# Dr. Carl Ellis - Emancipating Our Theology from Western Culture



## TheInquirer (Feb 23, 2021)

This article was shared with me a week or so ago, asking for my thoughts and frankly, I found several things in it profoundly disturbing if I am understanding it correctly. If my concerns are justified, I am also concerned about the influence and spread of these views (including at RTS where I studied). However, I do wish to make sure I am understanding the author correctly (tough to do from 1 article).

I would be interested in hearing from the board here to see if we share the same concerns or if my conclusions are based on misunderstanding:






It’s Time to Emancipate our Theology from Western Culture #AlwaysReforming – Missio Alliance







www.missioalliance.org





Edited to make my thoughts clearer.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 23, 2021)

Dr. Ellis has been writing about this theme for a long time. I think he carefully nuanced the argument here and stayed within bounds of Reformed theology and keeping Scripture the final authority. He's basically calling for a most consistent application of our Reformed theology to the ethical and cultural concerns of today. I'd like to see what direction he takes this eventually. But he is far more constructive and biblical in these areas than the more radical "woke" or CRT influenced thinkers. I appreciate that he's trying to stay within explicate biblical categories of thought. 

What particular areas did you have trouble with?


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 23, 2021)

I will let others weigh in before adding my thoughts.


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 23, 2021)

He has quite a hole to fill to make his case. I’d be waiting for the next 20 parts of this blog article for him to get into the specifics of the failings of Reformed Theology and what the replacement components look like. I think he wildly overstates his case. He should run it by Voddie....
If the Bible is ultimately not about ‘us’ , a theology that is too ‘me’ centered will be a problem. Reformed Theology speaks to what we are spiritually lacking above all else. That trap of placing a people in a box by their outside characteristics needs to be done away with as an ultimate identifier.

_Reformation Theology—Sound, but Wanting?_


> _Indeed, reformed theology is true and robust as far as it goes, but the reformed community’s failure in the area of justice goes a lot deeper than one would suspect. It was not only due to our depravity, it is also due to the inadequacy of reformed theology as it has been handed down to us in its present state. It is unacceptable to say that one can be “theologically sound,” yet be errant on the issue of social ethics.
> 
> The problem goes to the very foundation of our theology itself, namely, a weakness on “Side B”—a weakness that has tainted our understanding of the character of God, Christology and “imago Dei.” This has rendered our theology deficient at the core, allowing much of the reformed community to peacefully co-exist with slavery, Jim Crow, racial discrimination, maltreatment of immigrants, cruelty toward first nations, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 23, 2021)

So how would we structure our theology for a non-American black(and/or African) audience? How will that look? Are there black Reformed churches and communities outside of our country? Where and how would they fit? I think his categories are both too narrow and require so much nuanced accommodation that it will become too varied and convoluted and lose its theological value entirely. I’m sorry, it sounds like CRT (lite) repackaged.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2021)

If the Reformed Confessions developed in the East and not the West, let's say among the Chinese, there'd probably be a section on ungodly ancestor worship versus respect of one's ancestors. Of course culture affected how theology developed in the West.

I'd be interested where he is going to take these articles. But yes, all historical theology has developed in a cultural context.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 23, 2021)

A few thoughts:

1) I find it difficult to understand how someone who claims to subscribe to the Westminster Standards can say with a straight face that there is an "inadequacy of reformed theology as it has been handed down to us in its present state" with regard to ethics. Anybody who has ever read the Larger Catechism's exposition of the Ten Commandments knows this isn't true.

2) If it is true that Reformed theology is _not_ deficient in the area of ethics, then Ellis is barking up the wrong tree. The blame for moral failure in the Reformed community is not because the problem is at "the very foundation of our theology," but because we just don't live by what we say we believe.

3) I have always been skeptical of the notion that our theology is, as it is often made out to be, just a product of white Western colonialism. One of the fathers of "Western" theology was an African, and some speculate he was even black.

4) It seems to me that people who write articles like this don't understand that there is really no such thing as "emancipating" our theology from our culture without at the same time simply filling that void with another cultural influence. Ellis oddly enough confesses this himself by saying that "all theology is contextual." So, as soon as I read the headline, my immediate thought was, "And replace 'Western' with...what?"

In the end, I found the article unhelpful at best. At worst, it seemed to me to be yet another attempt to shift our focus away from glorifying God and enjoying him forever and doing everything we can to know what to believe concerning God and to do the duties he requires of us, and to encourage us to join this endless cultural "whodunit" which, in my experience, almost always has as its endgame Wokism.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 23, 2021)

The article is a bunch of clever-sounding nonsense. The man who wrote it is dangerous. "Paradigm Theology" is just a nifty sounding way of saying "Wokeology". He pays lip-service to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture while advancing ideas the undermine them.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 23, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The article is a bunch of clever-sounding nonsense. The man who wrote it is dangerous. "Paradigm Theology" is just a nifty sounding way of saying "Wokeology".


What I find roguishly amusing is that wokism is about as Western as it gets.

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 2


----------



## augustacarguy (Feb 23, 2021)

Ellis is paid by our church to be our “Pastoral Advisor for Strategic Initiatives.” Basically a diversity advisory. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 23, 2021)

augustacarguy said:


> Ellis is paid by our church to be our “Pastoral Advisor for Strategic Initiatives.” Basically a diversity advisory.



If you feel comfortable doing so, can you provide any insight into his views as stated in the article or if we are misunderstanding him in any way in this thread? I wish to fairly understand and represent his views and freely admit I am only familiar with that one article.


----------



## augustacarguy (Feb 23, 2021)

He’s only been to the church a few times, so I’m not sure I’ve got a very good read on him. I’m of the opinion that he’s mild compared with Tisby, Mason, etc, but does someone who leans that way ever stop drifting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2021)

augustacarguy said:


> Ellis is paid by our church to be our “Pastoral Advisor for Strategic Initiatives.” Basically a diversity advisory.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


What is a diversity advisory? Why is the church paying for it? And why is an old white guy on it!

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 23, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> What is a diversity advisory? Why is the church paying for it? And why is an old white guy on it!


These are questions that, I’m not kidding, really need to be asked.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 23, 2021)

Diversity adviser sounds like some worldly corporate position, or PCUSA.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 23, 2021)

These are more political issues. The *Justice* he’s promoting is lip service and virtue signaling short of government programs. Ron Paul is a proper retort. Any programs proposed will result in further segregations and universal enslavement. ‘Diversity’ is a gateway to separation and segregation not liberty which is the greatest pursuit of progress for the minority or the formerly oppressed.

I acknowledge that the oppressed and enslaved have turned to God for mercy and He is a God that hears them. Jesus died for them in particular. But he also saves the repentant jailers, centurions, tax collectors and even former slave traders - God has a Big Tent. Empathy and sharing in the sufferings of others is important. But we all have a story and personal adversity - not everything can be a program, religious, political or otherwise.

Ron Paul:


> Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
> What Really Divides Us (23 December 2002).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2021)

"We need to add one Asian, a Black, and a guy in a wheelchair!" --- Diversity Committee in Progress.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 23, 2021)

"We need to add one Asian, a Black, and a guy in a wheelchair!" --- Diversity Committee in Progress.

Sounds like a Democratic National Convention..... you forgot the transgendered.

When does wokism become.....

Tokenism?

the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.
"the use of gay supporting characters is mere tokenism"
Justice is losing its true meaning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## augustacarguy (Feb 23, 2021)

Who’s the old white guy? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## augustacarguy (Feb 23, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Diversity adviser sounds like some worldly corporate position, or PCUSA.



I came from the PCUSA and thought I was escaping liberal theology. Our church has drifted badly since we were put on this course several years ago. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2021)

augustacarguy said:


> Who’s the old white guy?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Oh, I see he is a brown guy....obviously an expert then.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2021)

Seriously, there is a way in which we can write a series of articles about the Gospel being unshackled from Western culture without falling into Wokeism. There is balance. Most missionary students receive training on how the Gospel may look a bit different in different cultural contexts. In the West we approach the Cross from its legal/forensic aspect, whereas one group I preached to in another country wept over the fact that they plucked out the beard of Jesus and stripped him naked (the shame that He bore for us stood out foremost). American concerns are not the same concerns of a Melanesian, for example. And a Scotsman and an African may worship a bit differently without either being wrong. 

If this is ALL that is being taught, then good. But I doubt it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 23, 2021)

There's a reason why they say "All heresies begin on the mission field," or something to that effect.

As others have pointed out, if we want to "unshackle" theology from little "c" culture, that's fine. But usually these people mean much more than that. Instead, we're told that people from different places and cultures "understand the Bible differently" in ways that we never could.

An interpretation of a passage of Scripture (e.g., the woman at the well) is provided, and we're told how some African tribe somewhere sees it differently from us. Then it's explained how they see it. It's usually interesting. Sometimes insightful. But *they just explained it to us*, didn't they? And we understood it? Something of a logical contradiction here, I think.

Furthermore, one of our cultures is usually understanding the text properly, depending on the original meaning of the text. That is, either we're reading it wrongly or they are. If it's something open to multiple interpretations, then you get those points of view already _within Western culture_ and its long history of interacting with the text. The *intra*cultural diversity is usually greater than the *inter*cultural diversity, when it comes to theology and textual interpretation.

Finally, I've read homegrown Chinese theology before. It's usually hierarchical, syncretistic, and frequently heterodox, if not outright heretical (Watchman Nee, anyone?), even in its non-state run iterations. There's a reason they want Reformed theology over there.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 23, 2021)

The article came across as elementary. That may be a problem.
I don't want to say he is spouting anything by reading between the lines but, I am awfully suspicious.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> There's a reason why they say "All heresies begin on the mission field," or something to that effect.
> 
> As others have pointed out, if we want to "unshackle" theology from little "c" culture, that's fine. But usually these people mean much more than that. Instead, we're told that people from different places and cultures "understand the Bible differently" in ways that we never could.
> 
> ...


You just can't trust those missionaries.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 23, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> You just can't trust those missionaries.


The worst part isn't the missionaries; the worst part is _their kids_.

_Scene: The Pastor's Home
Cast: Me (Pastor's Kid); "Frank" (Missionary Kid)_

Me: So Frank, you, eh, wanna play some computer games?
Frank: We already have all those games in Gumbinawa. I beat them a long time ago. We've got much better games now.
Me: So... play outside?
Frank: Our Gumbinawa outside is much more interesting and fun than yours could ever be.
Me: ...


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 23, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> The worst part isn't the missionaries; the worst part is _their kids_.
> 
> _Scene: The Pastor's Home
> Cast: Me (Pastor's Kid); "Frank" (Missionary Kid)_
> ...


I know. Where can I dump mine?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 23, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Oh, I see he is a brown guy....obviously an expert then.


#AlwaysReforming ..... until we become liberation theologians, then we good.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## py3ak (Feb 23, 2021)

Kosuke Koyama wrote _Water Buffalo Theology _a long time ago, which can be helpful for highlighting how different cultures have a frame of reference for particular ideas. With care, people can learn more than one frame of reference and enrich their views.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 23, 2021)

This concerns me the most:

"Most would define it [theology] as 'the study of God.' While this is true, Dr. John Frame’s definition fits the bill better, 'The application of God’s Word by persons in every area of life.” 

This shifts the focus of theology from God to man. After that, you can fill in the blanks anyway you please.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 23, 2021)

That was a concern when Frame made that statement but Ames' essentially says the same thing in Marrow of Theology - "Theology is the doctrine or teaching [doctrina] of living to God." (first statement of the book) Ames' purpose (and I think Frame's) is that all theology is relevant and essential for all of life. After all, theology is about God but it is for the purpose of man to believe in him, love him, and live for His glory. God tells us about Himself for a purpose - to affect some kind of change in man. The problem is when you take a statement like this and use it to start projecting subjective interpretations onto Scripture which is the direction I am afraid Ellis is leaning.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 24, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> That was a concern when Frame made that statement but Ames' essentially says the same thing in Marrow of Theology - "Theology is the doctrine or teaching [doctrina] of living to God." (first statement of the book) Ames' purpose (and I think Frame's) is that all theology is relevant and essential for all of life. After all, theology is about God but it is for the purpose of man to believe in him, love him, and live for His glory. God tells us about Himself for a purpose - to affect some kind of change in man. The problem is when you take a statement like this and use it to start projecting subjective interpretations onto Scripture which is the direction I am afraid Ellis is leaning.


Indeed. Today the alleged application for 'justice' or 'racism' is built on, at the very least, faulty premises.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 24, 2021)

jwithnell said:


> This concerns me the most:
> 
> "Most would define it [theology] as 'the study of God.' While this is true, Dr. John Frame’s definition fits the bill better, 'The application of God’s Word by persons in every area of life.”
> 
> This shifts the focus of theology from God to man. After that, you can fill in the blanks anyway you please.


I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Frame’s definition. I think it’s actually quite refreshing. Application is in very fact integral to theology (as our brother shows that Ames says). And while it is to a degree focused on man, I think it is because of that actually well balanced and biblical, since theology is a _human_ pursuit. After all, even the WSC begins not with God, but with man: “What is man’s chief end? Man’s chief end...”

Now, can we abuse Frame’s definition? Of course, but that’s a strike against the erroneous (or malicious) interpreter, not Frame. The abuse of a good thing does not make the good thing bad.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 24, 2021)

I think the problem I have with the article is that he divides the head (side A) from the heart and hands (side B) and then tries to argue that Western Christianity is primarily a head religion.
It's not. Calvin and the Puritans were head, heart, hands in their theology.
It doesn't do to have a theology of the mind that doesn't enflame the affections that lead to our practice. This is captured in the WLC as it moves from what Christ has accomplished to how it is applied to how it affects our conduct under the Law of God.

I know, from personal experience in other cultures, that the head, heart, hands "exposition" in the Westminster Standards can be applied to any culture.

Saying that doesn't mean that because a person is from the West that they always apply it properly in their own lives.

That said, however, it is deficient to say that a culture that sort of "felt and acted upon" the Scriptures but didn't give it a very full expression of the mind have something to necessarily teach.

In part this is sort of what Dr. Ellis is saying:
- White people use their minds primarily.
- Black people use their hearts and think about ethics primarily.

But then he goes on to describe that white people need to *think* more properly about a theology that, by his own admission, have a way of expressing what they are feeling and acting upon.

If it truly is a "mostly mindless" religion then how do you communicate it?

I even heard a recent interaction on a podcast between a Neil Shinvi and an African-American pastor on CRT. Neil was trying to define the terms of why we shouldn't think in that fashion as a Christian and the Pastor ended up arguing that White Christians like to talk about epistemology while Black people want to talk about justice. He was quoting Ellis.

This is cute but it doesn't get us anywhere. It ends up being a sort of gnostic "Side B" - you just "feel and act" because you are approaching things from a Side B perspective. When the white person wants to understand the other person he's accused of just caring about epistemology. There is no real standard because the white man will never get the gnosis.

I just don't buy it. Dr. Ellis wants us to think about a kind of theology (Side B) but there is no way to actually think about it. Is it even possible to write down or evaluate it by any kind of standard by which two men can agree or is it just a contextual thing that goes nowhere except for the white man to acknowledge that the Side B person possesses a gnosis he lacks?

As others have pointed out, Western theology was not developed in the West but in the Middle East and Africa first and traveled to the West. The Western mind is infected with this ante-Nicene and creedal thinking and it shapes everything that follows. 

This is not to reject the fact that we need to understand cultures that we are bringing the Word of God to. It matters and cultures often expose our cultural assumptions but the solution is not to split up "theologies" into Side A and B but to insist that all need to fully integrate and be answerable to the Head, the Heart and the Hands of true theology. Severing one of them is not a true theology at all.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 24, 2021)

So then the objective is more a tearing down of sound theology and replacing it with something pelagian. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/04/pelagius-the-progressive
“Augustine is the big, bad wolf of “authoritarianism,” while Pelagius is the great patron of authenticity, diversity, and other postmodern gods. The resurrection of Pelagius is, at bottom, a renunciation of Augustine’s vision of God and man, which is to say, the justification of our modern selves.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 24, 2021)

I'm glad you posted this because I have been studying the Middle Ages and the Reformation/Renaissance. Hermeneutics plays a huge part in this discussion now and one would have to prove that their hermeneutical method is closest to sola scriptura. Yet, Rome and Eastern Orthodox churches would disagree. I am not sure how they prove this outside of scripture and tradition. 

It is well known that the Islamic Conquests separated Eastern Orthodox Christians from the Western Christians roughly in 600 AD. During the protestant reformation Melanchthon reached out to the Eastern Orthodox Christians with the hopes of gaining a new ally in opposition to Rome. He was rejected as they viewed his perspective on the Lord's Supper as being heretical (they aligned to transubstantiation). The beliefs between Rome and Eastern Orthodox seem to be very similar and they both borrow heavily from Aristotelian Philosophy. With that said, the Western Reformed churches leaned more towards Augustine who was influenced by Plato. I am not saying that Protestants are borrowing from Plato but there is some overlap. 

I guess my question in this scenario is how does one biblical support their hermeneutical method over and against other methods from other cultures?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

So get this. Yin Yang.

Father = Yin
Son = Yang
Spirit = Line between the two.

Emancipated theology for the win. (Slam dunks)

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So get this. Yin Yang.
> 
> Father = Yin
> Son = Yang
> ...


I'd laugh but there are probably folks out there "discovering" this "truth" and presenting it seriously.


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So get this. Yin Yang.
> 
> Father = Yin
> Son = Yang
> ...


What are the spots?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 24, 2021)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the problem I have with the article is that he divides the head (side A) from the heart and hands (side B) and then tries to argue that Western Christianity is primarily a head religion.
> It's not. Calvin and the Puritans were head, heart, hands in their theology.
> It doesn't do to have a theology of the mind that doesn't enflame the affections that lead to our practice. This is captured in the WLC as it moves from what Christ has accomplished to how it is applied to how it affects our conduct under the Law of God.
> 
> ...


Very well said, Rich. I am constantly annoyed at the way people like Dr. Ellis divide people up into groups that at best are overly simplistic and at worst, just plain false.


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 24, 2021)

I don’t mean to pin point a specific individual or seemingly put them n a box, but I wonder of this gentlemen’s background. Is it common for somebody of Asian decent to push the racism-social justice card so hard and specifically target Reformed Christianity for reform?





https://mobile.twitter.com/tisaiahcho


----------



## ZackF (Feb 24, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I don’t mean to pin point a specific individual or seemingly put them n a box, but I wonder of this gentlemen’s background. Is it common for somebody of Asian decent to push racism-social justice so hard and specifically target Reformed Christianity for reform?
> View attachment 7797
> 
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/tisaiahcho


Right. Here we go again, most nauseatingly. Can Cho be clear about what he is saying? Who says what he says are "acts of oppression" and are wrong to begin with? Does he have anything other than a wet finger blown by the winds of cultural cachet and fashion for his oh so courageous line of certainties? Does it make me some kind of -ist to say all wokists look and sound alike?


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 24, 2021)

I just keep going back to brother Paul, Ron that is (remember racism takes many forms)...

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”
What Really Divides Us (23 December 2002).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 24, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I just keep going back to brother Paul, Ron that is.....
> 
> “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”
> What Really Divides Us (23 December 2002).


He said "sin of the heart." How dare he!

Beautiful quote by the way. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 24, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Right. Here we go again, most nauseatingly. Can Cho be clear about what he is saying? Who says what he says are "acts of oppression" and are wrong to begin with? Does he have anything other than a wet finger blown by the winds of cultural cachet and fashion for his oh so courageous line of certainties? Does it make me some kind of -ist to say all wokists look and sound alike?


Wokism can only produce division and ultimately tyranny. It’s either an accident of unbridled passion or by design. Maybe the design ignites the passion, but it goes away from sound theology, sound theory and free society. It’s graceless cause it doesn’t allow for biblical correction and faith-based redemption.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 24, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> I don’t mean to pin point a specific individual or seemingly put them n a box, but I wonder of this gentlemen’s background. Is it common for somebody of Asian decent to push the racism-social justice card so hard and specifically target Reformed Christianity for reform?
> View attachment 7797
> 
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/tisaiahcho


Let me give this a "classist" interpretation, which I think fits the data best:

From my observations, it's common for "upwardly mobile" Asians who are trying to break into the Western society elite.

Asians from more, well, Asian backgrounds with no such pretensions tend to think it's garbage.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 24, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Let me give this a "classist" interpretation, which I think fits the data best:
> 
> From my observations, it's common for "upwardly mobile" Asians who are trying to break into the Western society elite.
> 
> Asians from more, well, Asian backgrounds with no such pretensions tend to think it's garbage.


That’s what I thought.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> What are the spots?



Since there are two of them, two natures.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

ZackF said:


> I'd laugh but there are probably folks out there "discovering" this "truth" and presenting it seriously.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> View attachment 7798


Okay I'm going to laugh then!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 24, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Okay I'm going to laugh then!



Strangely enough, the book defends the Filioque and actually does a decent job at it. On the other hand, it talks about chi patterns in the body, so there's that.


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 24, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Strangely enough, the book defends the Filioque and actually does a decent job at it. On the other hand, it talks about chi patterns in the body, so there's that.


The qi concept (气) is a pretty near parallel to _pneuma_ and _ruah_; it can also mean "spirit," "breath," or "wind."

"气" as a life-force just gets applied in weird ways in traditional Chinese science and medicine.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 25, 2021)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I'm glad you posted this because I have been studying the Middle Ages and the Reformation/Renaissance. Hermeneutics plays a huge part in this discussion now and one would have to prove that their hermeneutical method is closest to sola scriptura. Yet, Rome and Eastern Orthodox churches would disagree. I am not sure how they prove this outside of scripture and tradition.
> 
> It is well known that the Islamic Conquests separated Eastern Orthodox Christians from the Western Christians roughly in 600 AD. During the protestant reformation Melanchthon reached out to the Eastern Orthodox Christians with the hopes of gaining a new ally in opposition to Rome. He was rejected as they viewed his perspective on the Lord's Supper as being heretical (they aligned to transubstantiation). The beliefs between Rome and Eastern Orthodox seem to be very similar and they both borrow heavily from Aristotelian Philosophy. With that said, the Western Reformed churches leaned more towards Augustine who was influenced by Plato. I am not saying that Protestants are borrowing from Plato but there is some overlap.
> 
> I guess my question in this scenario is how does one biblical support their hermeneutical method over and against other methods from other cultures?


Have you read Augustine on Pelagius? I’m not saying Augustine didn’t have other philosophical influences that at least subconsciously informed his thought. But he was never as scriptural as when he dove deep into the doctrines of grace to combat Pelagius. It was these writings that helped me shut the door on Roman Catholicism once and for all and yet Augustine remained a Catholic of his time.

As far as Augustine and Paul/(Plato) see Phillip Cary..... (Remember, many early philosophers were not adverse to religious/spiritual realities the way the modern philosopher is). Some early philosophers were probably more Christian in their approach and overall thought than the modern religious-neoliberal Christian humanist of today.



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00501_14.x





Saint Augustine (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



“In his first works Augustine epitomizes his own philosophical program with the phrase “to know God and the soul” (Soliloquia 1.7; De ordine 2.47) and promises to pursue it with the means provided by Platonic philosophy as long as these are not in conflict with the authority of biblical revelation (Contra Academicos 3.43). He thereby restates the old philosophical questions about the true nature of the human being and about the first principle of reality, and he adumbrates the key Neoplatonic idea that knowledge of our true self entails knowledge of our divine origin and will enable us to return to it (cf. Plotinus, Enneads VI.9.7.33–34). While these remain the basic characteristics of Augustine’s philosophy throughout his career, they are considerably differentiated and modified as his engagement with biblical thought intensifies and the notions of creation, sin and grace acquire greater significance. Augustine is entirely unaware of the medieval and modern distinction of “philosophy” and “theology”; both are inextricably intertwined in his thought, and it is unadvisable to try to disentangle them by focusing exclusively on elements that are deemed “philosophical” from a modern point of view.....”


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 25, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Have you read Augustine on Pelagius? I’m not saying Augustine didn’t have other philosophical influences that at least subconsciously informed his thought. But he was never as scriptural as when he dove deep into the doctrines of grace to combat Pelagius. It was these writings that helped me shut the door on Roman Catholicism once and for all and yet Augustine remained a Catholic of his time.
> 
> As far as Augustine and Paul/Plato see Phillip Cary.....
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00501_14.x



Thanks for your reply. I haven't gotten around to reading this yet but will check it out soon. In the interim, one person of interest would be Thomas Aquinas who seemed to blend Plato and Aristotle. One author seemed to place him on the middle ground between the two views. I know we wouldn't agree with everything he wrote (eg. Original Sin) but much of what he said aligns. Have you ever read some of his works and how he intermingled the two philosophies?


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 25, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Right. Here we go again, most nauseatingly. Can Cho be clear about what he is saying? Who says what he says are "acts of oppression" and are wrong to begin with? Does he have anything other than a wet finger blown by the winds of cultural cachet and fashion for his oh so courageous line of certainties? Does it make me some kind of -ist to say all wokists look and sound alike?


Well, he’s now promoting female pastors, so I guess he’s wholly outside the camp..... although he links to WhiteHorseInn??? I thought they were orthodox....


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 25, 2021)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Thanks for your reply. I haven't gotten around to reading this yet but will check it out soon. In the interim, one person of interest would be Thomas Aquinas who seemed to blend Plato and Aristotle. One author seemed to place him on the middle ground between the two views. I know we wouldn't agree with everything he wrote (eg. Original Sin) but much of what he said aligns. Have you ever read some of his works and how he intermingled the two philosophies?


I haven’t. He’s a pretty advanced thinker...


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

There is a fascinating, if terrible, essay by postmodern theologian John Caputo on how white western man emphasizes logic and doesn't value other modes of being. I can't find the article, though. That's probably a good thing. But that's a good example of emancipating our confessions. Downplay logic.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 26, 2021)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1201561770072170499


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is a fascinating, if terrible, essay by postmodern theologian John Caputo on how white western man emphasizes logic and doesn't value other modes of being. I can't find the article, though. That's probably a good thing. But that's a good example of emancipating our confessions. Downplay logic.



I should say, though, as it might seem from some of my other posts that I am too logical (and that is sometimes a temptation for me), I actually stand in the "anti-intellectual intellectual" tradition of Swift, Johnson, and Orwell (at his better moments). Logic is good, but it is just a tool. The French Enlightenment, by contrast, made it God and pursued it to many ghastly ends.

Postmodernism was correct to react against that. They made the mistake--as Big Eva probably will today--of allying a healthy skepticism with a Marxist-Freudian emphasis on power struggle. It's not simply that there are other modes of being besides rationality. There are and they are quite legitimate. The skeptic today, though, believes that Western rationality is simply a power construct that is used to oppress Eskimos or something.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 9, 2021)

A.Joseph said:


> Well, he’s now promoting female pastors, so I guess he’s wholly outside the camp..... although he links to WhiteHorseInn??? I thought they were orthodox....


As Cho's Twitter bio notes, he is a graduate of WSCAL and has written for White Horse Inn. I haven't paid attention to MR and WHI in at least 10 years, so I don't know how recently he has been associated with it. But I have noticed that some have alleged that Dr. Horton has gone "woke." At the very least, some things he's written about social justice seem to be a departure from the previous Escondido 2k stance that they church shouldn't have anything to do with politics. A related ministry, Core Christianity, has had some "woke" material posted there. In light, at least some of what he says isn't quite as incongruous as it would have been 10-20 years ago coming from someone with those associations.


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 9, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> As Cho's Twitter bio notes, he is a graduate of WSCAL and has written for White Horse Inn. I haven't paid attention to MR and WHI in at least 10 years, so I don't know how recently he has been associated with it. But I have noticed that some have alleged that Dr. Horton has gone "woke." At the very least, some things he's written about social justice seem to be a departure from the previous Escondido 2k stance that they church shouldn't have anything to do with politics. A related ministry, Core Christianity, has had some "woke" material posted there. In light, at least some of what he says isn't quite as incongruous as it would have been 10-20 years ago coming from someone with those associations.


I saw the article and quickly went through it. I only saw "all victims of injustice." Is there more?
It is unfortunate if this is the case especially since I find him to be one of the best, if not the best, of the contemporary stalwart defenders of Reformed orthodoxy.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 9, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> I saw the article and quickly went through it. I only saw "all victims of injustice." Is there more?
> It is unfortunate if this is the case especially since I find him to be one of the best, if not the best, contemporary stalwart defenders of Reformed orthodoxy.
> I suppose that's what happens when one embraces R2K.


Not always. All beliefs can lead to nuttiness. Where’s Joel Mcdurmon today?


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 9, 2021)

I don’t think he should get canceled as a reliable voice but may have flirted at least with the terminology.....


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 9, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> I suppose that's what happens when one embraces R2K.


I don’t believe THAT’S what happens.....


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 9, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Not always. All beliefs can lead to nuttiness. Where’s Joel Mcdurmon today?


True.
I jumped to conclusions. I am editing it.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 16, 2021)

Interesting..... the sin of whiteness? It’s an epidemic.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1371265793648783362


----------

