Genetic differences and racial differences and the sons of Ham

[Notthemama1984]

Perg,

Although I am not Andrew, I would say that Dabney should be under church discipline if he were alive today. How can you read the following and not think so?

It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…

The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…

The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.

 

[TimV]

But the Welsh had dragons and they got stomped on by the English

Until they got tired of it and the Welsh Tudors just took over and then called themselves English. The Welsh are a bit sneaky. In fact the rumor has it that the Devil is Welsh, what with Davy Jones being as Welsh as Welsh can be. In fact, while the English pray on their knees, the Welsh prey on their neighbors. I'm proud to have a Welsh name. After all, we produced Celestius and Pelagius as well as Jones.

 

[Andres]

Why should we cut Dabney some slack in this area?

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?

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.

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.

Are you really going to contend that because we're all sinners, it makes it okay to sin? Surely you don’t really believe what you’re positing above. As for rejecting Dabney as a whole, I have not suggested this. What I have suggested is calling his racism what it is and rejecting that.

Let me use another example and see if you agree with me here. I mentioned earlier that I didn’t care for MLK Jr. The reason being is that he was an adulterer and he held to some aberrant theology. Now, did he do wonderful things for civil rights in this country? Resoundingly yes, and I therefore very much respect and appreciate him in this area. However, I cannot ignore the adultery and poor doctrine and as such, I regularly let folks know about this side of King Jr’s life when he comes up. It’s simply a matter of being honest about the man and the facts surrounding him. We should applaud King Jr’s and Dabney’s commendable contributions, but we should also condemn their sins.

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 AM ----------

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?

You are an intelligent man and I don’t doubt for a second that you are more than capable of handling yourself in a discussion. I don’t see how listening to someone, even if what they are saying is wrong/stupid/sinful, would constitute sin on the hearers part. I would expect someone who hears a view contrary to theirs, especially when it comes to the scriptures, to oppose said view though. Perg, have you at any point let this man know you disagree with him? Perhaps, I should back up…do you disagree with him?

Let’s use a different example: If a man explains to me that Jesus wasn’t God, but was simply a wise teacher and He was actually married to Mary Magdalene, how should I react? Sure, I could listen to his explanations, but at some point am I expected to correct this gentleman? Don’t I at least owe it to our Lord’s honor to speak up?

Andres: If Dabney lived today, should he be church disciplined?

Racism is a sin. If a church member is living in unrepentant sin, my understanding is that church discipline is to be exercised. Therefore I affirm, yes, Dabney should be disciplined if he refused to repent of his sin.

Perg, do you consider racism a sin? Do you think Dabney’s views on African-Americans were racist?

 

[kvanlaan]

First off, the Welsh simply didn't have enough dragons to advance their society to a point where they could withstand the more heavily-dragoned English. There was a dragon gap that was simply insurmountable.

Secondly, the Ethiopians were the only African nation not to be colonized/conquered until the Italians came along and with airplanes and tanks finally beat foot-soldiers with rifles of questionable pedigree. That dynasty stood until 1974 when it was toppled by a combination of famine and communism.

 

[Philip]

TimV

After all, we produced Celestius and Pelagius as well as Jones.

Not to mention St. Patrick (who was a Briton, and therefore Welsh).

And as for dragon superiority:

1) The English stole their dragons from the Welsh

2) The Welsh are the only country in the world with a dragon on their flag

3) The Welsh don't just have dragons: they have Pendragons

Are you really going to contend that because we're all sinners, it makes it okay to sin?

Obviously not. I have not said or implied this. My point is that we should note that Dabney was in error on this issue, that he was deceived in the peculiar sin of his time here, and then move on.

We should applaud King Jr’s and Dabney’s commendable contributions, but we should also condemn their sins.

Agreed---I just prefer not to dwell on the sin.

Therefore I affirm, yes, Dabney should be disciplined if he refused to repent of his sin.

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist. Let's also recognize that the church of his time was guilty of the sin of racism. I understand this, and I speak as one very much conscious of a rich heritage in Southern Presbyterianism (my family has a first edition of Dabney's lectures that was owned by my great-great-great gandfather, who pastored a church in Clarksville, VA during the Late Unpleasantness). Yes, Southern Presbyterianism has a long history of racism that we're still getting over, in some places---but let's recognize that racism was a peculiar sin of the 19th century. We can't expect anyone to rise too much above their time.

 

[py3ak]

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist.

That's a charitable speculation, but still a speculation.

 

[Philip]

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist.

That's a charitable speculation, but still a speculation.

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.

 

[Andres]

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't be racist.

That's a charitable speculation, but still a speculation.

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.

It's funny because you seem to really think you're defending your views, but with each post you type, you just reinforce what I've been saying over and over.

 

[Philip]

It's funny because you seem to really think you're defending your views, but with each post you type, you just reinforce what I've been saying over and over.

Andres, I've learned that it's a good idea to refrain from judging a man too harshly until you've walked in his shoes a bit. Just a lesson I learned from Atticus Finch.

Not saying racism's ok, just saying that I understand the kind of circumstances, both cultural and experiential, that would make me likely to sin in this regard. Dabney was no worse a sinner, for his racism, than you or I. Thanks be to God that one day all of that will be gone.

 

[Rufus]

But the Welsh had dragons and they got stomped on by the English

Until they got tired of it and the Welsh Tudors just took over and then called themselves English. The Welsh are a bit sneaky. In fact the rumor has it that the Devil is Welsh, what with Davy Jones being as Welsh as Welsh can be. In fact, while the English pray on their knees, the Welsh prey on their neighbors. I'm proud to have a Welsh name. After all, we produced Celestius and Pelagius as well as Jones.

My last name is Scottish. We produced Presbyterianism and Knox, you can say thank you later. Therefore I presume that the Scots are genetically superior to Welsh heretics (with the exception of Lloyd-Jones).

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.

Agreed, my Dad watched cartoons that have since been banned growing up and never thought anything of it as being racist as a child, and slavery was common in the 19th century, Whitefield owned slaves (although he actually believed they had souls and treated them well), and my family could have very well owned slaves (Georgian).

 

[Andres]

Thanks be to God that one day all of that will be gone.

For all our differences, we can certainly agree on this.

 

[py3ak]

If Dabney lived today, he wouldn't have 19th-century sensibilities, but 21st-century sensibilities. This is what I meant. If I had lived through the Late Unpleasantness and Reconstruction in the South, I would probably be a racist too. Certain sins are peculiar to certain eras.

No; certain eras may be characterized by greater acceptance of certain sins than others, but the root of those sins are present in all times. I don't believe any sin is confined (as the word "peculiar" suggests) to a certain era. Just as there were non-racists during that era, so there are racists now. Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points. And finally, the very fact that sensibilities change from era to era shows that there are catalysts to change in the eras in question - people not dominated by the prevailing zeitgeist.

 

[Philip]

Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points.

Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards.

Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.

Just as there were non-racists during that era

Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."

 

[Andres]

Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points.

Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards.

Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.

Just as there were non-racists during that era

Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."

So if we're just products of our environments, can't the sinner stand before God on judgment day and say, "well God, you had me born in ____ during ____ time, so I couldn't help my sinfullness!

 

[Rufus]

Furthermore, Dabney had a strong and independent mind: likely not be in lockstep with his contemporaries on all points.

Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards.

Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.

Just as there were non-racists during that era

Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."

So if we're just products of our environments, can't the sinner stand before God on judgment day and say, "well God, you had me born in ____ during ____ time, so I couldn't help my sinfullness!

Or they could not have recognized it as sin as we do today.

 

[py3ak]

Are you suggesting that he thought independently of his historical context? Every thinker writes in a context and to take him out of that context and pretend that he should somehow have been "above it" is to fail to realize the way that we are shaped by culture, strong and independent minds included. Yes we shape culture, and it shapes us. The independent thinker is the one who sees a little ahead. Even people like Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain who had fairer views on race would still be considered racist by today's standards.

Perhaps "peculiar" is the wrong word to use, but certainly the 19th century was a century where racism was more prevalent.

Just as there were non-racists during that era

Like who? I might think of Booker T. Washington or any number of early black leaders in the postbellum era, but I can't think of any major white thinker of that era of whom I can honestly say "not racist." The best I can say is "fair for his day."

No; if you thought I was suggesting that you might want to look at my post again. It does make it sound like you give too much weight to the influence of culture if you take a remark to the effect that it is not absolute to indicate a total denial of its influence: it's a continuum, not an on/off switch. You may also want to reconsider whether today's standards are in all points the most reasonable. I think you might find Thomas Peck to be a good example from among the circle of Dabney's acquaintances, and a little while later B.B. Warfield takes a strong and clear stand against racism, and I think also, going earlier, that it might be difficult to convict Thomas Chalmers of racism.

 

[Philip]

Andres

So if we're just products of our environments, can't the sinner stand before God on judgment day and say, "well God, you had me born in ____ during ____ time, so I couldn't help my sinfullness!

Absolutely not. However, Dabney stands under the same blood of Christ that we do and as such, we ought to extend the same charity to him as has been extended to us.

Ruben

You may also want to reconsider whether today's standards are in all points the most reasonable.

I don't think so, in fact. Part of my whole point about charity is a stand against chronological snobbery. I'm not any more enlightened than Dabney, Chalmers, Warfield, or anyone. Any light that I have is from the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, Lincoln (from his words) clearly thought blacks inferior to whites, as did Theodore Roosevelt, US Grant, and others who advanced the cause of black liberation and the end of racist policies (actually, some of the fairer figures of the era were Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, both of whom favored ending slavery on moral grounds).

I just find it hard to judge these kinds of blind spots too harshly when I have my own blind spots that I can't see.

 

[py3ak]

If you can find in my words advocacy for judging others harshly, please point it out. I don't think you should lump Dabney and Warfield into the same category on this point, however, given that one of them was a racist and one of them wasn't. No one is implying that you are more enlightened than either of those men; but it is still wrong to suggest that everyone is totally enslaved to their time, or that all are equally unenlightened. Universal egalitarianism is also a fallacy.

 

[Philip]

I don't think you should lump Dabney and Warfield into the same category on this point

I don't think I did. In listing them together, I was not trying to imply that their views are similar on this point.

but it is still wrong to suggest that everyone is totally enslaved to their time

Yet we're all products of it. Those who see beyond their time generally do so in response to it. All I'm trying to argue for here is a bit of charity for those who are no worse than you or I, and who were saved in spite of their racism. I'm not trying to imply that you are being overly harsh, just that it's easy to be harsh in hindsight. The whole Southern Presbyterian tradition sinned in this respect and we shouldn't try to whitewash it. But we should also try to extend some charity to those caught up in it who were, nonetheless, saved by grace alone.

 

[py3ak]

Fair enough, Philip. Since Dabney was the criticized theologian in question, you can see how listing him along with Warfield as people than whom you are not more enlightened can come across as implying an equivalence between their views that doesn't exist.

Charity can be extended to their persons; and I haven't seen anyone here arguing that Dabney was not saved by grace. But if we extend charity to their aberrant positions as such we put ourselves in the realm of excusing what ought to be opposed, and what someone in Dabney's same tradition, like Girardeau, did oppose. Dabney did have Scripture; and he could have and should have learned from Scripture that racism was sin. In many things we offend all: and yet the light of the word still reveals what sin is, and calls upon us to oppose it. If you place the force of historical influence too high on the continuum, the effect is to excuse characteristic failings and imply the impossibility of reform - even though it is often just the characteristic failings of an age that God's church successfully opposes.

 

[Pergamum]

Andres:

You wrote:

You are an intelligent man and I don’t doubt for a second that you are more than capable of handling yourself in a discussion. I don’t see how listening to someone, even if what they are saying is wrong/stupid/sinful, would constitute sin on the hearers part. I would expect someone who hears a view contrary to theirs, especially when it comes to the scriptures, to oppose said view though. Perg, have you at any point let this man know you disagree with him? Perhaps, I should back up…do you disagree with him?

Let’s use a different example: If a man explains to me that Jesus wasn’t God, but was simply a wise teacher and He was actually married to Mary Magdalene, how should I react? Sure, I could listen to his explanations, but at some point am I expected to correct this gentleman? Don’t I at least owe it to our Lord’s honor to speak up?
Perg, do you consider racism a sin? Do you think Dabney’s views on African-Americans were racist?

In the discussion we were having, we were mainly discussing Jared Diamond's views that environment shapes man instead of man primarily shaping environment. So, strangely enough, he was on my side of that argument. While I advocated that religion and worldview and the societal ability to organize, plus the strength and numbers of one's enemies determined the rise or decline of a culture, he went me one further and added racial and genetic factors, stating that some cultures AND races, were in fact, less apt to organize and some just inherently were more prone to tribalism. He then pointed to the situation in Africa and in Melanesia, and I had to admit that, yes, presently, these two black areas did seem socially disorganized. Then I mentioned, "What about the white balkans...I think you are filtering the data through your own beliefs..." Then I asked some clarifying questions, and he answered with more theory, to which I merely replied, "Hmmmm..interesting." and moved on to further discuss diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

So, I didn't really engage him and I wasn't really offended by his views at that time, just...more like curious....asking myself later (like right now) whether his views were merely a solitary abberation or more representative of wider currents of thought, especially from reformed people.

Indifference when confronted by some sins is, itself sin, so how would I judge my own lack of strong feeling? More than that, I actually wanted to hear more (I was intrigued) and asked him several clarifying questions in order to hear more.

You asked me about racism. Truthfully, it is not clear to me what racism exactly is.

I believe that Kenyans make better marathoners than eskimos, and some of this might be due to their body-type (i.e. genetics). Also, while I disagree with the conclusions of the Bell Curve, I am not angered that scientists would actually study IQ differences among the races, as the media was. Such things ought to be studied, I believe. While I believe in the equality of all man in his worth, I do see cultural and societal differences, but am not ready to say that these differences are also racially and genetically determined (for that is just another form of determinism, even worse than Jared Diamond's determinism of external environmental factors only).

Is racism a sin? Hmmm...I don't know...

If one posits that there are, in fact, genetic differences among the races, but that all races are equal in worth even though not equal in all abilities, this may or may not be sin.

If one acts in a way which treats any person or any class of person in a way which demeans their inherent worth, this appears to be sinful racism and must be acted against.


Last question/observation: Reading through 19th Century British journals concerning missions to Africa there was sort of a Christian paternalism, like we were the parents trying to help out an ignorant child (the Africans). I am not sure this was racism, especially since it was the christians and missionaries that worked hardest to end the slave trade in Africa, but certain statements even by these certainly can be shocking to 21st-Century ears. Victorian attitudes towards "the savages" don't seem very politically correct and this also impacted missions to Africa as well, though, on the whole, the missionaries were usually the most ardent defenders of the human rights of the Africans. It seems very plausible that such views that blacks had genetic differences which disallowed tidy social organization and that they needed the leadership of whites was a very widespread opinion in those days, and may still persist among some.

Andres, what do you think of Dr. Nigel Lee's linked article?

---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

Andres: p.s. I looked up some Kinist stuff against inter-racial marriage on the web and strongly disagree, though I was not angered by it, because their arguments seemed so silly.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I think a more interesting question than whether or not Dabney would be under church discipline is, would Dr. Nigel Lee be put under church discipline for the views expressed in his article and if he tried to teach others to believe the same way?

CT

 

[TimV]

Putting someone under church discipline for those sorts of beliefs would be like doing the same for fundy baptist style JKO thinking or that the government brought down the twin towers or Obama wasn't born in the US or the nazis have bases on the moon. You can't discipline conspiracy nuts except on divisiveness issues, and that's where normally the "trying to teach others" would come in.

Crazy medical advice is my pet irritation in Reformed circles. The lady that has her kid wear amber around his neck to ward off disease is one thing, but if a person were to say to someone impressionable that they should go off meds because Western medicine is a big hoax etc.. and the person dies or becomes very sick would be a likely candidate for church discipline I think. I'm about ready to file a case as a matter of fact.

View about differing IQs in race aren't subject to discipline since it would get thrown out on appeal. After all it's true. Views about different races having genetic advantages to organise aren't subject to discipline even though it's a sign of a lack of education. Really, to say Romans had a genetic predisposition towards organisation when it took a Mussolini to get Italian trains to run on time is just nut job stuff, like the Norse cold weather empires being superior to the Mongol cold weather empires.

The way the predisposition towards organising could get disciplined if it were used to, say, campaign to vote against an Hispanic for elder or deacon on those grounds. But not on anything not practical, at least not an any denomination with an historic court system. Independent Baptists of course can do anything they want.

 

[Andres]

Is racism a sin? Hmmm...I don't know...

If one posits that there are, in fact, genetic differences among the races, but that all races are equal in worth even though not equal in all abilities, this may or may not be sin.

If one acts in a way which treats any person or any class of person in a way which demeans their inherent worth, this appears to be sinful racism and must be acted against.

I would agree with you on your above definitions. I don’t have a problem with science showing different people have different genetic make-ups. I might disagree with some of these conclusions, so I can’t say I affirm their conclusions 100%. Where the problem comes in is when any of these supposed “differences” is used for discriminatory purposes. I have no idea if there is in fact scientifically a difference between IQ’s of different ethnic groups. The problem comes in when someone takes this info and says, “I won’t let my daughter marry X ethnic group because science shows their IQ is lower”. Perhaps a better word to use than racism is discrimination or bigotry. This type of thinking/behavior is without a doubt sin.

Andres, what do you think of Dr. Nigel Lee's linked article?

Andres: p.s. I looked up some Kinist stuff against inter-racial marriage on the web and strongly disagree, though I was not angered by it, because their arguments seemed so silly.

I didn’t read Dr. Lee’s article and nor do I care to. Unless I have been mislead or misunderstood, Dr. Lee is a kinist. I feel that I am already familiar enough with kinists to know that I won’t agree with them. I consider them racist in the sense that they believe certain ethnic groups are devalued based solely on skin color. Again, I don’t think I need to entertain the arguments of every group that I disagree with. I fall back on my previous example that if someone told me Jesus wasn’t God, but only a good teacher who was married to Mary Magdalene, I doubt I’d read any article they put out either. Sometimes you just know something is wrong/false without having to explore it in-depth. Another example is when Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons leave stuff on my porch, I throw it away without ever looking at any of it.

Glad you strongly disagree with the Kinist’s too. That’s really all that matters to me. I don’t need you to be angry and I don’t need you to weep. You react however you want, as long as you disagree.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------

Putting someone under church discipline for those sorts of beliefs would be like doing the same for fundy baptist style JKO thinking or that the government brought down the twin towers or Obama wasn't born in the US or the nazis have bases on the moon. You can't discipline conspiracy nuts except on divisiveness issues, and that's where normally the "trying to teach others" would come in.

I disagree Tim. As stupid as thinking the government brought down the twin towers, that Obama isn't American, or that there are Nazi bases on the moon, I don't see any of these as being sinful. Holding to racist, discriminatory views is indeed sinful. Unrepentant sin is to be dealt with through church discipline, right? Plus Kinism is directly attempting to argue that the scriptures teach inferiority of certain ethnic groups. Essentially this is heresy. Surely a session would have to step in if a member were advocating heresy. The session has to protect the purity of the church.

 

[TimV]

Holding to racist, discriminatory views is indeed sinful. Unrepentant sin is to be dealt with through church discipline, right? Plus Kinism is directly attempting to argue that the scriptures teach inferiority of certain ethnic groups. Essentially this is heresy.

The trouble is defining racism. Kinism is from what I can tell a flavor of the month nut job magnet, and the term can't be used to describe, say, someone who holds that certain relatively homogeneous ethnic groupings have higher levels of intelligence than others. I can say Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders (PS Pergy if you read up on it you will learn that both are traditionally classified as White rather than Mongoloid or Negroid) and it's a plain and simple scientific fact. I'll never get disciplined for that in a PCA or OPC church even though some may call that racist.

 

[Andres]

Holding to racist, discriminatory views is indeed sinful. Unrepentant sin is to be dealt with through church discipline, right? Plus Kinism is directly attempting to argue that the scriptures teach inferiority of certain ethnic groups. Essentially this is heresy.

The trouble is defining racism. Kinism is from what I can tell a flavor of the month nut job magnet, and the term can't be used to describe, say, someone who holds that certain relatively homogeneous ethnic groupings have higher levels of intelligence than others. I can say Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders (PS Pergy if you read up on it you will learn that both are traditionally classified as White rather than Mongoloid or Negroid) and it's a plain and simple scientific fact. I'll never get disciplined for that in a PCA or OPC church even though some may call that racist.

Well perhaps I should define some terms then. Yes, I agree that no one would ever be disciplined, for contending differences in ethnic groups. However, if their view of differences in ethnic groups plays out to where they discriminate, then that is where it becomes sinful and is cause for church discipline. Using your example, say someone holds to the belief that Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders. No problem there. However, let's say that an Australian Aborigine starts attending the church. If the first person begins treating the Australian Aborigine in a discriminatory manner or makes disparaging remarks toward them, then this is a problem and needs to be dealt with by the session.

So when we were discussing Dabney, the reason I said that if he were alive today and he remained unrepentant in his views of African-Americans, then he should come under discipline. Dabney didn't just advocate there were genetic differences, he thought that blacks were somehow subhuman. He thought less of them based simply on the fact that they were black. This is sinful thinking and would need to be dealt with.

 

[py3ak]

Andres, church discipline is for scandal, not simply for sin; otherwise we would all be constantly under discipline (as distinguished from discipling).

However, I wonder if thinking of IQ tests as an objective measure of intelligence isn't actually a pretty unintelligent thing to do. FTR, I don't recall ever taking one, so that remark isn't motivated by the desire to reassure myself after a low score.

 

[Andres]

Andres, church discipline is for scandal, not simply for sin; otherwise we would all be constantly under discipline (as distinguished from discipling).

I tried my best to specify unrepentant sin in all my posts dealing with church discipline. This unrepentant sin is what leads to scandal. My apologies if I was unclear.

 

[J Miles]

Last question/observation: Reading through 19th Century British journals concerning missions to Africa there was sort of a Christian paternalism, like we were the parents trying to help out an ignorant child (the Africans). I am not sure this was racism, especially since it was the christians and missionaries that worked hardest to end the slave trade in Africa, but certain statements even by these certainly can be shocking to 21st-Century ears. Victorian attitudes towards "the savages" don't seem very politically correct and this also impacted missions to Africa as well, though, on the whole, the missionaries were usually the most ardent defenders of the human rights of the Africans. It seems very plausible that such views that blacks had genetic differences which disallowed tidy social organization and that they needed the leadership of whites was a very widespread opinion in those days, and may still persist among some.

The idea of Christian paternalism in the 19th century in Africa and in other areas of the world were focused on improving the spiritual and intellectual darkness that the tribes were frozen in. Any movement stating that whites maintained some prior superiority through inheritance I would consider a flaw in either the culture of the person, or fallacy of Darwin. To me it would seem that if Missionaries actually thought that tribes in a dismal state were so because of inheritance from prior generations they would not bother to help educate them because any progress made, according to such a theory would, would render their attempts futile after the first generation. And if they thought that the Europeans were superior to the Africans by birth they would have never tried to end the slave trade.

As with other Victorian British attitudes on anything, they are making yet another rash judgment. They are part of the reason people in the West see Puritans as ignorant which burners (which was the common practice in Europe) instead of the persons who set up the foundations of democracy in the United States.

Editing Reason:
The extended version of my post contained inaccurate details and ideas which had to be removed.

 

[MW]

I can say Armenians and Lebanese Arabs are on average more intelligent than Australian Aborigines and Melanesian Highlanders (PS Pergy if you read up on it you will learn that both are traditionally classified as White rather than Mongoloid or Negroid) and it's a plain and simple scientific fact. I'll never get disciplined for that in a PCA or OPC church even though some may call that racist.

It's not racist; it's just plain ignorance. It doesn't require church discipline; but perhaps a sound thrashing might help.

I have had numerous dealings with Australian Aborigines and they are as intelligent as any other human being I have met. I think the problem with many western civilised ideals of intelligence pertains to the cultural limitations and stereotypes which the westerners have created. A tribal situation exhibits all the characteristics of organisation and order which are to be found in complex western urban centres. It expresses itself differently and takes a different shape; that is all.