Genetic differences and racial differences and the sons of Ham
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
That's fine. It just seems like people get a whiff of "racism" (particularly against blacks--not so much when it comes to other groups) and then lose their heads. Maybe it's because I'm not as "exposed" as some people are, but it seems from my perspective to be a heavily lopsided response.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
I understand where you are coming from and I assure you that I am just as offended when whites are discriminated against and treated unjustly. I assure you that I deplore the Nation of Islam's bigoted hatred just as much as I hate the kinists and as such if someone started a thread where the Nation of Islam's propaganda was spouted, I would vehemently condemn it as well. By your own admission, if you haven’t ever been discriminated against then you may not be able to relate completely. I understand and I certainly don’t hold that against you. But I would ask that as someone who’s witnessed discrimination and who’s experienced it, it is very hurtful.
He doesn't just believe blacks are less intellectually gifted. He also thinks whites are less intellectually gifted than Asians, as per the reference to The Bell Curve. I am not offended by either assertion. That doesn't make it true, but in and of itself it is not Biblically problematic.
Many genuine racists use the same line of logic, but they go farther than that. If the chain of thought stops there, then you still have someone who believes in a united, diverse Church, and a gospel that must go everywhere without exception.
As I said, if the man would not deny church office, status as a human, protected legal rights, redemption in Christ, etc. to any group, then you don't have a racist.
He doesn't even meet this definition. He did not say that any race is superior to another. He said some races are generally superior to others at some things. That "at" makes all the difference.
No race has more rights, less condemnation in sin, less need of Christ, or permission to dominate others by force than any other. When he says some nations dominate others because they are more intelligent, that is a descriptive statement about what generally happens in the real world, not an excuse for the "smart" ones to be right in what they've done. When he says that crimes against 'lower' classes of people are alright, or at least less wrong, then we would have a BIG problem.
I really like what Rev. Buchanan said above - if that superiority in intelligence does exist and brought about some of the injustices of the past, it should be a cause for mourning and not celebration.
Canaan was cursed by Noah. Canaan was probably the (one) guilty party, of what exactly we must "read between the lines," but on the whole, the Scripture is vague, and we must not transgress it.
But one thing is certain, Ham isn't cursed, nor is he blessed. Canaan is cursed (and he IS the "youngest son" of Noah who has been mentioned thus far in the text, see v18); Shem and Japheth are blessed.
A great deal has been "read-back" into those obscure lines of Gen.10:24-27, most of which borrows from "the assured results" of science, history, etc. In other words, nothing but post hoc fallacies, as far as the eye can see. Canaan was cursed, and that curse was fulfilled in the book of Joshua. Case closed.
But one thing is certain, Ham isn't cursed, nor is he blessed. Canaan is cursed (and he IS the "youngest son" of Noah who has been mentioned thus far in the text, see v18); Shem and Japheth are blessed.
A great deal has been "read-back" into those obscure lines of Gen.10:24-27, most of which borrows from "the assured results" of science, history, etc. In other words, nothing but post hoc fallacies, as far as the eye can see. Canaan was cursed, and that curse was fulfilled in the book of Joshua. Case closed.
proregno
Puritan Board Freshman
Someone above mentioned it already: we must clearly define our terms, biblically, historically and socially, or else we gonna miss each other big time.
If 'racism' means: one group is inherently/genetically better than another because of their skin color, then yes, I reject it wholeheartedly. But if 'racism' means (what it is mostly used for today, i.e. 'political correctness'): you may not cultivate and protect your own history, culture, customs, patriotism, etc, but be some kind of 'neutral non-sexist non-patriotic only one language speaking worldling', then I reject that also wholeheartedly.
Therefore I agree with 'both' truths of Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations ...", i.e. 'one blood' and 'all nations', both must be acknowledged to honour His Name in all languages and cultures, not create a one world culture for all (the new age ideas, which I think is by far the greatest problem in our day, than patriotism).
What is the reason that some 'races' are more 'advantaged/civilized' than others, why some peoples accept Christianity more than others, at least till the 20th century ? The reason is not race/genetics, but God's grace and predestination:
Canons of Dordt, chapter 2 rejection:
Synod rejects, Who teach: That the reason why God sends the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but rather the fact that one people is better and worthier than another to which the gospel is not communicated. ; For this Moses denies, addressing the people of Israel as follows: Behold, unto Jehovah thy God belongeth heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that is therein. Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day (Deu 10:14-15). And Christ said: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Mat 11:21).
My people, the Boer Calvinist Afrikaners were not better than the pagan black nations because of our skin color, but only because of the 'sole pleasure of God' and His purposes, who gave our Dutch, French and English forefathers (via Europe) the Gospel that transformed and created our people here at the south point of Africa.
BTW, I try myself to speak ethnically/culturally in South Africa, i.e. Zulus, Xhosas, Sotho's, Afrikaners, etc, and not 'black and white', but the last terms are so historically and socially fixed, it is difficult not to use it. So we use it to distinquish between groups and differences, not because of 'racism'.
I have not studied dr. Lee's work in detail, but I think he wants to acknowledge that there are races, and that all races must serve Him in their languages, cultures, customs, etc. Thus all Christians are one in the Lord, but it does not mean we all 'must' be one in language, culture and customs. I do not have a problem with such a view, but I would prefer, as I mentioned above to speak about ethnic nations/cultures/peoples, etc. and not 'race groups'. I think the biblical case for the first is much stronger than the latter.
If 'racism' means: one group is inherently/genetically better than another because of their skin color, then yes, I reject it wholeheartedly. But if 'racism' means (what it is mostly used for today, i.e. 'political correctness'): you may not cultivate and protect your own history, culture, customs, patriotism, etc, but be some kind of 'neutral non-sexist non-patriotic only one language speaking worldling', then I reject that also wholeheartedly.
Therefore I agree with 'both' truths of Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations ...", i.e. 'one blood' and 'all nations', both must be acknowledged to honour His Name in all languages and cultures, not create a one world culture for all (the new age ideas, which I think is by far the greatest problem in our day, than patriotism).
What is the reason that some 'races' are more 'advantaged/civilized' than others, why some peoples accept Christianity more than others, at least till the 20th century ? The reason is not race/genetics, but God's grace and predestination:
Canons of Dordt, chapter 2 rejection:
Synod rejects, Who teach: That the reason why God sends the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but rather the fact that one people is better and worthier than another to which the gospel is not communicated. ; For this Moses denies, addressing the people of Israel as follows: Behold, unto Jehovah thy God belongeth heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that is therein. Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day (Deu 10:14-15). And Christ said: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Mat 11:21).
My people, the Boer Calvinist Afrikaners were not better than the pagan black nations because of our skin color, but only because of the 'sole pleasure of God' and His purposes, who gave our Dutch, French and English forefathers (via Europe) the Gospel that transformed and created our people here at the south point of Africa.
BTW, I try myself to speak ethnically/culturally in South Africa, i.e. Zulus, Xhosas, Sotho's, Afrikaners, etc, and not 'black and white', but the last terms are so historically and socially fixed, it is difficult not to use it. So we use it to distinquish between groups and differences, not because of 'racism'.
I have not studied dr. Lee's work in detail, but I think he wants to acknowledge that there are races, and that all races must serve Him in their languages, cultures, customs, etc. Thus all Christians are one in the Lord, but it does not mean we all 'must' be one in language, culture and customs. I do not have a problem with such a view, but I would prefer, as I mentioned above to speak about ethnic nations/cultures/peoples, etc. and not 'race groups'. I think the biblical case for the first is much stronger than the latter.
proregno
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is a quote of one of the ‘apartheidthinkers’, dr. HG Stoker, a Calvinist Afrikaner philosopher from SA (who were also a good friend of dr. Cornelius van Til), in which he writes about the SA situation, back in 1957:
”The European group, however, is not prepared to sacrifice its rights of existence as a separate national and racial entity, and is determined to retain control of its own destiny. Accordingly, racial friction and animosity will result, if the policy of liberalism is effectively put into practice.
On the other hand, the policy of apartheid intends to ensure for each group the fullest opportunity for self-expression and realisation of its aspirations, and an unfettered existence. The execution of this policy will accordingly not necessarily result in race tensions and clashes, but will provide a better guarantee of mutual respect, understanding, peace and friendship. It accepts the duty of creating and of helping to create the separate opportunities for development of the Bantu group ('Bantu' was another name for black people - slc) to a control of its own affairs in all human spheres. It expects of the advanced Bantu individuals to identify themselves with, to seek as leaders the welfare of their group and to acquire within their group the privileges and positions that Europeans enjoy within their group.
It is clear, that, on account of its cultural superiority (not ‘racial superiority’ – slc), for the foreseeable future the Europeans will remain the leading group. But the ultimate ideal of apartheid — when the differences of cultural development between these groups has been appropriately diminished is that both groups together (e.g. as self- governing states) on a basis of equivalence (resp. equality) will have to control in sonic form of allied or federated co-operation the destiny of South Africa. There is no middle way between apartheid and integration, as it would lead to assimilation. In the present racial crisis the only and inescapable choice is that between apartheid and integration.
I may add that the overwhelming majority of Afrikaans- as well as English- speaking South Africans are in favour of apartheid; that the majority of urbanised Bantu leaders favour integration and assimilation; and that the Bantu chieftains in the Bantu areas increasingly appear to favour the Government’s policy apartheid.”
Source: Oorsprong en Rigting, deel 1 (Kaapstad, Tafelberg Uitgewers, 1967), bl.216. This article by Stoker first appeared in April 1957, under the title: “At the Crossroads: Apartheid and University Freedom in South Africa”.
Unfortunately, especially since the 1970's, the urbanized black people (who were heavily influenced and motivated by marxist liberal white politicans and theologians and churches, from the inside and outside of SA), rejected the 'Bantu chieftains' and other moderate black leaders who wanted to work together with the white government for a peaceful solution. The revolutionary liberals and communists won the day, and therefore Marxist leaders like Mandela and liberation theologians like Desmond Tutu and Alan Boesak are the heroes and idols of the new SA.
Yes, my Afrikaner people were also guilty of many sins, and there were biblical and other problems with apartheid, but now we have it even worse. Moving from forbidding people to live and trade in some places (apartheid old SA), to forbidding people to live as such (abortion new SA) is in no way 'reconciliation, peace, and reformation'.
I myself do not prefer to move back to the old SA, I do reject the racism-problems of the past (which were more a social evil than a government policy), but I do believe that under Hendrik Verwoerd, whom the black leaders respected very much, they were much more hopeful than both the later 'Vorster apartheid years' and the hell we have now called the 'new SA'. But Verwoerd were assasinated ...
May our Lord have mercy on all His children among all nations here in SA, that in Christ we will have godly leaders one day again from all our nations, who repect both the unity 'and' diversity we all have in Christ our Lord and Saviour.
For those interested, here is the best balanced and biblical reformed critique I have seen thus far of apartheid:
South African Tragedy Restored ?
”The European group, however, is not prepared to sacrifice its rights of existence as a separate national and racial entity, and is determined to retain control of its own destiny. Accordingly, racial friction and animosity will result, if the policy of liberalism is effectively put into practice.
On the other hand, the policy of apartheid intends to ensure for each group the fullest opportunity for self-expression and realisation of its aspirations, and an unfettered existence. The execution of this policy will accordingly not necessarily result in race tensions and clashes, but will provide a better guarantee of mutual respect, understanding, peace and friendship. It accepts the duty of creating and of helping to create the separate opportunities for development of the Bantu group ('Bantu' was another name for black people - slc) to a control of its own affairs in all human spheres. It expects of the advanced Bantu individuals to identify themselves with, to seek as leaders the welfare of their group and to acquire within their group the privileges and positions that Europeans enjoy within their group.
It is clear, that, on account of its cultural superiority (not ‘racial superiority’ – slc), for the foreseeable future the Europeans will remain the leading group. But the ultimate ideal of apartheid — when the differences of cultural development between these groups has been appropriately diminished is that both groups together (e.g. as self- governing states) on a basis of equivalence (resp. equality) will have to control in sonic form of allied or federated co-operation the destiny of South Africa. There is no middle way between apartheid and integration, as it would lead to assimilation. In the present racial crisis the only and inescapable choice is that between apartheid and integration.
I may add that the overwhelming majority of Afrikaans- as well as English- speaking South Africans are in favour of apartheid; that the majority of urbanised Bantu leaders favour integration and assimilation; and that the Bantu chieftains in the Bantu areas increasingly appear to favour the Government’s policy apartheid.”
Source: Oorsprong en Rigting, deel 1 (Kaapstad, Tafelberg Uitgewers, 1967), bl.216. This article by Stoker first appeared in April 1957, under the title: “At the Crossroads: Apartheid and University Freedom in South Africa”.
Unfortunately, especially since the 1970's, the urbanized black people (who were heavily influenced and motivated by marxist liberal white politicans and theologians and churches, from the inside and outside of SA), rejected the 'Bantu chieftains' and other moderate black leaders who wanted to work together with the white government for a peaceful solution. The revolutionary liberals and communists won the day, and therefore Marxist leaders like Mandela and liberation theologians like Desmond Tutu and Alan Boesak are the heroes and idols of the new SA.
Yes, my Afrikaner people were also guilty of many sins, and there were biblical and other problems with apartheid, but now we have it even worse. Moving from forbidding people to live and trade in some places (apartheid old SA), to forbidding people to live as such (abortion new SA) is in no way 'reconciliation, peace, and reformation'.
I myself do not prefer to move back to the old SA, I do reject the racism-problems of the past (which were more a social evil than a government policy), but I do believe that under Hendrik Verwoerd, whom the black leaders respected very much, they were much more hopeful than both the later 'Vorster apartheid years' and the hell we have now called the 'new SA'. But Verwoerd were assasinated ...
May our Lord have mercy on all His children among all nations here in SA, that in Christ we will have godly leaders one day again from all our nations, who repect both the unity 'and' diversity we all have in Christ our Lord and Saviour.
For those interested, here is the best balanced and biblical reformed critique I have seen thus far of apartheid:
South African Tragedy Restored ?
Tis true. Plus winters seem to kill off many microbes. Yet, the norse became a great civilization with sagas and kingdoms whereby other cold weather tribes, like the eskimos and laps, merely remain a sort of curiosity.
---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------
How I may have left an open door to this fellow whereby he felt free to express to me his true opinions:
The genesis of my conversation with this man was when I began to talk negatively about the books of Jared Diamond (Guns, Germ and Steel) whereby Dr. Diamond asserts that all differences in the world are due to environment and external factors, eg, all peoples and races are where they are at today merely due to what sort of grains grow in their region and what sort of natural resources exist there and what sort of diseases exist in their region. I.e., the story of the world is due to non-mental, non-cultural and non-religious factors and this explains why some peoples are dominant over others.
So, I strongly fought against this view and asserted, instead, that religion, culture and worldview were pivotal in whether a culture ascended or declined and fell.
Environment shapes man, but even moreso in the history of the world, man shapes his environment.
Strangely enough, I was contending against Christians who were also evolutionists of a theistic type and the man who most agreed with me seems to be turning out to be a reformed kinist of some sort.
...So I pointed out the great organization of the Roman Empire, etc. A culture rises or falls based mostly on societal organization, which heavily involves cultural, religious and worldview considerations.
This third man, then, volunteered to me, "Don't stop at merely saying that religion, worldview and social factors play a part in determining which cream rises to the top - you must also consider race and genetic stock of a people as well." He then stretched my argument and added his own wrinkle, that inherent racial and genetic differences also played a part in why some cultures rose and others fell.
He, too, was fighting against an evolutionary and merely physicalist view of world history and so I lent him my ear. Ironically, we were on the same side of the battle even though he may have taken his arguments too far by adding race instead of worldview, religion and societal (non-physical) factors...and he merely replaced an evolutionary determinism of environment with a sort of racial determinism, which is equally unhelpful.
---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------
Wow, very interesting!
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
.
Then don't compare them to the Eskimos, compare them to the Mongols who in every measurable way of looking at things made the Norse to look like a bunch of small time losers.
This is getting frustrating. Sorry. But surely and educated man like you knows that the Eskimos and Mongols are both of the same basic race. Surely an educated man knows the kingdom/empire of Ghengis, Tamurlane etc.... was 20 times as big and had 100 times the people and lasted 3 times longer than the Norse Kingdom.
Forgive me, but put my mind at ease and tell me you know that the Mongol empire dwarfed the Norse empire in every single way possible for one group of people to be superior to another. And please, please tell me why you used Eskimos instead of Mongols.
Sometimes you play the devil's advocate. Please tell me this is one of those times and you're really actually heard of Ghengis Khan, and you are aware it gets just as cold in Mongolia as Norway.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
That's better!!!!!!!!!! We'll make a Presbyterian of you yet. I just get so irritated when good, solid men get caught up in this fundy baptist style loading on piles of data as if bulk is the same as quality.
Sure, Eskimos weren't as advanced as the Norse (although they killed them off in Greenland
)
Hey!!! I know!! The Slovenes haven't had a successful Empire or great inventors or famous poets for a long time!!! Well, the Japanese have, there for since the Japanese have had larger Empires, more succesfull inventors and more famous poets than the Slovenes I WILL WRITE AN ARTICLE PROVING THAT ASIANS ARE SUPERIOR THAN WHITES in warfare, science and art!!!!!
And that's of course the same thing you are doing. Right?
Sure, Eskimos weren't as advanced as the Norse (although they killed them off in Greenland
)Hey!!! I know!! The Slovenes haven't had a successful Empire or great inventors or famous poets for a long time!!! Well, the Japanese have, there for since the Japanese have had larger Empires, more succesfull inventors and more famous poets than the Slovenes I WILL WRITE AN ARTICLE PROVING THAT ASIANS ARE SUPERIOR THAN WHITES in warfare, science and art!!!!!
And that's of course the same thing you are doing. Right?
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
No, you're a first class intellect unfortunately dealing with a bunch of losers. With the occasional breath of fresh air.
But seriously, you can see why the deal about cold weather and Whites and achievement as put forth by that well meaning deficient isn't taken seriously by educated people even in the American South?
But seriously, you can see why the deal about cold weather and Whites and achievement as put forth by that well meaning deficient isn't taken seriously by educated people even in the American South?
TimV:
A counter-argument that I might anticipate from him:
"But we stilll have the sagas and great Norse tales, and democratic assemblies, showing the productive energy of the Norse. And the Dutch were very constructive as well despite small numbers, whereas the Mongols and Chinese were vast hordes which were parasitic upon other civilizations and expanded through mere conquest and numbers (any idiot can do that)."
So, I guess my counter-move would be to dig up the achievement of Tamur the Lame, etc.
And China and the Far East was highly advanced and much more advanced than Europe at the time of the travels of Marco Polo, but they soon after retreated into an isolationism (as did Japan a little later....which still perplexes me as to exactly why)....
Every version of this man's view of history has whites coming out on top due to mental superiority. God, after all, ordained the boundaries and gifts of certain peoples. And he also seems to include the Greeks and Romans as whites as well, despite their shading being a bit darker than the Norse. He doesn't seem to be aware of the glories of Byzantium, either.
P.s., China and India are only catching up to the West now due to Western technology being globalized and we did Japan a favor by being guilted into rebuilding their nation after we bombed them into submission (the Japanese only did so well in WWII at the start, anyway, due to their extreme cruelty...the Asians are like ants that do not respect individualism or the rights of individuals, like the asiatic-like clones on Stars Wars), and it was very convenient that those bombs cleared out all that factory space for expanding industrialization. P.s.s. We also "rescued" the blacks in the US from heathenism, and US blacks (former slaves) ought to be thankful they were carried over here instead of being left in Africa, American Black Chattel slavery turning out to be a long-term blessing upon US blacks.
So, this is the worldview of this reformed christian. At least he is not an evolutionist and he sided with me as I critiqued the views of Jared Diamond. But, he wants to add quite a bit more to my assertions than I am comfortable with.
-
-
P.s.s.s. This topic causes a lot of heat. But, have churches ever disciplined their members for views such as this? Have churches ever disciplined members for "racism" and why, if this topic causes so much heat, is it tolerated? Is the amount of heat these discussions generate proportional to the amount of heinousness of these views?
---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 AM ----------
Andres,
What should the Church do to combat racism?
Can one espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities in specific fields without being racist? What if one of those fields involves intellectual pursuits or giftedness at societal organization?
If a member espouses beliefs such as I have described, and if those beliefs are racist, should they be disciplined by their church or denomination?
A counter-argument that I might anticipate from him:
"But we stilll have the sagas and great Norse tales, and democratic assemblies, showing the productive energy of the Norse. And the Dutch were very constructive as well despite small numbers, whereas the Mongols and Chinese were vast hordes which were parasitic upon other civilizations and expanded through mere conquest and numbers (any idiot can do that)."
So, I guess my counter-move would be to dig up the achievement of Tamur the Lame, etc.
And China and the Far East was highly advanced and much more advanced than Europe at the time of the travels of Marco Polo, but they soon after retreated into an isolationism (as did Japan a little later....which still perplexes me as to exactly why)....
Every version of this man's view of history has whites coming out on top due to mental superiority. God, after all, ordained the boundaries and gifts of certain peoples. And he also seems to include the Greeks and Romans as whites as well, despite their shading being a bit darker than the Norse. He doesn't seem to be aware of the glories of Byzantium, either.
P.s., China and India are only catching up to the West now due to Western technology being globalized and we did Japan a favor by being guilted into rebuilding their nation after we bombed them into submission (the Japanese only did so well in WWII at the start, anyway, due to their extreme cruelty...the Asians are like ants that do not respect individualism or the rights of individuals, like the asiatic-like clones on Stars Wars), and it was very convenient that those bombs cleared out all that factory space for expanding industrialization. P.s.s. We also "rescued" the blacks in the US from heathenism, and US blacks (former slaves) ought to be thankful they were carried over here instead of being left in Africa, American Black Chattel slavery turning out to be a long-term blessing upon US blacks.
So, this is the worldview of this reformed christian. At least he is not an evolutionist and he sided with me as I critiqued the views of Jared Diamond. But, he wants to add quite a bit more to my assertions than I am comfortable with.
-
-
P.s.s.s. This topic causes a lot of heat. But, have churches ever disciplined their members for views such as this? Have churches ever disciplined members for "racism" and why, if this topic causes so much heat, is it tolerated? Is the amount of heat these discussions generate proportional to the amount of heinousness of these views?
---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 AM ----------
Andres,
What should the Church do to combat racism?
Can one espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities in specific fields without being racist? What if one of those fields involves intellectual pursuits or giftedness at societal organization?
If a member espouses beliefs such as I have described, and if those beliefs are racist, should they be disciplined by their church or denomination?
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
I would expect such an argument from him as well, since he's a half-wit. Even today Mongolia has 3 million people while Norway has 5 million people. And the proportions would have been the same back 1000 years ago. So, the man would be saying 5 million is a small number and 3 million a vast horde. It's a cheap shot, I know, but in Reformed circles he'd be ignored as an uneducated conspiracy nut.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
Perg, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue civilly about this sensitive subject. I apologize if I came off as being “overly-sensitive” to the subject, but as I mentioned, it holds a lot of weight for me. For some reason, what I consider racist views, have too-long been either swept under the rug at best or justified at worst in the church. Consider the fact that men who would call themselves biblical Christians would even attempt to rationalize their bigotry and call it kinism. Or consider the fact that many people still champion theologians such as Dabney, even though he spewed some blatantly racist ideas. And for those who would contend that this was in the past, I personally know of a pastor (who is white BTW) who left a reformed pastorate in Mississippi approximately 10 years ago because people in the church, including leadership, held discriminatory views against blacks.
Now to answer your questions, what should the church do to combat racism? Well first, we should treat it for what it is, sin. How does the church handle other sins? First, we always point men to Christ, the sinless one, who is the only answer for our sinful natures. Next, we preach/teach the whole counsel of God, which condemns the sinfulness of discrimination, judgementalism, and hatred and also shows us how we are all one body in Christ. And finally, yes, I think church discipline should be a reality for those who refuse to repent of racist views. Consider how damaging racism is to the church…if a member discriminates against any type of ethinicity, then a pastor can pretty much guarantee that the church will never have any members of that ethnicity in their church.
Frankly, I don’t understand why it’s so imperative that we espouse racial differences and superioties/inferiorities. Do you want to be judged based solely upon your skin color? I certainly don’t. I’m not saying that we can’t embrace and celebrate differences in cultures, but when we say this ethnicity is ______, it’s offensive because it’s just not always true. I’m sure we can all think of Godly,successful blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc just as we can all think of pagan, criminal blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc. I’m certainly not a MLK Jr fan, but I would have to agree with him that we should judge people on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
Exactly. The relative "success" of largely white, western societies has nothing to do with skin color. The reason the white societies have been dominant for the past few centuries is a complex almagamation of factors ultimately directed by God's sovereignty. Did the Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon or Salamis simply because they had slightly lighter skin? Did the Europeans defeat the Native Americans simply because the former has white skin while the latter has darker skin (a trait the early explorers found immensely appealing)? Of course not! Many, many factors centuries in the making come in to play in these situations. Reducing such analysis to skin color or simple genetics is intellectually hollow.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Pergy
It's a big subject and involves a lot of historical "what ifs" that only the Lord knows. E.g. What if Christianity took root in Africa in the first century and only took root in Europe in the nineteenth century?
What if Roman Catholicism took root in North America in the seventeenth century, and Protestantism took root in South America in the sixteenth century?
Sometimes these historical thought experiments lead to fruitful conclusions and lessons.
It's a big subject and involves a lot of historical "what ifs" that only the Lord knows. E.g. What if Christianity took root in Africa in the first century and only took root in Europe in the nineteenth century?
What if Roman Catholicism took root in North America in the seventeenth century, and Protestantism took root in South America in the sixteenth century?
Sometimes these historical thought experiments lead to fruitful conclusions and lessons.
Doesn't make it right, though.
And did some great things in spite of it. Winston Churchill also had some fairly racist views. We shouldn't whitewash our history, but learn from it and learn to learn from people, warts and all. All saints are sinners. Dabney was a white southerner during the Civil War and reconstruction era---cut him some slack.
It did. Carthage and Alexandria were two of the most important centers of Christian scholarship in the early centuries. They were just wiped out by Vandals and Muslim hordes.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
It would be helpful if you left in the name of the person you're quoting so as to limit confusion.
I knew that if I brought Dabney’s name up, that someone would defend him here. This idea of “cut him some slack” is exactly what I’m talking about. Why should we cut Dabney some slack in this area? Look I’m not saying he was the devil or that there is nothing we can ever learn from him, but he was unashamedly racist. And so what if he was a white southerner during the Civil War and reconstruction era. Would someone living in Sodom get a pass if they condoned homosexuality since it was the majority view in that context? In Christian circles, sin is usually called sin and is rejected, but for some reason racism seems to get a pass.
Because he's a sinner like us, and he's part of our theological heritage, like it or not. Kuyper was an imperialist, Dabney defended slavery, Luther railed against Jews. Our theological heroes often have dark sides---why's that a reason to categorically reject them?
I'm not saying "give it a pass" I'm saying it's not a reason to reject Dabney in toto as you seem to suggest. It's a fallacious ad hominem. I find Dabney a good and useful theologian in spite of his racism.
Andres:
Do you consider me to be at fault because I did not really get angered at this guy but merely got really curious and asked more clarifying questions? Should I have gotten a healthy dose of righteous anger, and did I sin due to my desire for him to explain more and explore his views deeper?
---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 PM ----------
Andres:
If Dabney lived today, should he be church disciplined?
Got it! I just wrote that down in my notes, "Dragons trump seals and deer of any kind..."
But the Welsh had dragons and they got stomped on by the English . . . .
- Status
Similar threads
