# The Puritans as racists (Anthony B. Bradley)



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 11, 2020)

See the following tweets from Anthony Bradley. Words fail me. The history is as painfully bad as the virtue-signalling.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304226423713026048

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304401391537053696

Reactions: Sad 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 11, 2020)

Daniel, while I certainly agree with you, would you be able to point to some solid resources combating this claim?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 11, 2020)

There is no real need to refute something that has not been proven in the first place. The historical method is also truly laughable. He conflates the English and American Puritans and assumes that because Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards approved of something, ergo, the Puritans in England did so as well. But this conclusion is a _non-sequitur_. There were British slave ships before Great Britain was even a nation-state? The Puritans never had a non-racist anthropology at any point in "US history"? The last time that I checked the United States did not exist when the Puritans were around.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 11, 2020)

Well, by 2020 American standards, I’m racist because I’m white and don’t support BLM. So I’m not even allowed to comment on such things. 

BTW, who is Anthony Bradley?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jonathan95 (Sep 11, 2020)

Slavery is sometimes, if not most times, used in our present day to refer to man-stealing. Even _if _the Puritans did provide "the theological justification for slavery", I don't think it'd be the same as defending that particularly wicked practice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> ...who is Anthony Bradley?



Apparently a man so full of hatred and vitriol at his forefathers of a different color, that it’s becoming hard to believe he is a brother. This kind of rhetoric is becoming for him habitual and cherished sin.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 11, 2020)

Jonathan95 said:


> Slavery is sometimes, if not most times, used in our present day to refer to man-stealing. Even _if _the Puritans did provide "the theological justification for slavery", I don't think it'd be the same as defending that particularly wicked practice.



Some sources on the issue (I should look for more material when I get the chance):

James Ussher on man-stealing

John Owen and the enslavement of the Scottish Covenanters

Thomas Doolittle on Islamic slavery

Richard Baxter also condemns slave-traders as demons, not Christians (or something like that) in his _Christian Directory_.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 11, 2020)

Who is he and why should I care at such ignorance?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears (Sep 11, 2020)

He links this book a lot as evidence for his claims. The description on Amazon reads as follows: 


> Against the background of John Calvin's capitalist economy, monocratic politics, and individual faith and ethics doctrine of predestination for European middle and upper classes, this book compares and contrasts the promise and performance of double election Puritan saints in matters of human bondage, class values, color-consciousness, and caste virtue. Washington focuses on an analysis of Evangelical Calvinist major figures, such as public servant and partisan party power advocate Cotton Mather and the civil affairs-neutral Jonathan Edwards. He also examines respective proslavery and antislavery Calvinist and Quaker Puritan parsons and denominations, as well as the antiabolitionist fathers of antiabortionist Southern Baptist sons.


So you have your classic "Calvinism caused Capitalism", "predestination caused slavery" along with equating being "antiabolition" with "antiabortion". Seems rather problematic. And of course the book is unavaliable and has no reviews.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 11, 2020)

So Anthony Bradley is pro-abortion?


----------



## BottleOfTears (Sep 11, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> So Anthony Bradley is pro-abortion?


The book he references is, I'm not aware of him being pro-abortion.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 11, 2020)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Who is he and why should I care at such ignorance?



Chris, I'm surprised you haven't heard of him. 

M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary

Ph.D from Westminster Theological Seminary.

Prominent Woke voice, etc.


https://www.dranthonybradley.com/about/


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Sep 11, 2020)

Blind obedience the church of God has long ago exploded as too servile for Christians spirits. This would be more servile than selling men's bodies in the market as slaves, which Christianity abhors."
--Jeremiah Burroughs, The Excellency of a Gracious Spirit, p. 84. (SDG 1995)

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 11, 2020)

Also, I'm pretty sure he was ordained PCA. He's at Redeemer as "theologian in residence."


----------



## ZackF (Sep 11, 2020)

I don’t know how he’s expecting the response. On Twitter? It doesn’t seem that Bradley is callIng for papers. Taking the questions seriously is difficult in this circumstance. I would be curious as to what religion in 1650 did much criticism of slavery?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 11, 2020)

Okay; I understand. This is the sort that insist Dabney is in hell for his sins despite his faith in Christ. I'm glad the Lord is judge. 


VictorBravo said:


> Chris, I'm surprised you haven't heard of him.
> 
> M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary
> 
> ...





VictorBravo said:


> Also, I'm pretty sure he was ordained PCA. He's at Redeemer as "theologian in residence."

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 11, 2020)

Interesting 


VictorBravo said:


> Chris, I'm surprised you haven't heard of him.
> 
> M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary
> 
> ...



Interesting. His education was only possible because of those puritans he so despises.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Sep 11, 2020)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Okay; I understand. This is the sort that insist Dabney is in hell for his sins despite his faith in Christ. I'm glad the Lord is judge.


Many of these critics likely don’t believe in hell.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Many of these critics likely don’t believe in hell.



They do, but it's only for _their_ personal ideological enemies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 11, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> Ph.D from Westminster Theological Seminary.


How astonishing. WTS was founded by *White Men.* Further Daryl Hart in his insightful work on Machen (one of the founders of WTS) argues that Machen was a Segregationist who opposed the admission of *black *students to Princeton. I guess he held the same views when WTS was founded. So Dr Bradley does his PhD at a seminary that is NOT woke?


----------



## chuckd (Sep 11, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> At no point in US history did Puritans have non-racist Christian anthropology. The entire movement was racist, you do know that, right?


I do now.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 11, 2020)

Westminster Confession 26 is actually at odds with Jim Crow segregation in the church, but that point is probably inconvenient for those who do not wish to attend churches with too many white people in membership and who want racially segregated minority churches.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PezLad (Sep 11, 2020)

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Sep 11, 2020)

I wrestled through this not long ago and the reality is that you can't find a person that isn't stained with sin. Do you think the presupposition from the posters on twitter is that Edwards mistreated slaves, or was his statement in regards to actually owning slaves? If its the latter you can't forget Paul returning the runaway slave Oneisumus to Philemon. We don't actually know what happened to Oneisumus but by the way Paul worded his letter he was requesting his release. The bible never reveals his fate. 

In regards the former, I am not aware of evidence that Edwards actually mistreated the slaves. Either way the era was a difficult era to live. For example, would it be moral to use my hard earned money to buy a slave with the goal to free them, or do I voice my concerns to the government allowing a man/woman to be separated and sent to a ruthless owner? If you fast forward 150 years into the future you may hear Christians judging us for things they believe are sinful. They bought clothing that was made in sweat shops that were made by enslaved children, or by Adults under extreme poverty. ect.. 

I found the following podcasts that explains the great lengths the RPCNA church went through to support black men and women during that era. Here is the link to the lecture series. https://www.theaquilareport.com/can...-copeland-on-the-rpcnas-anti-slavery-history/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2020)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> ...the reality is that you can't find a person that isn't stained with sin.



The problem is that those, like Bradley, who have apostatized to the Woke religion view such a statement as an equivalent to saying, "All lives matter." There is no reasoning with a Wokist.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Sep 11, 2020)

I still wager to fine any more than a handful, if that, of men of any color anywhere in the world in 1650 who would hold views stated the way Wokists wish they were.

Maybe some Quakers did? I dunno.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Sep 11, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The problem is that those, like Bradley, who have apostatized to the Woke religion view such a statement as an equivalent to saying, "All lives matter." There is no reasoning with a Wokist.



I agree that you can't reason with the woke folks. Not everybody walking around with BLM posters is woke. They can be reasoned with.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2020)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Not everybody walking around with BLM posters is woke. They can be reasoned with.



Perhaps...for now. It is becoming increasingly difficult. Apostasy blinds the eyes and stops up the ears.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 11, 2020)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I agree that you can't reason with the woke folks. Not everybody walking around with BLM posters is woke. They can be reasoned with.


Sure, except those who have a platform, like Twitter.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 11, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> Sure, except those who have a platform, like Twitter.


Bret Weinstein has talked about that. Often with Woke, if you can get a person to talk to you one on one often you can seem to get somewhere. Sadly the go back to social media or back to borg Woke collective and the SJW programming is reloaded.


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Sep 11, 2020)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I wrestled through this not long ago and the reality is that you can't find a person that isn't stained with sin. Do you think the presupposition from the posters on twitter is that Edwards mistreated slaves, or was his statement in regards to actually owning slaves? If its the latter you can't forget Paul returning the runaway slave Oneisumus to Philemon. We don't actually know what happened to Oneisumus but by the way Paul worded his letter he was requesting his release. The bible never reveals his fate.
> 
> In regards the former, I am not aware of evidence that Edwards actually mistreated the slaves. Either way the era was a difficult era to live. For example, would it be moral to use my hard earned money to buy a slave with the goal to free them, or do I voice my concerns to the government allowing a man/woman to be separated and sent to a ruthless owner? If you fast forward 150 years into the future you may hear Christians judging us for things they believe are sinful. They bought clothing that was made in sweat shops that were made by enslaved children, or by Adults under extreme poverty. ect..
> 
> I found the following podcasts that explains the great lengths the RPCNA church went through to support black men and women during that era. Here is the link to the lecture series. https://www.theaquilareport.com/can...-copeland-on-the-rpcnas-anti-slavery-history/


Thank you for this, read Founding Sins not to long ago and was unaware of the lecture series.


----------



## A.Joseph (Sep 11, 2020)

So Ive been thinking about Machen and this issue. It’s not a stumbling block for me, because I believe we all have blind spots. But even taking for granted he was a man of his time, is it reasonable to conclude that Machen did not really look to scripture to formulate a deeper understanding on this issue? Also, I get the impression Machen was skeptical of radical social change and obviously government intervention. I get the impression he feared provoking unrest. It seems he feared instability that could come with drastic uprooting of norms overall. Obviously in hindsight, he could have seen all men as created in God’s image but also I’m not sure if it is our job to facilitate some type of utopian social structure. We don’t want anyone to be mistreated but we can’t truly ensure everyone has the same social status and high standing in society or if that’s even desirable and beneficial to the soul. God has greater intentions and priorities for each individual. This topic brings out so much sensitivity and insecurity in everyone because we are moving away from the God who determines rights, wrongs, mercies and justice.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 11, 2020)

I was listening in the car today to a radio discussion on the 'evils' of Colonialism in New Zealand's history. As I reflected on the discussion (which was very 'woke'!!), it seems to me Europeans were somewhat guilty for colonial attitudes to the native peoples and that forms the basis for much of the BLM movement. Yet I realise that statement needs to be qualified. Dawnins book " _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of *Favoured Races" *_did a lot of harm because it influenced colonial attitudes. Answers in Genesis has helpfully documented this problem https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/did-darwin-promote-racism/

That said a woke 'repentance' is not the answer. The issue is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23. it is not that white people are guilty and coloured peoples are innocent. ALL have sinned. We all need a Saviour.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KMK (Sep 11, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> Sure, except those who have a platform, like Twitter.



What's Twitter?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 11, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> https://www.dranthonybradley.com/about/


He included "Dr" in his URL? C'mon! 

I notice on his page, his name is never mentioned without it being prefaced by "Dr."

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Edward (Sep 12, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary



There's that connection again.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 12, 2020)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304481148165189632

Reactions: Like 7 | Funny 2


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2020)

I have a serious question. At what point do we consider men like this—men who have an obvious sinful obsession—to be infidels, and apostates? I'm not asking whether ever we should examine their faith, attempting to pry into their hearts to determine whether or not they are regenerate. That is obviously neither within our ability nor purview. But Paul does instruct us to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). Does this only apply to the local assembly? Or, because of the public nature of this madness, should it be exercised in a public manner?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Chad Hutson (Sep 12, 2020)

I wonder what degree of arrogance must be present in an individual to think that they would behave any differently if they lived in the 17th or 18th century? If this man was a member of a tribe of slave traders in Africa during those times, what makes him think he would have made a difference? Or if he were enslaved in the colonies and heard the gospel proclaimed by a Jonathan Edwards or the like, would he not be glad to receive the good news? Would he not be thankful that the Spirit drew him to salvation in spite of his circumstances? What historical and generational arrogance is on full display in these times!

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Sep 12, 2020)

Every generation has their blind spots. We grieve and look at ourselves with greater care, fear, and humility. We don't make unqualified sweeping statements like this. I'm saddened. He's lost respect in my book, for what it's worth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 12, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I have a serious question. At what point do we consider men like this—men who have an obvious sinful obsession—to be infidels, and apostates? I'm not asking whether ever we should examine their faith, attempting to pry into their hearts to determine whether or not they are regenerate. That is obviously neither within our ability nor purview. But Paul does instruct us to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). Does this only apply to the local assembly? Or, because of the public nature of this madness, should it be exercised in a public manner?


If you make a public statement then I believe it is ok to make a public response. I believe the issue would be if you made something public that was private or solely within the local church. These SJW types certainly aren't getting disciplined within their own churches otherwise this wouldn't keep happening. Someone needs to tell them the truth. It is sad how many are converting to this new religion and forsaking the true gospel.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 17, 2020)

D. G. Hart, while specifically referring to something else, has a good take on why this sort of purity-spiralling and virtue-signalling regarding the sins of previous generations of Christians is unnecessary: The Stumbling Blocks Whom You Should Read for Edification.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 18, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Westminster Confession 26 is actually at odds with Jim Crow segregation in the church, but that point is probably inconvenient for those who do not wish to attend churches with too many white people in membership and who want racially segregated minority churches.



By the same argument aren't denominations also in violation of WCF 26?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 18, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> By the same argument aren't denominations also in violation of WCF 26?



That is a very good question, though it might be a little  for this thread. You may be interested to know that there is an essay by the late Hugh Cartwright in _The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century_ (I cannot remember if it is in volume 1 or 2) wherein the argues that "the schismatic notion of denominations" is incongruous with the establishment principle.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 18, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> That is a very good question, though it might be a little  for this thread. You may be interested to know that there is an essay by the late Hugh Cartwright in _The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century_ (I cannot remember if it is in volume 1 or 2) wherein the argues that "the schismatic notion of denominations" is incongruous with the establishment principle.



Not every denomination, of course, is guilty of schism. I would agree it is rather off topic to discuss denominationalism. My point, however, was to illustrate that people today can justify breaching the communion of the saints for many different reasons. In the past race was one of those reasons (rightly or wrongly).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 18, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Bret Weinstein has talked about that. Often with Woke, if you can get a person to talk to you one on one often you can seem to get somewhere. Sadly the go back to social media or back to borg Woke collective and the SJW programming is reloaded.



Bret Weinstein's view of reasonable and a Christian's view of reasonable wouldn't be the same thing. He is a left-liberal. He is just not as extreme as the far left. I don't think there is any point in trying to reason with anyone who carries a BLM poster. They need to be converted. That is the only thing which will bring them out of that Hell-born delusion they are under.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (Sep 18, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Bret Weinstein's view of reasonable and a Christian's view of reasonable wouldn't be the same thing. He is a left-liberal. He is just not as extreme as the far left. I don't think there is any point in trying to reason with anyone who carries a BLM poster. They need to be converted. That is the only thing which will bring them out of that Hell-born delusion they are under.


No, it isn’t. Many non-Christian people have left bad and destructive movements without conversion. I will agree that only saves one from a kind of temporal destructiveness but not eternal destruction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DecafCoffee (Sep 20, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Daniel, while I certainly agree with you, would you be able to point to some solid resources combating this claim?


Well for one, look up Samuel Hopkins (just google him). He was a direct disciple of Jonathan Edwards, and he championed abolition of slaves. Furthermore, Jonathan Edwards Jr. (JE's son), also differed from his father by advocating for abolition. In fact, SH and JE jr were pillars of the New Lights Movement that was the direct spiritual progeny of JE's theology. So while JE himself did own slaves, his theological influence actually paved the way for abolition.

It depends how you look at the slavery situation. Bradley seems to assume that non-slavery should be the default state of the world. Although in a perfect world that would be nice, millennia of world history has shown that slavery is the norm, not the exception. The question should not be "How could they have allowed slavery?" That's extremely historically naive. THe better questions should be "how is it that slavery as an institution ended in Britain/America?" The answer to the first question is mute. The answer to the second question is surprisingly inconvenient for Bradley: Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.

Is Jonathan Edwards the _only_ factor? No. I wouldn't argue that. But many of the Puritans Bradley criticizes should actually be remembered as precursors of the _abolitionists _rather than the precursors of the _Alt-Right/KKK_ lunatics of today.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## Andrew35 (Sep 20, 2020)

DecafCoffee said:


> Well for one, look up Samuel Hopkins (just google him). He was a direct disciple of Jonathan Edwards, and he championed abolition of slaves. Furthermore, Jonathan Edwards Jr. (JE's son), also differed from his father by advocating for abolition. In fact, SH and JE jr were pillars of the New Lights Movement that was the direct spiritual progeny of JE's theology. So while JE himself did own slaves, his theological influence actually paved the way for abolition.
> 
> It depends how you look at the slavery situation. Bradley seems to assume that non-slavery should be the default state of the world. Although in a perfect world that would be nice, millennia of world history has shown that slavery is the norm, not the exception. The question should not be "How could they have allowed slavery?" That's extremely historically naive. THe better questions should be "how is it that slavery as an institution ended in Britain/America?" The answer to the first question is mute. The answer to the second question is surprisingly inconvenient for Bradley: Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.
> 
> Is Jonathan Edwards the _only_ factor? No. I wouldn't argue that. But many of the Puritans Bradley criticizes should actually be remembered as precursors of the _abolitionists _rather than the precursors of the _Alt-Right/KKK_ lunatics of today.



Well, this is a rare opportunity!

To be perfectly frank, decaf coffee, I've never liked you. And I'm not convinced you're healthier than regular coffee.

Reactions: Funny 7


----------



## Taylor (Sep 21, 2020)

DecafCoffee said:


> Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.



But don't you know that our high and exalted evangelical gurus over at The Gospel Coalition have written a lamentation for Edwards? Why would you go against TGC's supreme and unquestionable wisdom here?

Reactions: Funny 1 | Sad 1


----------



## DecafCoffee (Sep 21, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> But don't you know that our high and exalted evangelical gurus over at The Gospel Coalition have written a lamentation for Edwards? Why would you go against TGC's supreme and unquestionable wisdom here?


I'm evidently not woke enough. Perhaps I should start drinking regular coffee. The fault is mine. I'll go flagellate myself now....


----------



## ZackF (Sep 21, 2020)

DecafCoffee said:


> Well for one, look up Samuel Hopkins (just google him). He was a direct disciple of Jonathan Edwards, and he championed abolition of slaves. Furthermore, Jonathan Edwards Jr. (JE's son), also differed from his father by advocating for abolition. In fact, SH and JE jr were pillars of the New Lights Movement that was the direct spiritual progeny of JE's theology. So while JE himself did own slaves, his theological influence actually paved the way for abolition.
> 
> It depends how you look at the slavery situation. Bradley seems to assume that non-slavery should be the default state of the world. Although in a perfect world that would be nice, millennia of world history has shown that slavery is the norm, not the exception. The question should not be "How could they have allowed slavery?" That's extremely historically naive. THe better questions should be "how is it that slavery as an institution ended in Britain/America?" The answer to the first question is mute. The answer to the second question is surprisingly inconvenient for Bradley: Jonathan Edwards' (a Puritan) theological influence began the process that eventually led to the end of slavery in America.
> 
> Is Jonathan Edwards the _only_ factor? No. I wouldn't argue that. But many of the Puritans Bradley criticizes should actually be remembered as precursors of the _abolitionists _rather than the precursors of the _Alt-Right/KKK_ lunatics of today.



Excellent points. I learned some good stuff and have yet another thing to look into sometime. For Bradley and those captive to this ascended ideology, I wonder if it matters. I find it hard to believe there are no black theologians in history, while knowing about about Edwards history with slavery, that nevertheless quoted him favorably. Is it because those in different places and time didn't have Critical Race Theory and it's "analytical tools" to make sense of things? JE jr. is still guilty by CRT's rubrics anyway. It does not matter that he may started have things in the right direction.

I'm curious about "New Lights Movement" though it sounds a bit Quakery.  The Quakers of course were among the earlier groups to oppose slavery.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 21, 2020)

DecafCoffee said:


> I'm evidently not woke enough. Perhaps I should start drinking regular coffee. The fault is mine. I'll go flagellate myself now....


Welcome to the board Mr. Coffee; please see the link down below under useful links about fixing a signature so folks know how to address you properly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DecafCoffee (Sep 21, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Excellent points. I learned some good stuff and have yet another thing to look into sometime. For Bradley and those captive to this ascended ideology, I wonder if it matters. I find it hard to believe there are no black theologians in history, while knowing about about Edwards history with slavery, that nevertheless quoted him favorably. Is it because those in different places and time didn't have Critical Race Theory and it's "analytical tools" to make sense of things? JE jr. is still guilty by CRT's rubrics anyway. It does not matter that he may started have things in the right direction.
> 
> I'm curious about "New Lights Movement" though it sounds a bit Quakery.  The Quakers of course were among the earlier groups to oppose slavery.



Actually believe it or not, there are black historians who are fine with Edwards... namely [drumroll].... Thabiti Anyabwile (and others)! see here.

The New Lights Movement was a movement _within _Calvinist circles that started with JE and his supporters of the revivals during the Great Awakening. It didn't actually have anything to do directly with slavery. It had more to do with the legitimacy of revivalism and the "enthusiasm" that many of Whitfield's and Edwards' revivals caused.

Yeah y'know I've read Anthony Bradley's works before, and honestly he comes across as a conundrum to me. You would read his stuff and think he's a Trump supporting Republican. But then he'll write something that makes you think he's super lefty with the BLM and CRT. He is an enigma to me. That's all I can say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 21, 2020)

DecafCoffee said:


> Actually believe it or not, there are black historians who are fine with Edwards... namely [drumroll].... Thabiti Anyabwile (and others)! see here.
> 
> The New Lights Movement was a movement _within _Calvinist circles that started with JE and his supporters of the revivals during the Great Awakening. It didn't actually have anything to do directly with slavery. It had more to do with the legitimacy of revivalism and the "enthusiasm" that many of Whitfield's and Edwards' revivals caused.
> 
> Yeah y'know I've read Anthony Bradley's works before, and honestly he comes across as a conundrum to me. You would read his stuff and think he's a Trump supporting Republican. But then he'll write something that makes you think he's super lefty with the BLM and CRT. He is an enigma to me. That's all I can say.


That video from Thabiti is from 7 years ago. I bet if you asked him today about the subject, he would agree with Bradley. I hope I am wrong though. However, from what I hear coming out of Thabiti lately, it sounds like he has left the faith.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Sep 21, 2020)

DecafCoffee said:


> I'll go flagellate myself now....



I think you mean “caffeinate.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chad Hutson (Sep 21, 2020)

Just received in the mail Thomas Sowell's _Black Rednecks and White Liberals. _Took me almost 4 months to get it. Ended up ordering it from the UK due to American suppliers refusal to fill the order (suspicious!). Dr. Sowell's research points to the adoption of lower class Southern white culture (imported from Northern England, Scottish highlands, and the borderlands) as the root cause of much of the perpetuating problems of black Americans rather than the ongoing effects of slavery. As a minister in the foothills of Appalachia (not as remote as much of Appalachia) I have long said that the issues plaguing the inner city blacks are the same issues of the Appalachian culture.
Alas, there is no benefit for others in addressing these issues because they/we are victimizing themselves/ourselves. Victimhood is very profitable, so there will be no solution anytime soon.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 22, 2020)

Newsflash for this Anthony Bradley fellow: voting for baby-killers is worse than racism. Homosexuality is a far greater sin than slavery.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Herald (Sep 22, 2020)

PezLad said:


> Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.



The difficult part is when it is another "brother" who is doing the biting and devouring. Part of me wants to ignore this guy and assign him the label of "irrelevant'. However, his type are making noise and misleading some. It is hard to ignore that.


----------



## Herald (Sep 22, 2020)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Not everybody walking around with BLM posters is woke. They can be reasoned with.



That is because there is a difference between the Neo-Marxist BLM movement and the declaration that black lives matter. The latter is a statement that blacks still face injustice. One can agree with that while not buying into the BLM movement. The difficult part is dissecting the two.


----------



## Herald (Sep 22, 2020)

fredtgreco said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304481148165189632


That's the problem with waging war on social media. There's always someone else who has a sharper wit.


----------



## Susan777 (Sep 22, 2020)

Black people don’t face injustice in general any more than white people. But if it’s repeated long enough people believe it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 22, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Black people don’t face injustice in general any more than white people. But if it’s repeated long enough people believe it.



Arguably, white people (and others) face more injustice owing to racist diversity quotas, which discriminate in favour of certain privileged minorities.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 22, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Arguably, white people (and others) face more injustice owing to racist diversity quotas, which discriminate in favour of certain privileged minorities.


Moving outside of that specific realm, certain sins and lifestyles are also far more favored in this society now as well, while Christians are all "racist, bigot, homophobes".


----------



## Susan777 (Sep 22, 2020)

I don’t know if it’s permitted to cite an article here in its entirety but this article published today in the Founders Journal is outstanding. In a succinct but powerful way Tom Ascol discusses the failure of pastors and others in leadership to denounce CRT as the godless ideology it is. This was in the Aquila Report as well.









A Brief Critique of Critical Race Theory


I found President Trump’s recent order through the Office of Management and Budget to the Heads of the Executive Departments and Agencies a cause for rejoicing. In it, the presuppositions … More




founders.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chad Hutson (Sep 22, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Black people don’t face injustice in general any more than white people. But if it’s repeated long enough people believe it.


At issue is not whether injustices occur, because we know they do. Life is not fair, we shouldn't expect it to be. Injustices prevail in every culture, in every age, among all ethnic groups. What we're being asked to believe is that all of the problems facing the black population in America is expressly due to racism. That is what I have a problem with. I see the same tendencies among the poor white "hill people" as I do in the inner city blacks, as well as the same consequences. The police are more likely to make a random traffic stop of a wild-eyed redneck than a well dressed, "normal" looking person. The reason: more crimes are committed by these wild types than the others. Is that racism/profiling? I try to tell these young people whom we minister to that behaviors bring with them consequences, deserved or not. Carry yourselves well. Don't blame others for your poor decisions and rash behaviors. Take responsibility for yourselves. Don't bear the burden of the rest of your family or community, be your own person. These are all lessons that apply to the inner city as well.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Sep 22, 2020)

Chad Hutson said:


> At issue is not whether injustices occur, because we know they do. Life is not fair, we shouldn't expect it to be. Injustices prevail in every culture, in every age, among all ethnic groups. What we're being asked to believe is that all of the problems facing the black population in America is expressly due to racism. That is what I have a problem with. I see the same tendencies among the poor white "hill people" as I do in the inner city blacks, as well as the same consequences. The police are more likely to make a random traffic stop of a wild-eyed redneck than a well dressed, "normal" looking person. The reason: more crimes are committed by these wild types than the others. Is that racism/profiling? I try to tell these young people whom we minister to that behaviors bring with them consequences, deserved or not. Carry yourselves well. Don't blame others for your poor decisions and rash behaviors. Take responsibility for yourselves. Don't bear the burden of the rest of your family or community, be your own person. These are all lessons that apply to the inner city as well.


I have heard the comparison (between inner city blacks and Appalachian poor whites) made before, and the cultural parallel holds strong, but with one striking distinction: the black murder rate is way beyond any other ethnic/cultural group in the US. Any ideas what accounts for that? I know the mountain folk of Appalachia used to be quite the murderous bunch themselves, so it's interesting to consider what happened.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chad Hutson (Sep 22, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> I have heard the comparison (between inner city blacks and Appalachian poor whites) made before, and the cultural parallel holds strong, but with one striking distinction: the black murder rate is way beyond any other ethnic/cultural group in the US. Any ideas what accounts for that? I know the mountain folk of Appalachia used to be quite the murderous bunch themselves, so it's interesting to consider what happened.


1. Law and order consequences. While many are still very violent, they may stop just short of murder.
2. Less compacted, more spread out. Poor blacks are localized in sections of cities, living on top of one another. Poor Appalachians are spread out through the hills and "hollers."
3. Ongoing enabling by progressive excuse makers have withheld the necessary societal pressures that deter certain activities. Think about this: white redneck behaviors are mocked and ridiculed by the majority of the population, while the same behaviors in the black community are glorified through popular culture, rap music, and the constant drumbeat of social justice warriors. Nobody is marching in the streets to validate or excuse the poor behavior of rednecks who flaunt the law, but they are burning cities for the inner city blacks.
Not all of the white poor people born in Appalachia continue in the cultural malaise into which they were born. Additionally, there is little pressure for them to do so. By comparison, there is immense pressure among poor blacks to be "authentic," i.e. to continue to act a certain way regardless of the hindrances to getting ahead. Through the inner societal pressures, the negative behavior patterns continue unabated for longer than it should. 
I'm sure Dr. Sowell is going to enlighten me more as I read his essays, but this has been my experience and result of social study.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 22, 2020)

Chad Hutson said:


> 1. Law and order consequences. While many are still very violent, they may stop just short of murder.
> 2. Less compacted, more spread out. Poor blacks are localized in sections of cities, living on top of one another. Poor Appalachians are spread out through the hills and "hollers."
> 3. Ongoing enabling by progressive excuse makers have withheld the necessary societal pressures that deter certain activities. Think about this: white redneck behaviors are mocked and ridiculed by the majority of the population, while the same behaviors in the black community are glorified through popular culture, rap music, and the constant drumbeat of social justice warriors. Nobody is marching in the streets to validate or excuse the poor behavior of rednecks who flaunt the law, but they are burning cities for the inner city blacks.
> Not all of the white poor people born in Appalachia continue in the cultural malaise into which they were born. Additionally, there is little pressure for them to do so. By comparison, there is immense pressure among poor blacks to be "authentic," i.e. to continue to act a certain way regardless of the hindrances to getting ahead. Through the inner societal pressures, the negative behavior patterns continue unabated for longer than it should.
> I'm sure Dr. Sowell is going to enlighten me more as I read his essays, but this has been my experience and result of social study.


You should read Life at the Bottom by Theodore Dalrymple. He shows the mentality of the white British underclass; nearly identical to ghetto life here.


----------



## Chad Hutson (Sep 22, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> You should read Life at the Bottom by Theodore Dalrymple. He shows the mentality of the white British underclass; nearly identical to ghetto life here.


I enjoy Dalrymple (_Spoilt Rotten _especially). Wish God would save him, though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Sep 22, 2020)

I second recommendations to read Anthony Daniels aka Dalrymple. Despite being a trained psychiatrist, he’s not very prescriptive after his analyses.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 23, 2020)

Chad Hutson said:


> 1. Law and order consequences. While many are still very violent, they may stop just short of murder.
> 2. Less compacted, more spread out. Poor blacks are localized in sections of cities, living on top of one another. Poor Appalachians are spread out through the hills and "hollers."
> 3. Ongoing enabling by progressive excuse makers have withheld the necessary societal pressures that deter certain activities. Think about this: white redneck behaviors are mocked and ridiculed by the majority of the population, while the same behaviors in the black community are glorified through popular culture, rap music, and the constant drumbeat of social justice warriors. Nobody is marching in the streets to validate or excuse the poor behavior of rednecks who flaunt the law, but they are burning cities for the inner city blacks.
> Not all of the white poor people born in Appalachia continue in the cultural malaise into which they were born. Additionally, there is little pressure for them to do so. By comparison, there is immense pressure among poor blacks to be "authentic," i.e. to continue to act a certain way regardless of the hindrances to getting ahead. Through the inner societal pressures, the negative behavior patterns continue unabated for longer than it should.
> I'm sure Dr. Sowell is going to enlighten me more as I read his essays, but this has been my experience and result of social study.



I recommend this essay about Sowell by Coleman Hughes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

