I have friends who have adopted black children. Those children are being raised in the culture we live in, which is basically a middle class Christian culture.

I teach in a high poverty school, and because I teach children with learning disorders, I usually keep the same kids for 2-3 years as I teach them to read. I LOVE my kids, and they are black, white, and latino. I am thinking that if the church put more emphasis on having Christian schools where we'd welcome children of all ethnic backgrounds and educate them with love and right doctrine, then we'd be raising up kids with a different perspective. But I think the church has not done it's job in this respect. We need to raise up a new generation who are taught God's views on this topic.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 21, 2009)

TimV;



> I've really tried before, but again, there's just no common ground.



Who have you tried with?? Have you tried with this brother or even others on this forum?? 

And is not Christ Common ground enough, to at least cause you to be willing to try??


----------



## Ravens (Mar 21, 2009)

TimV,


> I first thought to ask you for examples of this. Then I read further, and realised we have such a difference in the way we see history that there wouldn't be much in the way of common definitions, so we could both look at the same remark and come to totally different conclusions on what the remark meant. Something as simple as the assumption on your part that the sons of Japheth live mostly in Europe gets my mind in all sorts of twists trying to fit the Chinese into that Armstrongite type white supremacy pseudo-scientific historical view. I've really tried before, but again, there's just no common ground.



Well, it took a grand total of one post before someone broke out the white supremacist designation. 

Well-played. 

That's a slanderous assumption or implication, and nothing more. I would invite anyone to review my five year history on this board and find "supremacist" remarks. Go ahead and search through my posting history. Have fun with it, and let me know what you come up with. 

The vast bulk of my irritation is derived from the Double Standard that is operative on the street, in the workplace, in the media, and in the classroom. Subsidiary irritation is reserved for white liberals (don't know what else to call them) and any particular individual that wants to berate and moan and whine about "white people", especially when it's done in a disrespectful and ignorant manner.

Secondly, you misquote me and distort my position when you say: "Something as simple as the assumption on your part that the sons of Japheth _live mostly_ in Europe [emphasis added]..." I never said that. I used the following phrase: "the northern sons of Japheth"; that is, those sons of Japheth who did happen to migrate into Europe. Obviously I'm talking about a subset of the family of Japheth.

So, strike two on your part.

And for the record, I avoided saying "the sons of Ham", opting for, and I quote, "those whose descent runs through Africa", precisely to avoid all the connotations and loaded implications of those names as they apply to black-white dialogue and the misapplication/twisting of "the curse" to justify slavery. My rhetorical point in mentioning Japheth was simply a small way to remind the reader that, while we are talking about ethnicity in the church, it is helpful to remember that at one time most of us were left outside the tents of Shem, black or white. Now if that rhetorical point failed, fair enough. But it certainly doesn't make me a "supremacist" or "Armstrongite."

Stay classy, San Diego.

I don't really care to interact with you, Tim, mostly because I don't really care for you. And that's okay. I'm sure (from the little you know of me) that you don't really care for me. You are in California, and I am in West Virginia. That works out great.

It's been hard for me to read your posts since I watched you interact with Mr. Rafalsky, to be honest. And for the record, I'm not KJVO. I'm not a "Textus Receptus Only" guy. But I think he had the years, Christlike demeanor and track record to deserve being treated with respect, and the way you handled that kind of turned me off from the get go.

That being said, context is everything. Would you agree that, now that my irritation at the Double Standard has been so clearly made known, and now that my name is "associated" in peoples' minds with racial issues, that if I ever *do* make a borderline racist comment (or even something debatable that could "come across" as racist), that it will be seen in the light of this thread, and be taken in the worst possible light? It would be a revealing mark of character if I do it in the future, whereas the same words from someone else might just be chalked up to a poor choice of phrasing or a social _faux pas_.

That being said, it is in the context of your posting history that I take some of your remarks. You constantly remind the board that you have lived in South Africa. That's happened so often that the number of references is probably in the 30's and 40's, if not more. Typically you do it in such a way that (in my opinion), you come across as saying, "Hey, I'm the enlightened world traveller. Did you know that I lived in South Africa for awhile? Let me hook you American rubes up with some knowledge." If it's an unpopular position on foreign relations, you are there. If a snide reference to "blue-eyed" Israelis needs to be injected into a thread bout Palestine, you are there. That's how you come across. Now maybe I (and others I have talked to) are all wrong. But I would bet my bank account (literally) that quite a few people on here feel the same way as I do when it comes to you sharing your racial and political _sutras_ with the board.

So that being said, how many "absurd remarks" does one have to make before one is guilty of having said something they shouldn't? There are two or three remarks of your's that have bothered me, each to a varying degree. 

In the thread, "How Long Has Your Family Been in the United States (or Canada)?, post #20, you said: "Off topic, but I got a kick out of Rushdoony saying that the American Indians were downgraded by trashy blue-eyed blood. He always said it with a comical glint in his eyes..." I'm sorry, that is simply uncalled for and has no place on a Christian message board. Or, if it does, then all kinds of racial remarks like that rightfully have a place. 

_Imagine if_, in one of the recent adoption threads, or one of the interracial marriage threads, I had said (in reference to a white guy marrying a black woman, or vice versa), "Sure you guys might like each other. But like [Insert Random Theologian] used to comically say, you're also going to downgrade your kid with some filthy big-lipped blood. Haha, he always smiled when he said that!"*NOTE TO READER:* This is *not* my position. It is included purely to make a point, and to show you what the very same statement would look like with a different race inserted.

Let's keep it real, folks (and Moderators). That person would be instantly sanctioned or dealt with, would they not? Yet it is just open season on whites when it comes to this kind of stuff. We get it in school, we get it from the media, we get it while watching sporting events, and apparently you can say things like I said above (if directed against white people) even on the Puritanboard, and *people don't even blink*. No big deal, right? ::shrug:: Sticks and stones can break his bones, but words shouldn't hurt whitey. After all, he's the archetypal oppressor, and any concern on his part is due to weak, sissy feelings, not the fact that *his posterity and future daughters and grand-daughters might have to grow up in a world where such racist comments are sanctioned*... yeah, it couldn't be that.

I'll give you another example of a, "If this was said about any other race than white people, the person would be drawn and quartered...." comment. This comment was made by BobVigneault. Now, to be clear, I have a great wealth of respect for Bob. His posts on demonology have been of great help to me. I admire his way to defuse tense situations with pithy and well-timed wit. I have the honesty to tell you that I don't really care to interact with you, so if I didn't like Bob, I would come out and say it.

I only clarify that because I do respect him, and don't want to unnecessarily offend him. I'm not trying to hunt him down. But I can't avoid quoting this because a: It perfectly makes my point, and b: It deeply bothered me when I read it. In the thread, "Adopting Racially Diverse Children", post #44, Bob says, and I quote:

"In our house we have 3 people who look very pasty and sickly all winter long and 3 people who have a beautiful mocha glow that is envied by the sickly looking ones." Par for the course. Trashy blue-eyed blood. Smogasbord of white skin. Lily white skin. Sickly white skin. Weak white men. White men can't jump. White men are... underequipped. White men have no rhythm. White men just wouldn't understand. "Typical white person." White men this, white men that. Open season, folks.

Now imagine if I was talking about a "mixed-race" church situation, and said something like, "Some of us walk around with skin kissed by starlight, and others look like they have some kind of infection. And the ones who look infected really envy those of us who have a white glow."

I mean that borders on absurd to even think about someone posting that. But it's the very same statement, just with the races reversed. I mean it's ironic that we've almost reached the point in "racial dialogue" when the scene from _A Time To Kill_ needs to be reversed. Everyone needs to have an inner Matthew McConaughey saying these racist statements in their mind and working everyone up to a fever pitch, then flip the script and say, "Now, imagine they're talking about black people... or yellow people... or red people..."

On to your other statements. These can actually be found in this thread:

From sutra #1:



> I see history repeating itself now. And since I'm in kind of an unusual position of having seen it before from an place where I could stand back and objectively watch it unfold, I'd like to offer a few observations.
> 
> There won't be any major changes. White people here in the US don't need to start hording guns and food. People should always have weapons that they know how to use, and a bit of food etc.. on hand for emergencies. But that's all. The world will go on, and there will be grocery stores open in even the long term future.



First of all, regardless of what type of "spin" is put on this particular post, may I remind everyone that everything that preceded this statement specifically concerned a black man being put in a position of power, and how different races reacted. This post had absolutely nothing to do with the economy, or with the biggest economic crisis in all of our lives that just happens to be going on right now. No, this post is strictly about race, and is even titled, "On racial expectations." 

And what do you say?

"White people here in the US don't need to start hording guns and food."

Please. You just suggested that "white people" are hording guns and food because a black man has been elected president. 

Why this stuff goes unchallenged, and why 21 people thanked your post without even commenting on this ludicrous remark, is simply beyond me. And if someone tells me I'm being over the top, then please explain to me why someone can get online and accuse white people of storing food and guns nationwide, not due to a possible 2nd Great Depression, but simply due to the fact that a black man has been elected president, and not be called out?

Just reminds me of this quote from the aforementioned book:



> Silent whitey. Scared and quiet. Smile and act nervous ... Take the blame. Swallow the pill. Apologize for the past. Sweat through the present. Surrender the future. Sackloth and ashes for as long as you live. White people don't make a peep. They just peck at their birdseed and huddle within their cages. I can't see how a mental diet of guilt and self-flagellation would be healthy for ANY ethnic group.



I mean... I don't even have words to respond to that. Just another day in the life of "racial dialogue." 

Another quote from sutra #1:



> I have noticed that much of the anger projected against Mideasterners is a sort of transfer of the anger and fear many White demographics have towards Blacks here in the US. For me sitting a bit on the sidelines it's as clear as day.



This is just beyond the pale. 21 people thanked your post, and not one of them commented on this. No one has even peeped about this statement. I must be living on a different planet.

The good thing is that you provide no evidence of the fact that white people are angry at "Mideasterners" because of repressed anger at and fear of American blacks. You just assure us that it is as "clear as day" from your position on the sidelines (because, after all, you lived in South Africa for awhile... I don't know if I mentioned that or not...).

Well, good. If it's clear as day, then that settles it. The fact of the matter is that that comment has more in common with some psycho-Freudian exegesis than sober Reformed discussion. You just sat here and told white people that they were angry at the Middle East because of repressed fear of American blacks.

Hogwash, brother.

Well, from my experience as a native West Virginian who has not lived in South Africa (and you did, by the way, just so the reader knows), I can say that there was virtually a complete absence of "anger" towards Middle-Eastern people. Typically they weren't even thought of. And if people did have feelings of angst vis a vis blacks, they usually had enough backbone to man up and say it.

But it's just my experience versus your experience. So let's leave experience out of it and just think in terms of plausibility. What is more plausible: That American Whites have bad feelings towards Middle Easterners for, *ohhhhhhhh, I don't know*, September 11th, and multiple other terrorist activities around the world, or because of a repressed or "transferred" anger at and fear of black people? Do we see the Middle East as our enemy because, ohhh, I don't know, they've been at odds with the Christian West virtually since the birth of Islam, stretching back to Charles Martel and 732, long before the Crusades, or because, hmmmm, we're worried about blacks taking our daughters and really wish, just deep down, that we could jump higher and had more of a rear end?

So in your world, people are stocking up on food, not because of the prospects of a complete and total immanent economic collapse, but because a black man was elected president. In your world, some people view the Middle East with less-than-loving feelings, not because the two tallest buildings in New York had planes flown into them, and not due to terrorist activity in Europe, and not due to the historic antipathy between Islam and Christianity, or Islam and Europe, but simply due to, and I quote, "a sort of transfer of the anger and fear many White demographics have towards Blacks here in the US."

Gotcha. Ya' know, now that I look at it in that particular light, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe I wouldn't be so angry and hot under the collar if these kind of incendiary statements didn't fly around unchallenged all the time. 

I'm sure you'll respond, and just for the record, I very well might let you have the last word. I don't particularly have a desire to interact with you at all, either on this thread, on any other thread, or in person.

Cheers mate.


----------



## A.J. (Mar 21, 2009)

Hello,

It's *F*i*l*ipino, not *Ph*i*ll*ipino. 

I am glad that much of American society in general has changed (as seen in the election of President Obama), and that Reformed believers are discussing and faithfully dealing with racial issues confronting our churches. I can't comment on many of the topics you are discussing here since my country is not as muti-racial as countries like the US. But I do deplore and hate the racism that is so prevalent in Asian societies including Filipino society.

Not very sure what Frank meant with his statement. But it seems that what he is saying is that there should not be any opposition to interracial marriages. This is what the Pipers in Minneapolis have taught the people of their church for years. Interracial marriage is a good thing. And I agree. 

Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

The Reformed Faith and Racial Harmony :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

The Ethics of Interracial Marriage :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


Correct me if I misunderstood Frank's point.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 21, 2009)

Here is the diversity at my church:
Among the Elders, we have black, white, disabled, financially well-off, and financially struggling. In our congregation we have Black families, White families, Asian families, Indian families, Middle-eastern families, converted Jewish families, racially mixed marriage families, and a full spectrum of common problems in life. But it is a sight to behold as together we sing praises to our sovereign God and rejoice in our common bond and union in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But, technically we are not "Reformed." Hmmm. I think I'll stay here.


----------



## Montanablue (Mar 21, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> Here is the diversity at my church:
> Among the Elders, we have black, white, disabled, financially well-off, and financially struggling. In our congregation we have Black families, White families, Asian families, Indian families, Middle-eastern families, converted Jewish families, racially mixed marriage families, and a full spectrum of common problems in life. But it is a sight to behold as together we sing praises to our sovereign God and rejoice in our common bond and union in the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> But, technically we are not "Reformed." Hmmm. I think I'll stay here.



I (unfortunately?) live in a very homogeneous area, but while visiting a friend in New York, I attended church with her and saw a congregation very similar to this in its diversity. It was definitely a blessing to see the almost the full spectrum of God's people worshipping together.


----------



## TimV (Mar 21, 2009)

> Well, it took a grand total of one post before someone broke out the white supremacist designation.
> 
> Well-played.
> 
> That's a slanderous assumption or implication, and nothing more. I would invite anyone to review my five year history on this board and find "supremacist" remarks. Go ahead and search through my posting history. Have fun with it, and let me know what you come up with



While I'm flattered to have a fan




> I don't really care to interact with you, Tim, mostly because I don't really care for you. And that's okay. I'm sure (from the little you know of me) that you don't really care for me.



I must say that for the record I never really noticed your posts until just now. But what caught my attention was first




> Had this thread simply addressed, in respectful fashion, the low numbers of minorities in Reformed churches, then I probably would have never been provoked. As it stands, though, I feel a number of bites and low-blows have been made by TimV (who has made disparaging racial remarks against whites on a couple of occassions...),



because the reason I was in SA was to help build a White, Calvinistic homeland in Africa. Look up Orania on Google, then call the town office and ask them about me. I've heard lots of people talk about how horrible it is that so many people trash Northwestern European culture, but I kind of noticed that they typically do nothing, and it was a great source of irritation to me, since I used all my money and drug my pregnant wife and then 3 kids to the middle of nowhere to put my money where my mouth was, and kind of noticed I was the only non-Afrikaner there. Then I read further and saw



> Then I log onto the Puritanboard and find absurd statements (by TimV),


 



> Instead of being overjoyed that a bunch of Teutonic men are willing to






> If you ever want to seriously discuss stuff with your Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavic brethren



and I couldn't help but notice the Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Hungarians etc.. were left out of you definition of White, and it sent up a couple red flags, as did the comment about the descendants of Japheth being in Europe. 





> It's been hard for me to read your posts since I watched you interact with Mr. Rafalsky, to be honest.



Again, I'm flattered that even though it's painful, you keep accurate records of what I say. 



> Would you agree that, now that my irritation at the Double Standard has been so clearly made known, and now that my name is "associated" in peoples' minds with racial issues



Perhaps, but I don't think most people keep the detailed records that you do, so I doubt it.



> You constantly remind the board that you have lived in South Africa. That's happened so often that the number of references is probably in the 30's and 40's, if not more.



I'll try and do better. The last time was on a thread someone else started dealing with the history of the Dutch in South Africa, and the people on that thread seemed to enjoy my relating my experience there.




> If it's an unpopular position on foreign relations, you are there.



My remarks on American foreign relations go down quite well with conservative libertarians. Popularity isn't something I keep track of, and am frankly a bit contemptuous of.




> If a snide reference to "blue-eyed" Israelis needs to be injected into a thread bout Palestine, you are there.



I don't think the objection to that comes from regional differences.




> But I would bet my bank account (literally) that quite a few people on here feel the same way as I do when it comes to you sharing your racial and political sutras with the board



And if you knew how little I cared for that your hair would stand straight up.



> So that being said, how many "absurd remarks" does one have to make before one is guilty of having said something they shouldn't? There are two or three remarks of your's that have bothered me, each to a varying degree.






> In the thread, "How Long Has Your Family Been in the United States (or Canada)?, post #20, you said: "Off topic, but I got a kick out of Rushdoony saying that the American Indians were downgraded by trashy blue-eyed blood. He always said it with a comical glint in his eyes..."



Rushdoony's wife was Scottish. That's how Ross House Books got it's name. Her maiden name was Ross, and she's blue eyed. 3 out of the 10 staff members at the time were Celtic, and when we got together there were always a few brown eyed Armenians surrounded by people with light eyes, including me. It was really funny to everyone, but I admit there wasn't anyone in our small congregation with a 2 ton chip on their shoulder.





> There won't be any major changes. White people here in the US don't need to start hording guns and food. People should always have weapons that they know how to use, and a bit of food etc.. on hand for emergencies. But that's all. The world will go on, and there will be grocery stores open in even the long term future.



As soon as Obama got elected there was a rash of posts about hording food and guns. Some people were clearly (to me) much more frightened of the future than I thought warranted, and I exercised my rights as a poster here to address the issue.




> I have noticed that much of the anger projected against Mideasterners is a sort of transfer of the anger and fear many White demographics have towards Blacks here in the US. For me sitting a bit on the sidelines it's as clear as day.



Yeh, well I saw some Egyptians and Saudis kill a bunch of people and within a few years we invaded Iraq, with 80% Evangelical backing, and while trying to make sense of it I narrowed it down to several reasons.



> Maybe I wouldn't be so angry and hot under the collar if these kind of incendiary statements didn't fly around unchallenged all the time.



Challenge away!


----------



## Ravens (Mar 21, 2009)

Tim,

For some reason I respect that post almost more than any I've seen from you. Maybe it's the four hours of sleep I got. Either way, I was clearly heated enough to evoke a strong reaction on your part, so I applaud your restraint.

To me it is somewhat irrelevant that Rush's wife was Scottish, but I realize that you could see it as relevant. I just don't think remarks like that should be made in this current social milieu, by anyone. If we lived in a society that allowed people to dish it out as well as take it, then it wouldn't bother me so much. But when certain people have all the leash in the world in this country, and others could be frowned on, ostracized, fired from the job that supports their family, and (I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the future) tagged with a "Hate Speech" crime, then such comments would better be left unsaid.

Also, you portrayed my reaction (which is really just born out of a subsidiary concern for a hard-to-define concept of "my people" which always has to be subjugated to a concern for Christ's kingdom) as a "two ton chip" on my shoulder (or at least implied that, and forgive me if I am wrong), and yet you apparently cared enough about these issues to go start a white homeland. I would say we both have a lot of concern on these issues, even if that is expressed in radically different, if not at times antithetical, ways.

I suppose one of my main irritations (and this has nothing to do with you) is that any white man who expresses concerns on this issue is often portrayed as weak, overly sensitive, etc. Perhaps you were implying over-sensitivity with the two-ton chip comment; perhaps not. But I find people having that reaction often in life. To me it's almost exactly parallel to the reaction that many liberals give to Christians when Christians speak out against homosexuality. That is, "Oh, you know that the people who really cry the loudest are just repressing their homosexual urges." 

I have seen the "you must be a homosexual" response so many times that it isn't funny. And the, "another weak whiny white man" tends to run in the same vein. I think my position on the matter was stated in my last post and cuts right to the heart of the matter: After all, he's the archetypal oppressor, and any concern on his part is due to weak, sissy feelings, not the fact that his posterity and future daughters and grand-daughters might have to grow up in a world where such racist comments are sanctioned... yeah, it couldn't be that.

Words are powerful. And here I'm not talking "to you", I'm just talking in general. As Christians we should know more than others that words are powerful things. And even though the constant onslaught of acceptable trashing of white people from television stations, radio, "real life people", public high schools, public and private colleges, the Internet, politicians, etc., are "just words", and might not be a big deal considered only in any given solitary instance, overall they are like a national Chinese Water Torture being applied to white youth in this country.

Guys. I haven't really pulled any punches in this thread. I don't have any secret racial feelings that I haven't aired out. I couldn't even tell you what an "Armstrongite" is. It's either the Worldwide Church of God that tried to coerce members via sex, or British Israelism, or the sect that the Arnold Murray guy belongs to that's always on t.v. I'd also like to point out that, and I would ask my black brothers and sisters to carefully note my comments, *I haven't even said anything racist.* 

I don't even think I've said anything in the vicinity of racism. I think every race reflects God's glory and creativity in their own unique way. That's not some "Christian talk" to cover my tracks. It's the Double Standard and the way whites are represented (and the way the history of this country is represented), and the claims that some minority members make, and the claims that many white liberals make, that put me in the red.

And I'll just offer something that is my own personal opinion, based on my own observation of current white adolescents in America. Obviously this doesn't apply across the board. I know of real life people who are logging onto Stormfront because they are getting so fed up. I know people who two years ago weren't really "agitated" on these issues, who now are dropping the N-Bomb with regularity. I know of teenagers who idolize Adolf Hitler. And by the way, these observations are from Michigan to North Carolina, so it's not just a "West Virginia" issue.

My original comments about "hard working, average white people" were NOT contrasting them with "lazy people of color." Rather, it was to point out that the people who are reaching the boiling point are not the KKK's, the skinheads, neo-Nazi's, biker gangs, whatever. The thermometer of white America is rising, in my opinion. 

And if race relations, and the way that people handle themselves, doesn't start to change, I could see things getting *bad* down the road. 

And that's one reason why I'm so opposed to all of the whining, griping, and moaning that goes on. *Enough is enough.* It is creating something very volatile, and it is, in large part, creating the very thing that it hates.

JMO

I appreciated your post and apologize for any sinful personal attacks, though objectively, relative to some of your comments, my stance hasn't changed.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 21, 2009)

TimV;




> As soon as Obama got elected there was a rash of posts about hording food and guns. Some people were clearly (to me) much more frightened of the future than I thought warranted, and I exercised my rights as a poster here to address the issue.



I think the point being made, is that your implication as to why people felt that way, was wrong...you implied (given the title of this thread) they must be doing so because of the color of his skin, because that is what happened in Africa....and there was just no way it could possibly be about his very liberal political beliefs...

Is it at all possible that you actually might be a little more biased because of what you witnessed before??

edit:

It is these assumptions that people make towards others that is a huge problem..and that is a heart/sin/human nature issue...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 22, 2009)

JDWiseman said:


> Had this thread simply addressed, in respectful fashion, the low numbers of minorities in Reformed churches, then I probably would have never been provoked. As it stands, though, I feel a number of bites and low-blows have been made by TimV (who has made disparaging racial remarks against whites on a couple of occassions...), yourself, and Kerry.



What specifically did I type that was a low-blow other than the not-very-exaggerated-but-very-realistic-since-I-know-people-who-lived-through-it southern drawl I posted ?

Please be specific.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 23, 2009)

"ALL" would include White.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 23, 2009)

Joshua,
Typed this March 10th in a thread you no doubt missed. http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/black-reformed-44989/#post567472. 

Thanks.



SemperEruditio said:


> AJ,
> That was a great post. I have read about what Reformed missionaries do and am always encouraged at how God works. That is why I love the mentality of the PCA with their Missions to North America division or group or whatever it is classified as. That is the mentality we need which is to send missionaries into North America from North America.
> 
> The problem I know from having a few missionaries friends is the ones I know will travel clear across the globe to "share Christ" by digging a ditch but will not even speak to the American standing next to them at CVS. Now I am talking in very general terms and about the three missionaries I know. These are not Reformed people much less connected in any way to the PCA-MNA but my point is the same an older pastor once told me,
> ...



I will not get into your post because I think this reply answers most of your issues with me. Perhaps I missed it but what is your recommendation on evangelizing to those unregenerate of different socio-economic status? Besides sending those of color and some money what are YOU doing and going to do?

-----Added 3/23/2009 at 08:19:18 EST-----



A.J. said:


> Hello,
> 
> It's *F*i*l*ipino, not *Ph*i*ll*ipino.
> 
> ...



Thanks AJ! My FILIPINO brother! 

My point which was misunderstood by many here who lack an appreciation for the anthropology of Rodriguez is that if we had less "pure" blood then all this racism would come to an end. As Christians we all have the same blood so I guess we're covered. 

Sheeesh...all this nonsense about "if a White person said that..." Now if a White person would say "I wish people would just all be from a diverse background so that no race in their background would be more dominant than the next..." do you think they would be strung up? That's what I said. 

You guys are so sensitive about what you can or cannot say about race....yet when presenting the gospel does that matter? So if race does not matter in presenting the gospel why are there not more people of color in P.C.A. churches?

Please note I posted P.C.A. The Bab-tists have already PM'd me about being more precise. Now I'll get hate mail from the PCA folk.  Ah well. Such is life in the big city.


----------



## Knoxienne (Mar 23, 2009)

What is important in the PCA or any other denomination is that there is _correct doctrine and worship_. That's what glorifies God. That's the purpose of the Church. Biblical doctrine and worship. God will bring in the people He brings in, whatever color they are. They're His colors, and they're His people. Not ours. We are to be faithful to give the gospel and let God handle the rest. What we don't need are Marxist political agendas (sorry if that offends, but that's what they are) in the Church of Christ. I for one refuse to be a part of any church or denomination which apes the World in its New World Order political agendas. I don't care if someone who walks into church is as White as the driven snow or Black as the night is long. I welcome them as a brother to worship with us and serve with us. But The Church is not a place for Marxist, Communist agitators or for one's own pet political agenda, be it a race agenda or a feminist one, or Heaven knows what others. What they all have in common is they divide people. The Church is where we go to worship the One True and Living God in Spirit and in Truth.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 23, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> What is important in the PCA or any other denomination is that there is _correct doctrine and worship_. That's what glorifies God. That's the purpose of the Church. Biblical doctrine and worship. God will bring in the people He brings in, whatever color they are. They're His colors, and they're His people. Not ours. We are to be faithful to give the gospel and let God handle the rest. What we don't need are Marxist political agendas (sorry if that offends, but that's what they are) in the Church of Christ. I for one refuse to be a part of any church or denomination which apes the World in its New World Order political agendas. I don't care if someone who walks into church is as White as the driven snow or Black as the night is long. I welcome them as a brother to worship with us and serve with us. But The Church is not a place for Marxist, Communist agitators or for one's own pet political agenda, be it a race agenda or a feminist one, or Heaven knows what others. What they all have in common is they divide people. The Church is where we go to worship the One True and Living God in Spirit and in Truth.



Orthodoxy should lead to orthopraxy.


Nor is the Church a place to sit on our hindparts waiting for God to mysteriously bring in His people. You imply my views are Marxist. I will state quite plainly that your views are nothing more than a laissez-faire attitude to the Great Commission. By your own post it is clear you'll talk to anyone who "walks into church" what I am posting about is talking to those who are not in church nor walking toward one. To rethink the attitude that our churches are not diverse because "_God doesn't want them that way or else they would be_." I am not talking about some type of PCA Affirmative Action plan but more of "_open your mouth and talk to people you know about Christ and include those people of color you might know._"

Rhetorical questions:
How many people have you shared the Gospel with or just invited to your church...now how many were Black/Brown? 


Marxist.  Might as well call the African-American and Latino sections of the PCA-MNA marxists. Hmmmm...makes me wonder. What do you think about those branches of the MNA? Are they communist, marxists as well?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 23, 2009)

BlackCalvinist said:


> JDWiseman said:
> 
> 
> > Had this thread simply addressed, in respectful fashion, the low numbers of minorities in Reformed churches, then I probably would have never been provoked. As it stands, though, I feel a number of bites and low-blows have been made by TimV (who has made disparaging racial remarks against whites on a couple of occassions...), yourself, and Kerry.
> ...



I'm still waiting for an answer on this part.

Don't worry - I'll respond nicely and won't get your blood boiling.


----------



## Ravens (Mar 23, 2009)

Kerry,

I will answer your question, but for what it's worth, you were only included as an afterthought on my list of irritation. I think that can be plainly seen by looking at the fact that I posted a small novella in response to Frank and Tim, and wrote nothing directly to you.

As is stands, you know very well what irritated me. And I don't think I'm off-the-reservation on this one, since it also irritated the more respectable Joshua to make a post about it, which six other people happened to thank. I don't know what words I would choose to describe it. Perhaps, "unnecessarily inflammatory." Now I have "fessed up" to the fact that at this point in the thread, I've used some rhetoric myself. However, when you made that comment, the thread was still in it's infancy, and hadn't really taken a turn for the Colosseum.

Either way: I don't particularly care. Clearly I was pretty irritated at statements by two other people in this thread far more than I was at your comment. And, like I said, it bothered seven other people also.

Now here's a hypothetical situation. What if, on election day, there was a thread started in the Politics and Government forum talking about the avalanche of black votes that Obama was receiving, and instead of just discussing it, some Random White Poster wrote, 'Yeah this is really frustrating. You know they are only out voting because a black man is running. I can imagine them in line being like, "Oh snap, brah, urrrr-body been tellin' me my boi don't have no chance but I think he does, brother. Yo there's tons of people down here, son, girls be out with their hair lookin' like a hot mess, n*ggas be bringin' they friends, man...' and you know his friends were like, 'Word' and 'True, true.'"

Now, you are telling me that if you were reading a thread, and you weren't quite "in the red" yet, that such a blatant, hyperbolic characterization wouldn't torque you off just a little?

You wouldn't be thinking, "Oh no, here we go again... gotta love the Puritanboard...."

Either way it's a moot point. You are free to disagree with me, and my cannons were clearly not aimed at you in the first place.

And I know people who have lived through all kinds of suffering. It's a fallen world. No one person or one race has a monopoly on suffering. No one race can christen their suffering as the U.S.S. "You Wouldn't Understand".


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 23, 2009)

JDWiseman said:


> Kerry,
> 
> And I don't think I'm off-the-reservation on this one, since it also irritated the more respectable Joshua to make a post about it, which six other people happened to thank...
> 
> And, like I said, it bothered seven other people also...



_Ad Populum_




JDWiseman said:


> You wouldn't be thinking, "Oh no, here we go again... gotta love the Puritanboard...."


As if we don't say this already.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 23, 2009)

SemperEruditio;




> How many people have you shared the Gospel with or just invited to your church...now how many were Black/Brown?



I can't speak for others, but I do quite frequently..

I have friends from India (who are Buddhist) and from Cuba and Lebanon, (who are Roman Catholic) 

When I pick my oldest daughter up from work everyday I get the opportunity to talk to and get to know the women she works with who are from Columbia, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, and others who are in bi-racial marriages. 

One of the young women she works with is in high school, her mother is often late picking her up, so I wait till she gets there, and sit and talk with her while we wait.

Many of these women go to Baptist or Catholic churches, that are much larger-- the Baptist churches also offer Wend. night classes in both English and Spanish..which of course draw many of our Latin Community in to them, one of the women my daughter works with, teaches one of the Discipleship courses which has been put out in Spanish..

MasterLife - Book Set - Avery T. Willis, Jr. - LifeWay Christian Stores

Our church offers English as a Second Language, which is open to everyone in the community and is usually filled, however, when you have churches in the area that are holding classes in your native tongue, that is where they will go to Worship..

I also live in a racially diverse neighborhood, in which I talk to my neighbors and invite them to our church..

But even as I re-read this..it sounds much like bragging..that it makes me uncomfortable..
to me, I'm sharing the Gospel with people..as we are called to do..and putting a number on how many of these people are a different skin color than myself..seems silly..


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 23, 2009)

Well, I have in the past. Right now the only people I have to invite, and wouldn't come, would be horse and buggy people. I live in the boons at the moment and don't hardly have friends inside the church, let alone outside the church. However, I will say that any friends I have made in churches have usually been the minorities. If the church is full of white people and there is a black family, it's the black family that I'm most likely to hit it off with. So, Kerry, that is my answer. I can't tell you the ratio of ethnicity of people we have invited, because we are most likely to just invite anyone if the opportunity is given, regardless.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 23, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Well, I have in the past. Right now the only people I have to invite, and wouldn't come, would be horse and buggy people. I live in the boons at the moment and don't hardly have friends inside the church, let alone outside the church. However, I will say that any friends I have made in churches have usually been the minorities. If the church is full of white people and there is a black family, it's the black family that I'm most likely to hit it off with. So, *Kerry*, that is my answer. I can't tell you the ratio of ethnicity of people we have invited, because we are most likely to just invite anyone if the opportunity is given, regardless.



Don't you mean Frank ?

I'm better looking than him.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 23, 2009)

BlackCalvinist said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I have in the past. Right now the only people I have to invite, and wouldn't come, would be horse and buggy people. I live in the boons at the moment and don't hardly have friends inside the church, let alone outside the church. However, I will say that any friends I have made in churches have usually been the minorities. If the church is full of white people and there is a black family, it's the black family that I'm most likely to hit it off with. So, *Kerry*, that is my answer. I can't tell you the ratio of ethnicity of people we have invited, because we are most likely to just invite anyone if the opportunity is given, regardless.
> ...



 Sorry about that!  I wasn't paying attention to who said what. Well, then...FRANK, that's my answer! I'll hold a "no comment" on who is better looking, because I personally think this man has you both beat  Of course, I'm biased as I happen to be married to him.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 23, 2009)

That's ok  You're SUPPOSED to be narrow-visioned on the best looking man.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 23, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > LadyFlynt said:
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 23, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > BlackCalvinist said:
> ...


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 23, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> > LadyFlynt said:
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 23, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > SemperEruditio said:
> ...


----------



## reformed trucker (Mar 23, 2009)

JDWiseman said:


> and really wish, just deep down, that we could jump higher and had more of a rear end?



Speak for yourself, Mr. Flatbutt. I don't need a belt to hold up my pants.


----------



## kalawine (Mar 24, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > I am not talking about some type of PCA Affirmative Action plan but more of "_open your mouth and talk to people you know about Christ and include those people of color you might know._"
> ...


----------



## Theognome (Mar 24, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > What is important in the PCA or any other denomination is that there is _correct doctrine and worship_. That's what glorifies God. That's the purpose of the Church. Biblical doctrine and worship. God will bring in the people He brings in, whatever color they are. They're His colors, and they're His people. Not ours. We are to be faithful to give the gospel and let God handle the rest. What we don't need are Marxist political agendas (sorry if that offends, but that's what they are) in the Church of Christ. I for one refuse to be a part of any church or denomination which apes the World in its New World Order political agendas. I don't care if someone who walks into church is as White as the driven snow or Black as the night is long. I welcome them as a brother to worship with us and serve with us. But The Church is not a place for Marxist, Communist agitators or for one's own pet political agenda, be it a race agenda or a feminist one, or Heaven knows what others. What they all have in common is they divide people. The Church is where we go to worship the One True and Living God in Spirit and in Truth.
> ...



SE's response here is exactly what I was speaking of in http://www.puritanboard.com/f128/go-verb-participle-45749/. Using 'Go' as the focus of the Great Commission makes, as he suggests, every farmer, every housewife, every Auto Mechanic or every other vocation beyond a street evangelist in rebellion. The emphasis on the Commission is on instructing _as we go_, not going so we can instruct. 

Frankly, I see much focus on races in SE's responses, but not much focus on Christ- thus I can certainly understand what Toni spoke of regarding a political as opposed to a Christian agenda being presented. There is extreme danger in making Scripture fit our positions as opposed to making our positions fit Scripture- and the modern understanding of race and the 'racial issues' presented on this thread are not a biblical agenda- Christ is the Biblical agenda to whom we must submit our prejudices no matter what color- white, black, brown, yellow, purple or plaid, our prejudices are towards.

Theognome


----------



## turmeric (Mar 24, 2009)

*MOD ON: Let's all stop bandying the Marxist word around - it's creating more heat than light, thx guys! MOD OFF*


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 27, 2009)

JD,

Let's go back to the start of this because I think in your haste to type responses and defend what you think needs defending, you and my good brother Josh and others have missed the point I originally made.

The original post:


Tim said:


> Just a quick question, and sorry if this has been addressed before here on the PB.
> 
> *Doesn't Obama have one white parent and one black parent? Why is he always considered to be black if his ethnic heritage is actually 50-50? Why have black Americans 'claimed' him as their own? Shouldn't white people have as much 'claim' to him?*



Observe the stuff in bold. Read it, then re-read it.

Seriously. I'm not being a smart-alec (or a Wiseman ). 

Herald responded:



Herald said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > Just a quick question, and sorry if this has been addressed before here on the PB.
> ...



and the good Mr. McFadden chimed in as well:


DMcFadden said:


> For historical reasons, therefore, *Mr. Obama had little choice but to call himself Black. Oh, btw, have you ever looked at him? With his 50% Kenyan pureblood, he is quite a bit darker than a lot of the people claiming to be African-American activists.*
> 
> I'm not surprised that he calls himself Black. *What choice did he have?*



It was at this point that I chimed in with my comment. Based on physical appearance alone, Obama would be considered black. Nothing more. Nothing less. 

Re-read it again before hitting the 'reply' button:



> In addition to Bill's answer, Tim..... 60 years ago the 'half-white' explanation wouldn't have flown if Obama was alive and went to a 'white only' water fountain. One look and there would've been nothing but 'what's wronng with you, boy ? cantcha read thuh' sign ? It sez white onleh'\" and the bats and bricks would have come out to help with the 'literacy lesson'.



Key words here: historically, 60 years ago, what choice did he have, he claims himself as black.

What I described, whether one chooses to ascribe 'collectivism' to it or not, was the 'collective' experience of most of black America, especially in the South, 60 years ago. In fact, I don't even have to go back THAT far, as I have teachers I work with in their 50's who grew up during that time period who saw _this exact scene_ played out before them with people they grew up with (one person WAS the person in said scenario). 

On a related note:
Joshua (not you) asked would that have been the norm all throughout the South, intimating that I should deal with people as people and not as classes of people when making statements like this ?

Sure, there were some white folks who would've gotten branded as n-word lovers (and beaten for it alongside of the black folk they defended) and likewise, there would've also been some people who disagreed with it, but *did nothing to prevent it from happening.*..... you know.... similar to how some people have a 'private opinion' on abortion, but they don't vote for pro-life candidates ? 

So some (the majority) would've sat by and watched it happen, maybe shook their heads in disgust at it, then go home to their residences and eventually forget about it..._.just flowing along with the tide of society in general. That, in my opinion, is tacit approval._

A few would have their own blood shed trying to 'talk down' the folks who would've committed the act, only to have their own skulls bashed in. 

Again....that was reality 40-60 years ago in many parts of the nation. It's a black eye on the nation. It doesn't smell good. But it is the truth.

And it's historically and academically dishonest to retcon the people and places of the time to make it an individualist issue when it was a matter of law (Jim Crow) and generally acceptable social behavior.

I think we both agree (as evidenced by your post to Gloria) that JC days were horrid. I think where we disagree is on the interpretation of them.

Back to you, JD.



JDWiseman said:


> As is stands, you know very well what irritated me. And I don't think I'm off-the-reservation on this one, since it also irritated the more respectable Joshua to make a post about it, which six other people happened to thank.



And twelve people (twice that amount) including a moderator or two 'thanked' mine. _None of that proves anything, honestly_. Just because people agree with you or me or likes our posts means nothing in the final analysis in regard to whether or not the content of what we posted was accurate or not.



> Now, you are telling me that if you were reading a thread, and you weren't quite \"in the red\" yet, that such a blatant, hyperbolic characterization wouldn't torque you off just a little?



Me _personally_, don't know. Depends on whether or not I'd eaten yet (I'm cranky when hungry....I think I'm hypoglycemic....). I know some folk who would've looked at you funny (black and white) for the comment, but not had been overly ticked off.

I can only speak for me - I've had a lot more time to grow in this area since becoming reformed. I handle _most_ of my 'righteous indignation' issues a lot better now than before. At worst, I'd correct the presentation, since 'True, True' is more of a regional thing (don't ask me which region...LOL) and you'd hear 'Word' a lot more often than not only up on the east coast (although some of my brethren down south might say differently).

I'd probably also say that if phonetic presentation of southern drawl sent you over the edge, it might be because you came into the thread wrong to begin with (i.e. your first comment to Frank). 



> You wouldn't be thinking, \"Oh no, here we go again... gotta love the Puritanboard....\"



I don't spend time on PB like that anymore. I tend to come back in on the tail end of drama nowadays, mainly to see Rich, Joshua and whomever else use the 'force users to read' hack and see the new rules or reminders. Most of my days are spent being admin (now head admin) over at HolyCulture.net (Roldan and Gloria are there too). 

If anything, PB is *exactly* like every other message board and the 'protection' of demanding everyone ascribe to reformed theology via confession in order to post has *not* prevented the exact same types of issues that exist on other Christian message boards. So, I'm used to seeing the same type of behavior, so it's no surprise.

So....(to quote my play daughter)...Meh. Seen it before.

Sorry, moderately 



> Either way it's a moot point. You are free to disagree with me, and my cannons were clearly not aimed at you in the first place.
> 
> And I know people who have lived through all kinds of suffering. It's a fallen world. No one person or one race has a monopoly on suffering. No one race can christen their suffering as the U.S.S. \"You Wouldn't Understand\".



Ahhhh, but I never said nor intimated that you wouldn't understand. I'm one of those folks who actually believes that you can appreciate and understand once you take the time to walk into another person's world. I have to partially thank my old pastor for that, since we'd gotten more Indonesian families coming into the church as well as the days when I taught high school and the ESOL hub for the southern end of the district was located at my school. Being around international folk and taking the time to learn a different culture (or in the case of my hispanic students, learning a sub-culture) helped me appreciate a whole lot more _why_ the ethnicity issues continue to exist between black and white in the US as well as _how_ to better overcome them.

Therin lies the major mistake you personally have made in your responses. You have, in effect, said "Well, the laws aren't like that anymore, so you shouldn't feel like that...other people have suffered, so you have no reason to complain anymore. So get over it."

Again, with all due respect, this is one of the most ungracious and downright _damaging_ things you could say to someone. Would you say that to a Christian Jew regarding the holocaust ? * You don't have the right to tell people how to feel about something that is a part of their collective past.* Understand this point carefully before continuing forward. All of your talk about 'things are going to get real bad soon' and 'you know people who are tired of talking about it'..... well, if they were _really_ tired of it, the LAST thing they would do is log into Stormfront. Maybe they weren't really tired of it to begin with, but simply were part of the group that 'followed along with the flow of the culture' that I mentioned above.

You need to understand something.

As much as you say:


> No one person or one race has a monopoly on suffering. No one race can christen their suffering as the U.S.S. \"You Wouldn't Understand\".



That doesn't mean that the people who have endured it don't have a right to express their frustration about it and their feeling of being slighted. Matter of factly, you don't have a right to tell them to not express it. By doing so, you aren't treating them as people, but as an afterthought, an annoyance and a nuisiance.

Is that what you are trying to express ? (that's rhetorical. you don't have to answer it).

How should it be handled ?

As a gospel example:
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:1-4)

What we learn from the text is something that Bill mentioned earlier:


> I believe that it is dependent on blacks to tear down some of the barriers they themselves have erected.



Please note: in the Acts example, the complaint was not brushed aside as 'whining and complaining', but taken seriously. And something was done about it - people from within the community were raised up to help with the work so that the gospel could continue. 

So there _should_ be members of black communities trained to head back into their communities. That, I have no problem with. In fact, it would probably be _wise_ to have someone be the 'mediator' and 'example' between differing cultures (sub-cultures in this case) so people can learn to understand each other and learn to cooperate and get along.

The fallen world we live in, and in particular, this country, has put huge barriers up even after laws were changed so that it's very easy to wall yourself off into only dealing with people who look, sound, agree with and talk like you (black AND white). 

In the same fashion that we send missionaries into other countries for an extended period of time to learn the people, learn the culture and learn the language so they can communicate properly and then raise up people from among their own tribe or clan to continue the work..... treat North America's African-American urban areas as a mission field.

When reformed churches and seminaries weren't taking in people of color, the liberal seminaries were. So it's no big surprise that there's not a huge 'reformed presence' in AA church circles. It's no surprise that the social gospel has more of a foothold in black churches as a result. 

That brings us to the US situation.

Opening the doors and saying 'Okay, come on in' and expecting people to walk/run/crowd through the front doors is _a bit beyond credulity._ It ignores problems that have both kept people outside those doors in the past as well as _why_ people aren't willing to come through the front doors now. In this case, we'll need another gospel example:

14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15( John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (John 1:14-18)

Notice what this example teaches us. God did not simply send another prophet, or choose someone from the already existing - He came Himself. He didn't come and throw 2-3 books at us on racial reconciliation, a seminar, and then say 'get over it'. He 'tabernacled' (made his home) among us. 

A wonderful example of 'making your home' somewhere are the instructions that God gave to the Israelites while in exile in Jeremiah 29. Not many people are willing to spend time with the people they claim they'd like to reach. Sure, it feels good and altruistic to throw together an apology for racism, but to actually invest yourself and your time in learning a people ? Takes too much work and draws you out of your comfort zone.

But this is EXACTLY what Christ calls us to do, in my opinion.

With that, I begin to close (that means I'll be 15 more mins typing....). The most important thing, if nothing else, that you draw from everything I've typed here should be this: getting frustrated isn't solving the problem. You don't have a right to tell people who feel hurt whether or not they should feel hurt. Turning to your own form of complaining (complaining about complaining) and eventually 'giving up and logging into Stormfront' isn't solving the problem. It's likewise helping to create the very thing that it claims to hate just....probably a lot quicker.

Instead, do the opposite. But that takes much more love, time and compassion. You'll find that once you take the time to understand more of the 'why' to these things and approach them in love instead of frustration, your attitude will change as will the attitudes of those who once complained.

Soli Deo Gloria.
Kerry aka BlackCalvinist aka G.R.A.C.E. Preecha aka the guy looking for a church and leaning heavily toward the PCA.


----------



## Ravens (Mar 27, 2009)

Kerry,

I don't care.



I don't even know why we are having lengthy exchanges with each other. You prompted me twice to respond to you, so I did. The sum total of our "issue" is that I found your statement annoying, and mentioned you in _one whole clause_ out of a mammoth pile of words that I wrote.

You are free to disagree. 

Also, I think it should be pretty clear that I wasn't mentioning the number of people who "thanked" the post in order to "prove" that my position was somehow "right." I'm just pointing out the fact that it bothered other people as well. Since I'm probably being viewed as the angry white werewolf in this thread, I just thought it would be helpful to say, "Hey, it didn't only irritate the guy that nobody in this thread cares for, it irritated some other people also, so maybe it isn't purely a "JDWiseman" issue."

As to me "coming into this thread wrong": My first post was in response to Frank's post (which, in my opinion, contained a pile of absurd statements that everyone else just swallowed with a smile), which I eventually responded to piece by piece, point by point, in meticulous fashion. It's not like I broke into some Civil Rights thread or Civil War thread and just lathered into a berzerkergang. 

In fact, I don't know if I've ever even discussed this issue on the Puritanboard, actually. And I can't think of a black person on this board that has ever had a problem with me prior to this thread. I still don't have a problem with black people in general. What I do have a problem with is the absurd Double-Standard in this country, and the myopic view of history and suffering that, in my opinion, many black people tend to have. What I do have a problem with is people presuming to lecture the white members of this board with such asinine, absurd, inaccurate, and trite statements such as I pointed out (in detail) in my first responses. And there were quite a few of them; and so far, nobody has come forward to defend any of the particular things I tore into. Probably because they were indefensible.

So I think we're cool then. I found your statement annoying. You probably find me annoying. Somehow, the sun will still come up tomorrow.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 27, 2009)

JDWiseman said:


> Kerry,
> 
> I don't care.



Sure you do. You responded. 



> I don't even know why we are having lengthy exchanges with each other. You prompted me twice to respond to you, so I did. The sum total of our "issue" is that I found your statement annoying, and mentioned you in _one whole clause_ out of a mammoth pile of words that I wrote.



Actually, I addressed a few of your points - head on. I don't think you read my response all the way through.



> Since I'm probably being viewed as the angry white werewolf in this thread,



You do realize you're playing the victim right now, right ?

I don't think anyone's thinking of you that way - I know I'm not. I understand (because I took the time to read) why you feel the way you do and why you typed what you did. I don't think you're a racist of any sort. 



> As to me "coming into this thread wrong": My first post was in response to Frank's post (which, in my opinion, contained a pile of absurd statements that everyone else just swallowed with a smile)



Now that's a bit insulting to the intelligence of people who agreed with Frank. Is that what you're intending to communicate ?

Comments like the one above are the reason why I sprinkled a few 'wait before you respond' requests throughout my post.


> And I can't think of a black person on this board that has ever had a problem with me prior to this thread.



I don't have a problem with you.



> I still don't have a problem with black people in general. What I do have a problem with is the absurd Double-Standard in this country, and the myopic view of history and suffering that, in my opinion, many black people tend to have. What I do have a problem with is people presuming to lecture the white members of this board with such asinine, absurd, inaccurate, and trite statements such as I pointed out (in detail) in my first responses. And there were quite a few of them; and so far, nobody has come forward to defend any of the particular things I tore into. Probably because they were indefensible.



I think that my post actually covered them. But if there was anything not addressed, please point me to it. I'd like the convo to move forward.



> So I think we're cool then. I found your statement annoying. You probably find me annoying. Somehow, the sun will still come up tomorrow.



Naw, takes a lot more than this to annoy me.  I have pretty thick skin on most issues.  We're cool. I don't have any beef with you. Just discussing an issue.


----------



## Ravens (Mar 27, 2009)

Well. There are a lot of times when I really don't care, or would rather not participate in a thread. However, I also think that if you start something, you should finish it, and if someone replies to you, you should probably answer it, whether you want to or not. 

I don't think I'm playing the victim at all. If people view me as an angry white werewolf, that's fine. Better that than a gelding. But I've had these discussions enough times in life to know how my point of view is usually received by most people. Maybe I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

I appreciate your congenial response. I just have strong feelings on this issue, and honestly, unapologetic feelings on this issue. The only thing I regret is my inability to interact with people on this thread without this sardonic, acerbic edge; but I don't regret my position at all. 

I'm sorry for any rhetoric that was inappropriate, for what it's worth. I might post more when I simmer, but really, I haven't simmered for three weeks, so I don't know why I'd start now. To loosely quote Samuel Jackson from _Pulp Fiction_, "Oh you in the red? Well I'm a mushroom cloud layin' ..."


----------



## Ravens (Mar 27, 2009)

Kerry,

I just looked through the portion of your post directed towards me, and I couldn't more strongly disagree with your characterization of my post. You said: 



> Therin lies the major mistake you personally have made in your responses. You have, in effect, said "Well, the laws aren't like that anymore, so you shouldn't feel like that...other people have suffered, so you have no reason to complain anymore. So get over it."
> 
> Again, with all due respect, this is one of the most ungracious and downright damaging things you could say to someone. Would you say that to a Christian Jew regarding the holocaust ? You don't have the right to tell people how to feel about something that is a part of their collective past.



I've said nothing of the sort. Typing "in effect" allowed you to avoid verbatim quotations, and upload a whole set of assumptions and claims that I never made. Agree with me or not, my irritation has been directed against very specific things, namely, things surrounding the Double-Standard in American race relations.

Those two or three paragraphs are laughable, in my opinion, and I don't regret a single thing I've said in that vein, though I regret the rhetoric with which I may have said it.

I have to go to work soon but I'll respond in a more detailed fashion when I have the time.


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 27, 2009)

Man, you guys are making moving to the Philippines more and more attractive. Got room for a family of 6, Albert?

I hate to be another 'foreign experience' name dropper, or whatever you'd call it, but if there is one benefit that moving so much gave me, its that for a long time I was the minority, and we really didn't give a rat's a** about somebody's color, if they could speak American english and had news from home, they were OK by us. The advantage of the PI is that most everybody spoke english, so even that need faded.

I take no 'collectivist' (to rip off Josh H) pleasure OR displeasure in my race, my 'ethnicity', my nationality, my sex, my right-handedness, my 'outsy' belly-button (used to be insy - what's up with that?), or any other silly thing that is not relavent to my being in Christ and He in me. It's all dung.

And I DON"T CARE if it bothers anybody, doesn't bother anybody, makes anyone want to take advantage of me, makes anyone think I want to take advantage of them, makes anybody think I'm insensitive, makes anybody think I'm too sensitive, or strong, or weak, et. al., ad nauseum. It's all the world, it's all distraction.

I am going to do my best to agree with Paul in saying I am determined to know nothing among you save Christ Jesus, and Him crucified. Anything else is not worth warm spit.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 27, 2009)

*And on that note...our work here is done!*


----------

