There’s something insincere about any repentant admission that says, “Yes, I’m guilty—and so are you.” I do not admit to being a racist, and neither do I think most Americans—white or otherwise—are. Many are racists, but most—or even, all? Contrary to the popular Evangelical party line these days, that cannot be established. It is not enough to point out that racism is sin, and as such, it comes from the fall of man, which affects us all. All are sinners, but not all are racists.
Some good Christian black leader, whose article I’ve since lost track of, has explained that black people view things from a racial/ethnic solidarity—that when one is unjustly treated, all feel the pain. This, I think, illuminates the differences in thinking and explains why most white people just don’t get it when it comes to racial reconciliation. Simply put, white people (especially Americans) have generally left behind whatever racial/ethnic solidarity there was among us in generations past. We just do not think that way about the race to which we belong—at least, not most, since there are and may always be some who are racists. I don’t think Dr. Martin Luther King has been given enough credit, even by African-Americans, for the depth and breadth of the changes he helped achieve in our society. His campaign was directed toward changing the way that the mind of the white person (the oppressor at the time) works. His righteous rhetoric was like a sharp blade that served to start the process of cutting the ties of racial solidarity held by white people and by which they held themselves apart from and superior to black people. As Dr. King famously taught, a man should not be judged by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Rather than preserving any racial solidarity, such ideals strove toward atomization—the dissolving of all identity except the individual identity. It is a prescription intended to bring about Dr. King’s “dream,” but it was prescribed for the oppressive race.
Fifty years later, and that atomization of racial identity among white people has become reality for the majority. Whenever the continuing existence of racial injustices or abuses are pointed out to the average white man, he usually responds defensively and from an individual perspective, “I’m not guilty of any of that.” The current frustration that many black people feel toward such unresponsiveness of the majority of whites is—I think—a side effect of the good course of treatment prescribed by Dr. King and imbibed by the “white culture” of America. The atomization of identity among whites has been achieved, for the most part; and now, the white man no longer judges even himself by the color of his own skin, but resists any charges that are not in accord with the content of his own character. Efforts to load racial blame, guilt or responsibility onto the shoulders of all white people find that the yoke of racial identity (or solidarity) has been broken and so such a load finds little on which to attach.
This is not to say that there are not still serious problems with abuse of the black race in America; but rather, it is to say that such abuses are not by the majority. And that majority finds it difficult to feel guilt for what the minority perpetrates (or for what the majority perpetrated in past generations). Indeed, we find it antithetical to the anti-racial thinking that we have become accustomed to. Racism is bad, we all agree—and instances of racial abuse, whether by individuals or by unjust systems, should be corrected and justice upheld. But if racial reconciliation requires all whites to admit being racist, or for individuals to acknowledge a guilt for the crimes of the race as a whole, then it will be an uphill struggle that unwittingly seeks to rebuild what was torn down (at such a high cost) by the civil rights movement thus far. Racial/ethnic solidarity among white people was not a good thing, and should not be promoted, even for ostensibly good reasons of aiding in racial reconciliation.
One more thought (added 1/10/15): There are evangelical leaders, both black and white, who are ineffectively pushing for whites to dive into this racial reconciliation idea. Appeals to conscience based on the guilt of the white race will not be effective. An appeal to sympathy based on the plight of the black race would be more to the point and more effective.
Ken, very good points.
Thanks, Les.
” Rather than preserving any racial solidarity, such ideals strove toward atomization—the dissolving of all identity except the individual identity. ”
Bingo!
Those who are in a position of relative power, influence, and privilege do not naturally sense the same drive to group solidarity as those who are not in this position. What we all need, as followers of Christ, called to love our neighbor as our self, is to seek to, as much as possible, see and feel from his/her perspective. Just as Jesus left heaven to become one of us, we should seek to identify with and understand the plight of our fellow man born into circumstances different than our own.
Amen!
“Just as Jesus left heaven to become one of us, we should seek to identify with and understand the plight of our fellow man born into circumstances different than our own.”
David, It is more like “understand the plight of a fellow ‘group'” which seems to be the point of the post.
Lydia: You’re right, we are being enjoined to empathize with a group, because that is how they see themselves (if Ken is right). But to insist that they stop thinking like a group is to essentially say, become more like us (white, individualistic people). That seems to me to just be another form of superiority.
The abuses that happen, if they are racial abuses, are against the group—against individuals for being members of that group. When a group is oppressed and abused, they tend to stick together and maintain the group identity—and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, for members of the majority race to embrace and maintain a group identity is to embrace the role of oppressor group. Most whites reject this role and the group identity that goes with it.
Just as it would be helpful for whites to better understand the the solidarity with which black people suffer racial abuse, it would be helpful for black people to better understand the absence of white solidarity in the acts and even systems of abuse.
The answer, it seems to me, is not to get the white race to again take up the mantle of racial solidarity so every individual can bear the weight of conscience for the guilt of the race. Rather, the answer is to continue Dr. King’s struggle to completely remove that group identity from every last white person, so that minorities will only be treated as individuals, and those individual can then be free to eventually drop their own racial solidarity. But as long as there continues to be oppression, then the racial solidarity of the oppressed continues to be justified.
I’m sorry I don’t have time right now to answer any more. I’ll try to return this evening.
Ken: I disagree there is not solidarity among white people. Women for example are a solidarity group, men are a solidarity group. This is among whites. Women fight as a whole group for women’s rights. When abuse happens to a woman no matter what country or ethnicity we as women suffer and rally with them to stop the abuse.
It is groups that have gotten things changed as far as society thinking, church thinking, laws etc. SBCToday is a solidarity group made up of white fundamentalists for example.
Debbie,
Groups that suffer tend to have a group identity and group loyalty. Whites do not generally suffer as a group. When I read of a white man killed by a black police officer, my reaction is “Thank God the officer was not hurt.”
True enough, Ken – should we encourage or discourage “loyalty” to any group that seeks to divide the body of Christ – no matter the basis for the loyalty?
In fact, are we learning that Americanism is a barrier to the gospel and unity of believers?
Why is it acceptable to decry abject loyalty based in patriotism but it is not acceptable to decry abject loyalty based in skin color?
I don’t think we should discourage loyalty to the group when that group is or has been oppressed, such as black people. Group identity is the natural result of oppression. The way to eventually eliminate group identity is to fully eliminate the oppression.
A. Will that ever happened this side of heaven?
B. How is dent made in it when so much is argued to be oppression even when it’s clearly not (or at least not proven to be) – even to the point of ignoring uncomfortable realities of the situation in order to force it into the oppression motif.
Debbie,
SBCToday is made up of a group of White fundamentalists????
lol
Good grief.
David
Tarheel,
You asked, ”
A. Will that ever happened this side of heaven?”
No, but worthwhile progress can be made.
“B. How is [a] dent made in it when so much is argued to be oppression even when it’s clearly not (or at least not proven to be) – even to the point of ignoring uncomfortable realities of the situation in order to force it into the oppression motif.”
People are human. When they have been abused, they can be extremely sensitive toward even the hint of such things. Of course, there will be those who stoke the fires unnecessarily, whether out of an excessive personal bitterness or for profit or whatever. The best course is not to veer to the opposite extreme in confronting such false voices; but steadfastly keep on the reasonable and proper course toward bringing about that reality in which every man is judged “not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.” False claims are repugnant—just ignore those. We can find enough real work to do in this area.
Debbie: Are you working toward greater black representation in leadership in your church?
Ken,
Reasonable explanation, on the surface. I will need to keep that in my mental files and mull over it some more. Thanks.
David,
I appreciate your comment at 10:05 EDT above. I think you would agree that Jesus calls us to be in solidarity with our fellow man regardless of ethnicity or race.
Ken,
Yes, indeed, I do. I also think that He has a special place in His heart for the oppressed and downtrodden, whether the cause of their oppression be due to their ethnicity/race or to something else. And that, as His followers, we should do likewise.
Amen David.
Ken,
“An appeal to sympathy based on the plight of the black race would be more to the point and more effective.”
Thanks for this post. It is always good to have a window into the minds of persons whose perspectives, viewpoints, background & life’s history, are majorly different from yours. I actually agree & embrace as I understand it, most of what you’ve said here.
The appeal to the White race on the basis of sympathy with regard to Black plight I believe are well intentioned words, but, a huge misunderstanding of what most Blacks & White evangelicals who address racial reconciliation are asking for. We are not asking for “sympathy.” We are asking for respect, equality, fairness, justice, and to be treated with the same dignity and actions that our fellow White citizens are treated with.
Unarmed White men are simply not killed to the same extent that unarmed Black men are at the hands of cops. In Texas it is legal to carry a BB gun or rifle in public places. Young Black Males with BB guns in public places get the cops called on them. They are viewed as a threat. It happened recently in Plano. Young White males with BB guns don’t get the cops called on them to the same extent. A 12 yr old White kid with a toy gun in a park one block from his home would not get shot by the police within 2 seconds of the police’s arrival. It happened with a 12 yr old Black kid. It is not sympathy we are asking for, but equal treatment.
“It is not sympathy we are asking for, but equal treatment.”
A white man with a pellet gun was shot by police just last week….in San Francisco. Also, it happened within seconds of one of the officers seeing the gun.
When persons (no matter their skin tone) point a gun that look real at cops – it likely will not end well for them. I think this happens pretty much across the board.
Got a link? Details, man!
“A white man”….not a 12 yr old boy?
yes, it was a white man…not sure why that matters? Now age is a factor?
Surely you understand that a child (although 12 almost 13 is not exactly an infant) can kill too.
Again, tell me how long should officers wait once a weapon is seen before they react?
I would think that a 12 year old is old enough to know better than to menacingly brandish a weapon and certainly should know that dropping it instead of pointing it is wise when officers arrive.
He did not point it at them. Watch the video.
Anyone who wants to argue that certain officers or acts were racist (or defend against that argument) is free to submit an article to Mike or Dave for publication. But such arguments do not really apply to this particular discussion.
Sorry, Ken – I was typing that last response when you posted that.
Point taken.
You really cannot see what he does…I think the statements of both officers though state that he reaced for it – whether that ended in his pointing it or they shot him before he could retrieve it – changes little in answering the questions; “would a reasonable person act similarly” and “would a reasonable person fear for his life.”
Also, I am not sure that either (that he pointed it, or reached for it) changes the standard police protocol.
I ask again (third time at least) …how long should officers wait before firing once a weapon is seen and either is held or reached for by the suspect?”
Tarheel: It helps to tell the whole story. The man was a threat and had suicide notes in his phone and to police. Totally different circumstances from the one Dwight is speaking of.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-francisco-officer-involved-shooting-fake-gun-20150105-story.html
You already have equal treatment from the majority of whites, and in the law itself. You may appeal to sympathy, which is simply love of humanity and caring for the plight of those less fortunate, or you can appeal to a sense of justice. But to enlist the majority of whites to force change on the minority who still abuse, you cannot effectively appeal to a sense of guilt.
Ken,
“You already have equal treatment from the majority of whites, and in the law itself.”
This is a true statement.
BTW, good article and thoughts in your OP.
” Racial/ethnic solidarity among white people was not a good thing, and should not be promoted, even for ostensibly good reasons of aiding in racial reconciliation.”
Question. Would you argue the same for other skin tones/ethnicity?
See the comment above at: January 12, 2015 at 1:19 pm
You already have equal treatment from the majority of whites, and in the law itself.
That is not true Ken. It’s certainly better than it was in the past, but we have a long way to go before minorities have equal treatment. That is where it does begin with individuals as does any movement.
I didn’t say that the black race is treated as a whole equally with the white group, but that equal treatment is mandated by law and that the majority of whites treat black people equally with whites. As long as there is a minority of whites who treat blacks unfairly, then there will not be equal treatment of the group as a whole. But to whom should they address the demand, “We want equal treatment, not sympathy”? if not to that minority of whites that treat them unfairly?
Look around in the SBC for example Ken. Where are blacks treated the same as whites. As I said it is better, but we are not there either individually or as a group.
…and there it is….Debbie never misses an opportunity to bash the SBC.
Debbie,
The proper, colorblind question is NOT where are blacks treated the same as whites, but where is mistreatment of others in the SBC, and what can be done about it.
Racism is an act of the heart and mind, but equal treatment, to not racially biased, can not just be manufactured by a group so that LOOKS reign.
I mean, you LOOK at stats and say there is not enough blacks in places of power, so that means blacks are discriminated against.
So three guys or gals apply for a job, and one of the three is black. A white person gets the job, was the black discriminated against based on his color? What false witness you bear by assuming it is so. The other white person failed to get the job because he was not as qualified, but the black person because he was black? That is wrong Debbie.
And in some jobs that are high profile, the ones who do the hiring want someone they trust and know. Their responsibility is not to meet racial quotas, but to find a person who will get the job done. So they hire someone they know, and who they are familiar with. That may be not be the best way, but its not racism either.
The USA hired/ voted in a black man for the president. I think it is safe to say that the majority of conservative Christians, who happen to be black, voted for President Obama. But I think that many of them today are unhappy with some of his policies, say abortion and gay marriage.
Without wanting to make this about politics, but to state a fact [that may or my not apply to our President], one’s skin color does not make a person more suited for the job at hand.
And neither, in most cases, does one’s gender.
His blessings to you,
mike
Yes Tarheel, where it is needed I do. There are a lot that has been improved over the last several years, but a lot that needs improved. We are closer to a Christian organization than we ever have been, but we need a lot of improvement in this area of race.
Our apology back in the 90’s and early 2000’s was just the beginning.
I mean, you LOOK at stats and say there is not enough blacks in places of power, so that means blacks are discriminated against.
So three guys or gals apply for a job, and one of the three is black. A white person gets the job, was the black discriminated against based on his color? What false witness you bear by assuming it is so. The other white person failed to get the job because he was not as qualified, but the black person because he was black? That is wrong Debbie.
Ugh yeah Mike. I look at stats a lot. They provide a lot of information that shows discrimination. It’s not false witness unless you think looking at stats and seeing no blacks in any office or just one or two in office wrong. I call them as I see them Mike. To deny that it is discriminatory is either discriminatory in and of itself or ignorance, something I would not accuse you of being.
Come on Mike, you can’t believe what you wrote in your comment. Seriously.
I am not even sure what that means, Debbie… “closer to to Christian organization than we have ever been.”
What specifically is necessary for an organization to be a Christian organization? Sinlessness? Perfection in all areas? Or just perfection in what you determine?
“To deny that it is discriminatory is either discriminatory in and of itself or ignorance, something I would not accuse you of being. ”
So, in your worldview Mike is either a racist or a dummy…of course not that you are contending he is either (although you clearly just did.)
I happen to think his analogies are good…as there are many (like yourself) who assume that because a back person is not hired – it must be because of discrimination – his example points out that there are lots of factors that go into a hiring decision where there are multiple applicants….it is way overly simplistic at best and, as Mike puts it, quite possibly bearing false witness to purport that hiring decisions are discriminatory unless you know for certain (with real evidence – not conjecture and innuendo) that they are.
Debbie,
Just a quick statement from any Statistics 101 class:
Correlation does not prove causation.
Tarheel: To be like Christ.
Just a quick statement from any Statistics 101 class:
Correlation does not prove causation.
In most scientific studies I would agree, but what other logical answer is there in this case Ken? It’s certainly not due to lack of SBC minorities, we have plenty of them, just not in any significant SBC positions. It is a one or two here or there deal. So what is the logical and true reason behind it Ken? I would be interested to know your answer.
I just think in this case it’s common sense logic Ken.
Debbie:
I do not have the “true” answer, but neither do you. “True” answers have to be proven and we do not have enough information to do that.
As for the “logical” answer, I believe it has to do with the”old boy” network. People tend to hire who they know and like, not just in the SBC but in all organizations. That is not in and of itself racial discrimination. If I were an excellent candidate for a high SBC position, I probably would not get it and a factor would be that they do not know me.
As for it being “common sense logic” that it is racial discrimination, I find your common sense logic to be lacking.
‘I didn’t say that the black race is treated as a whole equally with the white group, but that equal treatment is mandated by law and that the majority of whites treat black people equally with whites. As long as there is a minority of whites who treat blacks unfairly, then there will not be equal treatment of the group as a whole. But to whom should they address the demand, “We want equal treatment, not sympathy”? if not to that minority of whites that treat them unfairly?”
This is the point I was trying to make on other blog posts but not as well you have done here. The non discrimination laws have been in place for a long while now along with integration to the point we have a black president (and other black notables in positions of power) and large companies take AA very seriously. Government (including education) has been the largest source of AA since the 1970’s. Higher Education has not been a barrier for many years as there are many government grants that pay a large share of costs for minorities.
The opportunity is there to not be oppressed. (I feel the exact same way concerning women and the women’s rights movement, btw. The work has been done, the groundwork laid and it is up to each individual now)
My concern is “group think” and how that affects this entire issue.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/a-new-era-in-the-sbc-fred-luter-paves-way-for-diversity-76995/
http://imb.org/updates/storyview.aspx?StoryID=12015#.VLVDM8nKDUg
http://www.sbc.net/cp/ministryreports/pdf/sbcec/AA-AdvisoryCouncilSBCReport.pdf
Ken: You are telling me that we don’t have enough information. Sure we do. Fred Luter did when he was President as the above links show.
Ken: I gave 3 links that show we do know the real answer. The post is currently in moderation due to the 3 links. So I will quote from the African American Task Force 2014 given to Frank Page page 39. Not specifically point number 2.
The task force report link is in my post which is in moderation right now.
The figures in the table are based on available Annual Church Profile data. The financial
data includes African, African American and Hait
ian churches combined. There is a clear
pattern of continued increases in Great commission giving by SBC churches of the African
Diaspora. This research does not consider Associational giving by churches of the African
Diaspora. There is a very clear lac
k of giving to the long existing SBC national financial
streams. Observations include:
1) A lack of consistent orientation of affiliating churches about the SBC, the cooperative
program and national offerings. Many present day challenges about participation and inclusion have developed as a result of not having an ongoing denominational affiliation
process.
2) A continuing elimination of Blacks within the infrastructure of SBC entities, especially
NAMB, IMB, and state convention staffs. The lack of visible ministry and kingdom extension
resources within the mission field areas where many of the African Diaspora live.
3)The lack of contextual resources (books, conferences and other gatherings) that were
used extensively in the 20th century to educate and equip pastors, leaders and general church bodies regarding roles they should and could play.
That should read “Note specifically point #2.
Debbie:
I will review tour links when available.
I inadvertently left off point #4 from the 2014 Task Force Report, it was an oversight on my part.
4) Many high profile negative written and media positions espoused by SBC leaders,
pastors, and educational institutions not based in a biblical worldview but conservative political ideology.
The most interesting document from the links I gave is the 2014 African American Task Force Report which is several pages, but it includes a lot of information and could be used as an only source to make my points.
In this document is the SBC history of African Americans as well as just history of their plight.
Debbie:
I was able to find the 2014 task force report. While the data show an increase in black church membership and giving, the 4 points on page 39 are “observations” (a few examples would have been nice), not conclusions based on the objective evidence. The recommendations of the report are good in regards to increasing black representation in SBC entities, but I saw no tangible (or anecdotal, for that matter) evidence of racial discrimination. The task force report is in fact nothing more than opinions.
Ken: If this document doesn’t convince you, nothing will. We agree on the recommendations, which hopefully will be put into force, but we disagree on the implications of this document.
Your statement again leaves me very concerned, but more convinced of the blindness among some in the SBC. Willful blindness.
Debbie:
We all have our opinions. Mine is willful blindness and yours is seeing racism in every situation.
It might be helpful to call one Ken P., and the other Ken H.
Debbie,
I didn’t say that instances of racism could not be found, nor that instances of high-profile racism or racism by some people in key positions could not be found—or even that instances of institutional oppression could not be found. It’s not that I necessarily accept all your examples as correct. Some may be debatable. But my purpose in writing the article above is not say that many individual examples of racism do not still occur. But rather, that they are not true of how the majority of white individuals think toward race (black or their own); and further, that attempts to argue that such multiple charges when taken together ought to indict the white race as a whole are ineffective, since the average white person will respond by looking to the content of his own character and confidently reply,
Yes, there is work still to do in cleaning up the vestiges of the institutional and personal racism of the past. But motivating and inspiring people to the task cannot be done by the old thinking of that past. Reconciliation can never be on the level of the races as a whole. Whites are individualized and see reconciliation as a personal matter, not a race as a whole. We see that the black race was abused and oppressed as a whole in history, and we see instances of abuse present today; but we no longer comprehend the existence of an oppressor race as an entity—rather, we find individual oppressors with which we recognize no implicating union.
Dwight,
The facts are that twice as many White people are killed by Cops than Black people. That’s just the fact of the matter.
Your friend,
David
Let’s not forget another fact, if we must talk about police and shootings: MANY cops are killed by criminals. If it were not so—if there were not many cops to stand in the gap, then many, many more common citizens would be killed by criminals.
I say again –
BB guns can kill.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/21/florida-boy-10-dies-after-brother-accidentally-shoots-him-with-bb-gun/
It is not fair to purport that somehow a BB gun that looks real and is in fact not a toy – but a weapon – constitutes being ‘unarmed”.
Not to mention the case Dwight refers to he ignores the menacing actions of the young man with the gun – and the fact that the boy removed the orange tip from the gun in an obvious make people think it was real – the sa thing for him – two armed cops thought it was real and took defensive measures costing him his life.
Attempt to justify this all you like, but it was an intemperate, and unjustifiable act. That 12 yr old lost his life simply because the cop, who had a checkered history, did not properly evaluate the situation before he pulled the trigger. A special prosecutor is reviewing this case. I pray that it leads to justice this time. It is not against the law to play with a BB gun in a park. Therefore, u cannot reasonably justify shooting someone for doing so. That’s why we are not asking for sympathy, but, for this kid to be treated the same way a kid would have been treated if he had been White & in a wealthy suburban park. I promise you, he would not have been shot in 2 seconds in that scenario. White people would not tolerate the policeman mistreating their kids like that.
Lead to justice this time?
Sure seems like you have already determined what that is.
You keep saying “2 seconds” – questions –
1. Just how long do you think it takes for a person to get off a round in the direction of police officer?
2. How long should officers “wait” in the face of a drawn weapon pointed in his direction in order to demonstrate the temperance you are suggesting? Until a shot is actually fired?
“checkered history” doesn’t go far enough. This officer was found incompetent in numerous ways and had been turned down by several police departments, removed from one, before being hired by Cleveland. His record indicates someone who was not emotionally stable, demonstrated no ability to keep his composure under even simulated stress. Then he gets in a real situation, guns down a boy within seconds of arriving, and people defend his actions as justified despite a video which gives no indication of a threat to the officers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/09/1356660/-The-outrageous-tragic-hiring-of-Officer-Timothy-Loehmann-by-the-Cleveland-PD
Wow. I did not know all that Chris.
That is some intense stuff – perhaps (likely based on what I read) he should not have been a cop. I also think that if all this proves true and Cleveland did not check him out properly – and he exhibited these same attributes in Cleveland – then they are in trouble.
Perhaps there should be a trial dealing with that aspect – certainly a civil trial maybe even involving the city and police department. The police chief and Human resources department have some answering to do.
(It is possible that this rough spot in his life brought on by the losing of his girlfriend is in the past – although it is intense.)
This is concerning – but it does nothing really to further the case that you and Dwight are working so hard at making. The potentiality of the officer being emotionally unstable could certainly be a contributing factor to this but, again we have no evidence that skin color/racial bias/and the like is relevant.
It seems as if this may have been a cop who should not have been one. I think we can find agreement in seeking the discovering of facts there – Likewise ignoring the obvious facts of the case relating to the suspect and the behaviors he exhibited hastening his death is not profitable to any sort of reconciliation.
Know the old saying “just because one is paranoid – it does not mean people are not after him”. I think one might say in relation to this case; “just because one may have had emotionally unstable periods in his past does not mean he did not legitimately fear for his life at that moment and act appropriately.”
The criminal standard in part is “would a reasonable person act similarly given the same set of circumstances.” I still think the answer to that question in this case given what I know about the case (especially looking at the gun itself, and watching his menacing behavior on the video) is “yes.” Nevertheless, it is still tragic and sad ending to that young man’s life. I certainly do not rejoice in it.
“It is not against the law to play with a BB gun in a park.”
In Virginia it is illegal to brandish a gun in most public places including city parks…and it ought to be anyplace. (open carry laws do not even allow for brandishing/waving it around) Menacingly brandishing a weapon in public is against the law anyplace I would think (and that is exactly what this kid was doing).
BB/Pellet guns are not toys.
It should be common sense to not play with weapons in a park.
There are reasons pellet/air/BB guns look like real guns – they ARE are real guns.
There is also a reason that toys look like toys – so officers and others do not confuse them for being dangerous.
There is also a reason that the particular type of weapon (an most BB/Pellet/air guns) this young man had came with a bright orange tip – so as to identify it as not being a “heavy weapon” that fires bullets – yet the boy had taken that off – like I said before it seems that he wanted people to think it was more than just a BB gun – sadly two officers thought exactly that and now he is dead.
Any assertion that this kid was just playing with a toy in the park and was randomly shot by cops for no reason is just patently ridiculous.
My father was a police officer, killed in the line of duty right before I turned six years old (his death brought about by other white men). So you know what my view will be no matter what. Nonetheless, for this discussion, it will not be helpful to argue the details of any particular police shooting, since the most you might prove is that those officers involved were racist, and not that the majority are racist.
I do not disagree that there probably are systemic problems of abuse and discrimination against black people. But these do not come from the white race in solidarity but from aberrant individuals today and from lingering circumstances naturally arising out of the wholesale abuses of the past.
An article on racism entitled “Why most whites just don’t get it”; well there you go.
Expecting some people in a Twitter world to substantively engage an argument might be hoping for too much.
While i can understand why the black community circles the wagons and ‘groups up’, the very act of segregating themselves is harmful to the idea of having a nation that is colorblind.
There will always be those who because of ignorance in themselves and/or their parents will biased against those who are different in some way. It is not just a white against black thing. It has happened through time and in every place, in Serbia, in Africa, in the northeast of the USA when skin color was not the difference, but some other physical feature, or ethnic difference.
Likewise, to keep segregating themselves is to give incentive to white racists to continue their battle of us versus them. Even among those who might wish to drop their bias, might struggle harder with doing so, because the other guys [in this case, the black community] are not dropping theirs.
Is Dwight M. biased? I have no reason to think so.
Does Dwight foster an us versus them mentality? The “us” being blacks.
I think he does every time in community and in the broader scheme he speaks of the “Black Church”.
By using that phrase and idea, he is saying that there is a church my white brethren can not be a part of.
He is saying that they are separate from white folk.
That there is a divide, and he is for it.
If we expand that to the idea of the Black Community, the division is again marked out.
Like the words, the Black Church, its exclusionary based on skin color.
It fosters an us versus them mentality.
It fuels racism.
In our, the nation, and our, the church, quest for colorblindness, there must be give and take.
The majority of whites operate in a colorblind way. Yes, even one racist is one too many, and there is much more than one.
But if we are to move forward, I think there also needs to be a movement within the Black Church and the black community to un-circle the wagons and un-segregate themselves.
Oe way to start is by being real and open with the problems in their communities about such issues as black on black crime, and households that have children from multiple fathers.
I know words are easy, so I will continue to lift up my brother Dwight, and all of his colleagues, both of the Lord and the leaders of those communities, in prayer that God would bring comfort to those oppressed and healing to the ones who are hurting.
mike
That’s right Mike – there is no “black church” more “white church” – there’s just the church.
I do not necessarily think that people are always intentionally trying to separate – I just think it’s perhaps not the best choice of words – and I also think it exacerbates the racism issue.
We do this a lot though – how many times have you heard during missions emphasis – “the church in China”, or the “church in Algeria”? I’ve had to catch myself doing it.
I understand that often this is to delineate a geographical group of people that are being prayed for or spoken about – but I fear that what it more likely does is, most often inadvertently, create in the minds of heareres that people in China are part of a different Church – they’re not – Christians are Christians no matter where they lay their head and all Christians are all part of the church.
I prefer to say our fellow Christians who live in Algeria – rather than use the phrase “the church in Algeria.”
Good reply. I admit, I do not miss the little to no racial mix of the white church, in a non white neighborhood. The American SBC church from my seat for several decades never did look like what I think heaven will look like (in the human understanding of a limited mind).
I wish this church which the Lord has chosen to allow me to serve could be a picture of the American church makeup. We have about 26 different nationalities represented each Friday (yes, we are sinners, we worship on Fridays). Of these, very few of us are white… anglo… southern American SBC bred. Though baptist in nature, we are strong church reaching wonderful people in a difficult region.
Color has not been an issue for me since I was young. I never understood why my white neighbors would call my parents and tell them it is not proper for me to bring a black classmate home to play with after school. That I needed to stop this post haste.
Yeah, racism is real but not as big as many try to make it. Not all things are racist because someone of color does not get a job, an appointment, a SBC leadership seat. Not all shootings when a white police officer kills a black man are racist.
Oh, I do need someone to tell me what a black church is? When we identify ourselves as something other than what God identifies us as, we are the ones with the problem.
Tarheel,
And prominent in the media are black leaders and ministers that seem to promote that tribalism and feed it so that there remains that barrier, so that the hurt inflicted on the black community, in the past, doesn’t heal, so they can profit from it in some way, and do so, by seeking to keep the pain alive in that community, even as most of the pain they now suffer is self inflicted.
I am not saying there isn’t discrimination against blacks. Certainly there still is, but not by most white folk, and the damage done doesn’t compare to the damage done from black on black crime, or homes where the father[s] of the children are not present. But it seems that these internal problems are blamed on the racist slashes of the past. And that instead of the real reason of sin and immorality today within the community itself.
mike
Tarheel,
The difference is that if you went to live in China, you would and could be part of that church. But you aren’t black, so you aren’t in the Black Church,even if you lived next door to one.
That doesn’t mean you couldn’t join that church next door, or be welcomed as a member there, i assume that many would welcome you. The Black Church isn’t about individual churches as much as it represents an idea of a group of churches that see themselves as representing the black community of believers.
Lets change that church next door to the Women’s Church. My sister went to a church that was otherwise all black. She loved it [she has since gone on to glory]. But I don’t think she would have went to a church that called itself the Men’s Church where it represented the thoughts and needs of men and not women.
The labels install a barrier, and segregate the Body, and only those who are members of that label can change and dissolve that barrier.
If the reason for that barrier, as Ken seems to suggest, is that there remains some white folk who are still racist, then that reasoning ignores the gains of perception in the white community to become colorblind. The truth is that there are some blacks who are racist. Based on that logic, should we have a White Church? Based on that logic, should white people segregate themselves from blacks because some blacks are racist?
Rather, that way of thinking is wrong headed, and leads us as a community of believers and us a nation in a regressive way, into a tribal mentality, whites against blacks and blacks against whites.
Rather, and it won’t happen overnight, even as the change in the mind and hearts of the white community toward blacks didn’t happen overnight. But it has to be addressed by the leaders, and they are the ones who need to begin to lead their people into colorblindness, as a community.
mike
Mike,
It is not blacks who segregated blacks, but whites. When all abuses are gone, there will be no more need for such group identity. But that might have to wait until Christ returns. Scripture tells us people from every tribe and nation will be around His throne, but it does not say that any will still hold to that group identity. It simply states the fact of where they all came from originally. There will be no black church or white church in heaven.
Ken,
Yes, whites segregated blacks back then. They also segregated themselves from blacks. But whites, for the most part, have changed. Generally speaking, whites are not segregating themselves from blacks or segregating blacks from themselves anymore.
So if the white community can change before the Lord returns, why can’t the black community? Yes, as i said, there will always be those with us, those of every race and gender and ethnic difference, who will have bias against others who are different from them in some way and discriminate and abuse those who are different.
But that does not mean that both the black community and those that call themselves the Black Church should not seek to lessen the segregation they themselves are now extending.
Blessings,
mike
“When all abuses are gone, there will be no more need for such group identity”
Can you elaborate on “abuses” that are current? Are you referring to a certain type white person who might be racist but are not breaking the non discrimination laws?
I am not sure what you are referring to. The past abuses are gone and many opportunities put in place.
There is another situation that is becoming a problem in public schools since the huge influx of North African Refugees who have large families and are on public assistance.
They are a “group” but do not identify in the same way because of skin color or past oppression. There is increasing tension between American Black students and the North African Blacks. It is very strange.
As many black people will testify, they experience abuses as individuals. I do not doubt that they have been called names, discriminated against as individuals, accosted by police at times, or denied employment for some jobs. Fixing laws and mandating such things will never eliminate such personal abuses. And the group identity is felt by the individuals who make up the group.
Ken,…this does kind of sum up the issue for any believer, when you said “There will be no black church or white church in heaven.” That is actually the way it is on earth in God’s kingdom, yet even the church herself has segregated from the get go,…by color and by creed. You would think the early church examples would be enough evidence to steer us to obedience.
The fix is applied by “kingdom justice”, not the justice of perceived pleasure. Christians should strive for “kingdom justice” where all praise and glory go to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As that happens, the justice of perceived pleasure and prejudiced alliances begin to give way to the fruit of the Spirit. The proof is in the doing.
So parsonmike the blacks are segregated but the whites are racists? If this was not so sad I would be laughing
Another “tweet?”
ranger,
I didn’t say that.
I said that the black community keeps themselves segregated, though most whites are no longer racist.
His grace to you,
mike
Dwight,
Did you watch this video?
http://youtu.be/yfi3Ndh3n-g
David
David W.,
I just watched that video. Very good. An education needs to go to both sides of this debate. I admire & appreciate the activist & the police who participated there in Arizona.
Some police shootings are unquestionably justified. Some are not. That’s why body cameras are important. Recently, in New Mexico, a policeman was indicted by the prosecutor based on the body camera evidence. The body camera would reveal what your video just revealed. At that point, there will be little room for debate & dispute among reasonable people.
Compliance with the law & not resisting arrest is a must. I agree that this would help reduce the problem, and is the right thing to do. However, there are cases where people were shot as the 12 yr old in Cleveland not resisting arrest. What needs to happen is, my side of the argument needs to taut the message of your video even the more(although most Black parents teach their kids to obey the police, and do not resist arrest), and your side of the argument needs to acknowledge that police sometimes engage in excessive force. If both sides work on improving in those to areas, we greatly reduce the problem.
Dwight,
Oh, I do believe that some Cops are racist, and i do believe that some Cops are just so gung ho and aggressive that they make some bad choices. I don’t disagree with you.
In fact, 60 years ago, or so, the town where my Mother grew up had a sheriff, who was just down right mean. He loved to beat up drunks, while making an “arrest.” He didn’t like Black people. And, he got mad at a cousin of mine, one time….not sure what the fight was over. But then, one night, there was a knock on the door. This sheriff told my family that this cousin was drunk, and was walking down the middle of the road, and got run over by a truck. Well, of course, that didn’t explain the bullet hole in his back. So, yes, I’m not so naive to believe that all cops are good and professional.
But, when people resist arrest, then they should expect to experience rough treatment. And, if someone is threatening a cops life, then I have no problem with that cop shooting someone to protect his life.
David
Dwight,
Here’s another one I picked out just for you to watch!! I figured you probably never heard this classic song from Hillbilly, Redneck land.
🙂
http://youtu.be/7agvKbA6Pls
David
LOL and so very true.
🙂
I don’t necessarily disagree with this post (Racial Reconciliation: Why Most Whites Just Don’t Get It) and some good points are presented. Racism is wrong, regardless of the group it comes from.
I can’t help but wonder, though, what the reaction would be if a post was written entitled,
“Racial Reconciliation: Why Most Blacks Just Don’t Get It.”
David R. Brumbelow
David R.,
Pastor Randy White admitted that he didn’t get it. The topic of this post suggest that an assumption is that other,or many Whites don’t get it.
Where is the admission or evidence that Blacks don’t get it? The only way the topic that you raised would make since is if there is an admission or evidence that Blacks don’t get it.
Now, a worthwhile discussion is, why is it that Black & Whites, even Black & White Baptists view these matters so differently…even when often agree on the essential facts of a given matter?
Amen Dwight!
Dwight: I think Ken’s article could easily be titled “Why Whites AND Blacks don’t get it.” If Ken is right and whites lack a collective racial identity (and I think he is right), then that is something both sides may not “get”. So when a random white person commits a crime I don’t feel a sense of shame and when they do something good, I don’t feel a sense of pride. If a white person is harmed, I may empathize with that person as a person, but not as a member of a race.
If Ken’s hypothesis is correct, it does not excuse any racial injustice, but it certainly goes a long way to helping understand the different reactions to such an injustice.
The question is: What do we do? I don’t think anyone wants Whites to redevelop a sense of racial solidarity, but I equally don’t know that we want Blacks to lose theirs.
Well said, Bill!
When something happens to a Christian such as the latest contraception case of Hobby Lobby, or the firing of the fireman for his views, Christians(especially white Christians) behaved as if it happened to all Christians.
If looked at in this way, we can identify with the black community. And I think we should look at it from the black community point of view.
To simply say this is the way whites look at it is not enough and furthers the divide and rather patronizing in offering excuses. We are not the ones being hurt by this. The minorities are. It’s our duty as Christians(as Dwight has said, it’s the Gospel), to find out why it is hurting them and do something about it, as much as is in our power to do so.
It’s not that there is something that whites need to understand but cannot. Rather, the idea of racial reconciliation needs to be adjusted to be presented in a way that will hit home with whites. In other words, those black leaders calling for racial reconciliation ought to recognize their own group-identity lens and not assume that whites understand what they’re seeing through that lens. Effective communication requires that we at least try to use the other guy’s lens when we show him what we are trying to get him to see. In turn, whites ought to try to understand the lens through which black people see themselves and not just assume the atomized-identity lens is universal.
When racial reconciliation is set forth in terms of races as a whole, then whites tend not to get it, while blacks do get it but don’t understand (generally) why whites don’t get it.
A point of clarification: I’m no expert. I’m just a white Christian man, married to an Asian Christian woman, and the son of a slain police officer, trying to understand all this as best I can. I’ve read many articles from evangelicals on racial reconciliation, and I just wanted to share my conclusions because I think they may be helpful.
I do not disagree that there probably are systemic problems of abuse and discrimination against black people. But these do not come from the white race in solidarity but from aberrant individuals today and from lingering circumstances naturally arising out of the wholesale abuses of the past.
There are several things about this discussion that unnerved me. The article was good, and many comments as well. However:
1. Dwight, I admire the heck out of you and appreciate you but there are some things blacks don’t get. (You seemed to suggest otherwise-forgive me if I misunderstood.) They don’t get why ‘many’ Whites are confused by ‘many’ Blacks seeing things as racially motivated when we honestly don’t see it. We Do see it when it is quite clearly a race related event. And some times it is there but what Whites see is other causes such as brandishing weapons or refusal to obey police. Sometimes whites are accused of racial insensitivity because we look at a situation as a cop/non-cop event not as a black/white event. I’m not saying Whites are always or even ‘often’ right about that. What I’m saying is Blacks don’t always get how Whites think just as Whites don’t get how blacks think. (I think that was in Ken’s blog.)
2. When someone like Dwight refers to the Black Church, he is NOT talking about a church a white person cannot join, as in a local congregation of blacks that don’t allow whites. And to my way of thinking to even suggest there is something wrong with saying “Black Church” is shortsighted, rude and maybe belligerent. There are with in the Body of Christ many subgroups. YES, of course we are all one. But does anyone actually think we act like it? Besides ethnic divisions there is the Persecuted Church and the Poor Church and the Liberal or Conservative Church. These are just ways of expressing large groups within the Body!
And I want to know how these groups tend to think. I know not all Blacks, Hispanic, Scot, Asian or Germanic parts of the church think in block. But there are tendencies within many of these groups.
3. Are we STILL trying to be color-blind? WHY? If its to not injudiciously discriminate then fine. But if it’s to pretend there are no ethnic/cultural differences thats – Stupid! IF we are totally colorblind, there will be no more workshops for reaching the African American community for Christ. There will be no more Asian-centric mission efforts! Hey we’re all the same so why differentiate if we are truly color-blind?
Color me as someone who loves the multi-color fabric of the church.
The HUMAN race, having been made in God’s image, is beautiful, no matter what skin tone or “racial” skull shape (etc.) a person has. But there would be no different “races” were it not for the sins of humanity. The sin of Adam brought about genetic decay, by which DNA information would naturally be lost if groups of people were isolated from the rest of mankind for multiple generations. The Tower of Babel incident caused God to separate people by languages, which guaranteed such isolation would happen, whereby each isolated people group would lose certain genetic information and become visibly different from the other groups. Such isolation also caused the cultures of each group to develop differently.
In heaven, there will be no need for translators. There will be no need for cross-cultural understanding. There will be only one group-identity. We will be the race, culture and people of the Redeemed—redeemed out of many different places and people groups, but redeemed into one Christ.
Ken: Your statement floors me! My jaw dropped. It’s the different languages but not the differing races that were brought on by sin.
The view you have written here is totally warped and a misinterpretation of the scriptures.
Death came by sin, not different races. I never knew some still held to this horrible theory until now Ken, but you are horribly wrong.
What horrible theory is that? That humanity is really only ONE race, descended from one couple, Adam and Eve, and then again from one couple, Noah and his wife—with so-called “racial” differences only resulting from loss of genetic information (with “whites” having lost as much genetic info as any other “race”?)? What’s so horrible about that?
Yes, death came by sin. But do you deny that disease also came by sin? Do you deny that genetic deterioration also came by sin? How about aging?
Debbie,
Do you have an argument from Scripture or reason to justify your reaction of horror and shock? Or is it just a feeling you have?
Here’s AnswersInGenesis.org on races:
Here’s the link: https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/how-many-races-did-god-create/
Debbie,
All of the races (ethnicities) were developed after Babel. Before that time everyone were not only one language but one people.
Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
Debbie,
In an autopsy – if obe takes the livers of an Asian man, an African man, and a Norwegian man – places them in a container – and then invite all of the worlds experts on the human liver to enter the room not knowing which is which – would they be able to tell which liver came from which individual?
No.
In fact, in most cases no internal organ of one human being can be differentiated from another human being – blood is the same – an expert can tell the difference between human blood and horse blood – but simply by looking at the blood you cannot tell the difference between the blood of a white man and a black man until identify the person and then can assign the physical characteristics to the human blood.
My point is a human being is a human being the color of one’s skin makes one different from another anymore then Eye color, hair color, or any other physical characteristic. These Differences are only external not internal.
Same is true with the human soul – the human soul is a human soul and is not looked upon by God based on the color of the person’s skin/hair color/eye color that houses that soul.
Just so you DNA experts know, most of you are 1-4% Neanderthal. It hasn’t been studied but Southern Baptists may be even more.
…happy to help.
I heard it’s higher in parts of Oklahoma and Alabama.
Really, Debbie? Do you think that God specially created different races? Which passage did I misinterpret?
Ken,
I understood completely what you just said, and I totally agree with you.
We all came from Adam and Eve. We all came from Noah and Mrs. Noah. So, the different races had to develop later on….thus, we had Black folks in Africa….Semitic people in the Middle East….White people in Europe…Asian people in China and Japan, etc.
Debbie, what are you talking about?
David
Thanks, David. For a moment, I had to double check to see if maybe I made a blunder…
I’d be interested in hearing what the alternative is. Did God purposely intervene and miraculously cause, at some point after Babel, racial differences around the globe? If so, then would interracial marriage go against God’s will for there to be races? If we say that a racially diverse humanity is more beneficial or beautiful than the racially homogenous humanity that existed prior to Babel, then would we not also be saying that multiracial children are detrimental and detract from the beauty of humanity? After all, if humanity starts trending toward interracial marriage, it may eventually lose all racial distinctions and revert back to homogeneity. Sometimes such slogans and common ideas are not well thought out.
One question: where does the Bible say that genetic information was lost? Or to ask it another way, how is AiG’s conclusion anything but conjecture?
John
John, Anytime a mutation occurs it’s a result of loss of information.
“What horrible theory is that? That humanity is really only ONE race, descended from one couple, Adam and Eve, and then again from one couple, Noah and his wife—with so-called “racial” differences only resulting from loss of genetic information (with “whites” having lost as much genetic info as any other “race”?)? What’s so horrible about that?”
I remember reading something about this a long time ago. You can trace the patterns of the scattering by recognizing the light skinned Nordic vs the darker skin near the equator and so forth. There was a survival element to the pattern of the scattering. (Some have theorized that Adam/Eve were medium toned skin and the differing skin tones were a result of fruitful genetics over time)
It is not about races but about genetics. And we are starting to more change as people marry others with lighter or darker skin pigments. Frankly some of the most attractive people I have ever seen come from these unions.
I remember once reading about DNA and the migratory patterns of the Jews. And that there are similar DNA patterns in African Jews and Palestine Jews. I have no idea if this is crank science but it was in a peer reviewed journal I was reading at a friends house many years ago.
John,
The Bible simply affirms that all came from Adam and from Noah, affirming that the DNA of all originated from one line. Therefore, if there is a group or “race” today that has no ability to produce a light-skinned, blond, and another group that has no ability to produce a dark-skinned child, then either such genetic info has been added to what was never there in the original line or it has been selectively lost by the differing groups. Which do you think happened?
Ken,
Do you really want to know what actually happened or is that a rhetorical question?
I really want to know what he thinks happened.
Genetics is hardly my area of expertise, and the question was serious, not rhetorical. (I majored in Physics in college 40+ years ago, and of my post-collegiate work was in Bible and theology; what I know of genetics is dimly remembered from either high school or college freshman biology.) For all I know, genetic material is lost all the time, and it is such common knowledge that I just have not run across the phrase. However, I always thought that (1) it is a matter of dominate verses recessive traits–my wife is strawberry blond and I am dark brunette (which is dominant) , but our son is red-headed, because I was apparently carrying blond/red hair genetic material from some of my Scottish or German ancestors, and (2) maybe it is just semantics–I realize that with enough generations and the “right” genetic combinations, I or my descendents might no longer carry the genetic material for producing a blond/red headed offspring, but something about the way “genetic material becoming lost” implies to me a mutation. And maybe that’s just me, for I do not claim to be up on genetics or the correct terminology. Also, I read the article from AiG, and it (again to me, maybe I read something into it) implied that everything they said was straight from the Bible.
John
John
I’m not a biologist or geneticist either, but I think to be accurate, a genetic mutation could either be a loss or a gain of information. I think the races are clearly a result of genetic change and environmental adaptation, but I wouldn’t necessarily say they are genetically “less” than their forebears.
It is interesting to me that in speaking of future events, Scripture still refers to nations and ethnic groups (Revelation 5; 21; 22; etc.).
Could it be that God kind of likes the diversity of different nations and racial groups and is pleased for that to continue?
With each group offering much to others.
The following is an interesting quote:
“The concept of nations in eternity does not contradict passages that speak of unity among God’s people (see Rev 5:9-10). Nations can coexist in harmony with the equality of salvation and spiritual blessings of which all believers partake. In regard to salvation, there is one people of God, but this concept does not rule out all ethnic, geographical, or gender distinctions.”
-Dr. Michael J. Vlach, “Has the Church Replaced Israel?”
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Let’s look at the passages:
“…Ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation…”
Being ransomed from every tribe, etc., does not indicate that they still held loyalties or group identities, etc., to those particular groups.
Dwight, Debbie, and others, watch this video of a cop in Montana, who had to shoot and kill someone. It probably shows what most cops feel, whenever they have to use their weapons.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/tragic-police-officer-kills-criminal-line-duty-see-response-video/
David
especially watch from the 4 minute mark of the video…from 4 minutes on…
Not sure what difference that is supposed to make. One officer has an understandable, strong reaction over what he had to do in the line of duty; this has nothing to do with anything that has been under discussion recently.
Debbie – I admit I am a bit confused by your position of racism in the SBC due to not enough minorities in key positions. Maybe you are right but nothing has been presented to support that.
1 – Let’s say two men (one white one black) are being considered for an important SBC job. These men are equally qualified (as far as anyone can tell). The job goes to the white man. Is this a racist decision?
2 – Same scenerio… The job goes to the black man, does he get the job only because he is black?
If #1 is yes, then number #2 would also have to be yes. Then I ask this… Should the black man be glad he was chosen for the job because of the color of his skin?
If you think #1 above is yes I think your logic is flawed.
I am not Debbie, but since this is public, I will jump in with my take on your situation–and it goes to statistics. In your scenario, there is nothing to suggest racism is at play, either your #1 or #2. But if you have 100 job openings, with 100 black candidates and 100 white candidates, all more-or-less equally qualified, then statistically, you would expect 50% of the openings to go to each race. Even a a 51-49% split would be well within reason, perhaps even 60-40. When if you climb above that, and have 100-0 or 99-1, then you have prima facie evidence that racism is operative at some point in the process, in some way. I tend to think that is what Debbie is getting at.
John
John,
I have a lot of experience with this so will throw in my 2 cents. Following governing dictates for a college system, we had to interview a percentage of African Americans and Latino’s who would be qualified for the position. (this was before social media and everyone putting their pics on their CV).
So how could we know which potential interviewees were African American or Latino? You cannot always go by name if you look at the government specifics for what constitutes an ethnicity.
Governing rules dictate you must interview a certain percentage of certain ethnicities. And a certain percentage must be on staff.
Have you noticed that most organizations now ask this online applications as “optional”?
So if you were a Latino or African American Ph.D with all the qualifications, chances are you would getthe job.
One had to literally scout for qualified black or Latino candidates and beg them to apply. there is more head hunting like this than some imagine. People do not seem to have any idea of the opportunities for educated minorities. And education is there for the taking.
My point is that the opposite of what you are suggesting is more to the truth. To have that many Latino or black candidates for certain types of positions would be unusual in the first place because of percentages.
Because when you speak in “percentages” please remember the percentage of the African American or Latino population really changes how this works in reality not theory. (I realize the population percentages are changing)
In the scenerio used here, folks are assuming that many qualified African Americans are applying for SBC positions and being denied. I would be interested in some evidence of this.
Fred Luter did not help this view of the SBC being discriminatory?
Dr. Albert Baylis in his survey of the Old Testament, “From Creation to the Cross,” describes how the effects of the fall were stemmed at Calvary and how the redemptive work is complete in glory.
He uses Babel as an example. Man were to subdue, move out and populate the earth. (Gen. 9:1) They refused to do so; they found a plain and were content to live in one place. (Gen. 11:2)
God introduced a barrier to human unity. This barrier would force humans to spread out and populate the earth. As long as humans were in rebellion against God unity would be dangerous. Baylis argues that God controls the rise of evil by national desires and interest. (Acts 17:26,27) This barrier is a perversion of what God created and desired in mankind originally.
On Pentecost the Holy Spirit comes and the tide is turned and all people can be unified under Christ. The language and national barriers are overcome by the coming of the Holy Spirit.
What was hinted at on Pentecost comes to completion before the throne of God and the Lord Jesus. We read in Revelation 7:9,10 the nations cry out in unison, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb.” One voice praising God and the Lamb.
If Baylis is correct then solidarity groups will be in existence in one form are another until the end of time. Further, this is God’s divine plan because of Babel and the wickedness that results from human unity. It is plain the New Testament teaches, at least to me, that believers are to be part of one solidarity group – the redeemed of Christ.
“One question: where does the Bible say that genetic information was lost? Or to ask it another way, how is AiG’s conclusion anything but conjecture?”
At least Biologos admits their views are academic theory and make a case. AiG admits no such thing. Biologos has some articles about this subject that are interesting to read just as AiG is interesting to read.
I could not help but think about the age old question: Did Cain marry his sister. :o)
Lydia,
Cain had to marry his sister. Those were the only girls around, in that day. The prohibition about marrying close kin came later, after the gene pool got worse, and it would lead to deformities, that God told the OT Israelites to not do this, anymore.
David
David, believe it or not, there are very serious Christians who believe differently and you will be with them on the Redeemed earth. One of them is my former SBC pastor. I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other as I do not think it is a salvic issue.
Lydia,
I agree that someone can believe differently about where Cain got his wife, and still be saved. I never said any different. But, when we believe the Bible, and take it at face value, then there’s really no other viable option, out there, about where Cain got his wife. If we believe what the Bible teaches about Adam and Eve being the first two human beings that God created, and that everyone came from them, then there’s no other option. Cain married one of his sisters.
If we deny that Adam and Eve are real people, then we’ve got a lot of other major problems. Because, the Bible, and especially the NT, back up the fact that Adam and Eve were real people…not just symbolic for mankind being created.
Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
What do you do with a verse like Romans 5:12, and original sin, if you deny that Adam was a real man, who was everyone’s Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather?
And, what do you do with Luke 3:38? it says, “Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.” I mean, this looks like a specific genealogy to me. The son of….the son of….the son of….specific people.
And, there’s many more verses and doctrines, which this affects.
David
David, I don’t need to do anything with them. I simply referred to other opinions and made a joke about the age old question of Cain marrying his sister in light of the issue of genetics. The whole discussion on genetics is fascinating and an area I am very ignorant.
However, I know some SBC pastors who think Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Yikes!
It is OK to question and read other views. :o) There are some wonderful believers who read Genesis as an ancient creation narrative written for a good reason after the Babylonian exile. What I have read up on that view it does not negate the overarching message of the verses you cited. Just as differing views on eschatology need not lessen God in any way.
Lydia,
What we believe about the first 11 chapters of Genesis is extremely important. What we believe about Genesis affects everything else about the Christian faith. Jesus quoted Genesis, and spoke quite a few times about Genesis. He also talked about Moses writing the first 5 books of the Bible. So, to not believe these things, we would have to be saying that Jesus was either ignorant of these things; or else, Jesus was lying and being deceptive to the people of that day and time, when He made the statements He did.
I’m not trying to be a smart aleck, but it is extremely important what we believe about Creation, Genesis, and the first 5 books of the Bible.
Here’s a good article on this:
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-literal-days/
David
So David did Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34?
What about Numbers 12:3?
Ryan and Lydia,
Who do you believe wrote the Pentateuch?
Dr. Carol Kaminski of Gordon-Conwell,
“There are several critical approaches to the Pentateuch which really undermine, I think, the Christian faith. I think the one key issue is the authorship of the Pentateuch. Traditionally, over the centuries, we’ve understood that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, and there are certain sections, especially his death notice that he didn’t write, but overall that Moses was responsible for the Pentateuch around about fifteenth century B.C. Well, critical scholars have raised questions about that and, in fact, undermined Mosaic authorship, really dating a number of the sections of the Pentateuch anywhere from tenth century all the way through to the fifth, sixth century, you know, so, and what that means is that those changing the dates and undermining Mosaic authorship locates it at the least kind of four hundred years later but up to eight, nine hundred years after the events themselves. So you have an enormous period of time that there is a gap between the events themselves and when they were written. And, we also have authors, these hypothetical authors, who actually don’t have real names. They have names based on the names of God that is used. So, I think it undermines the authority of the biblical text. I think it raises questions about the whole process of transmission of the biblical text as well.”
Well said Dr. Kaminski.
Also Ryan and Lydia, maybe you missed my earlier question. Who do you think wrote the Pentateuch?
I’m only commenting because I agree with you again Lydia. 🙂
That’s twice in a week.
The Apostle Paul says that Moses wrote it. Romans 10:5
The Sadduccees certainly believed that Moses wrote it..and, jesus did not rebuke them for saying this… Mark 12:18 and following….
But, most importantly, Jesus said that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Mark 7:10; 10:26; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 16:29-31: John 7; and there are many others.
It is VERY CLEAR that Jesus knew that Moses wrote the first 5 books.
So, was Jesus lying? being deceptive? or, do you believe that Jesus was ignorant?
David
In Mark 12, Jesus refers to the Book of Moses. Which book of the Pentateuch is that?
The references you cite all refer directly to the Law which was given to Moses audibly by God. The 10 were given on the tablets and written by God not Moses.
I think Moses was responsible for the writing of the Law although he may not have hand written it himself. Most likely was oral tradition and written as language became more and more prolific- that’s pure speculation, but it matches just fine with the texts from Jesus you quoted.
Also, Jewish tradition and practice traced the Law to Moses- hence why it was called the Law of Moses- but it wasn’t Moses’ law- it was God’s. The reference was for easy of use.
I don’t believe that Moses wrote Numbers 12:3. It’s in parentheses in translations for a reason- most likely a copyists addition. If Moses was that humble, do you really think he would say that about himself?
I don’t think he wrote Deuteronomy 34. He could have- God could have told him about his death, etc- but I’m comfortable with him not writing it- and truthfully with him not being responsible for writing the entire Pentateuch for the reasons cited above. It does not make Jesus a liar if Moses did not write every line of the Pentateuch. It makes Him a rabbi using a common colloquial for the Pentateuch- same as using “The Book of the Law” or “The Law and the Prophets.”
This isn’t that controversial folks. I was taught this stuff in the mid 90’s at a conservative Baptist college by a conservative Baptist professor. In the same way, believing the earth is really old- in the billions of years old- is also not controversial. It was actually a commonly held belief until about the last 100 years. OEC’s are not the devil and we don’t doubt the historicity of the Bible or Adam and Eve, etc. Organizations like AiG, in my opinion, do a disservice to believers in the sciences by insisting that the YEC position is the only valid option for Christians. It makes our brothers and sisters in the sciences have to work twice as hard to get a hearing- which is frustrating as science is more and more demonstrating the need for a catalyst, a prime mover, if you will, for the beginning of the universe. OECs can do that and work in the hard sciences.
So Ryan,
J,E,D,P for you?
Do you believe that for us to conclude Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch would mean we also must conclude he wrote (or had a scribe write) every word?
Volfan…..Not positive…but assuming a time lapse of couple of generations, which seems plausible, Cain could have married a niece or a cousin, not just his sister…..
Kevin,
Where did the cousins and nieces come from? Think on that one for a minute.
Somebody had to marry a sister.
David
The text is clear that genetic issues increased over time. Obviously, somebody DID marry a sister. 1) it was before God prescribed otherwise by fiat; and 2) it was before genetic deterioration from generational sin created problems for such unions.
That’s my humble take on the matter.
“Marrying a sister” can be a red herring in the argument.
“What about Numbers 12:3?”
bwahahaha!
Guys I have no idea the name of the scribes or who all wrote it down. There are some really fascinating things to look at such as the Oral tradition of the Jews, differences in style (See Gen 1 and 2 where God is Elohim in 1 and Yahweh in 2), language, differences in the account, etc. I am no scholar but I seriously doubt Moses wrote about his death and burial or referred to himself as the most humble guy on the earth.
None of this takes away the inspiration and the grand narrative about God’s creation and rescue.
Most serious scholars who also hold to Mosaic authorship also don’t believe “Moses wrote about his death and burial or referred to himself as the most humble guy on the earth.”
So after looking at all those “fascinating things” who do you believe wrote the Pentateuch?
Les, who wrote Moses’ Death info and the most humble guy in the world part?
Seriously, this is not something to argue about. It in no way lessens Gods creation and rescue, imo. I know others disagree and think YEC is a salvic doctrine. I was raised around an uncle who was a Christian rocket scientist and heard YE/OE debates as a kid. It was never presented as Salvic but simply good natured interest.
So I am not really interested in going down that road. I am not a scholar, just a gal who finds this stuff interesting.
Thanks Lydia.
BTW I posted a reply this morning to you and Jim G over at SBC Today. I guess the moderator is busy with other things today.
Have a blessed evening.
Lydia, I agree that the text raises interesting questions.
It is not the questions that are the problem, but the answers given by Wellhausenistic scholars.
Your version of Mosaic authorship is a straw-man. As others said, Mosaic authorship does not teach that Moses carved every word in a stone booklet.
At issue is precisely the “inspiration” of the text. German higher criticism does not lead to the conclusion you make.
“At issue is precisely the “inspiration” of the text. German higher criticism does not lead to the conclusion you make.”
Why would “inspiration” be the issue? I think the issue is really “inerrancy” and folks are afraid of anything that might upset that position.
Would “German higher criticism” include German Jewish Torah Scholars? :o)
Seriously guys, it is ok. I am touching on verboten topics, I know. I am not some crazed liberal ready to ordain homosexuals, I promise. I just enjoy reading about differing views and believe my OE Uncle was a real Christian. I do think we need to chill on the dogmatic approach to some third tier pet doctrines that are not salvic. They become barriers for some folks who do not feel welcome in the Body.
Lydia,
I am somewhat taken with your condescending attitude I didn’t say anything about your uncle being a Christian or not being a Christian. I’ve never met him.
My point was that “higher criticism” is about the issue of inspiration. I didn’t mention inerrancy because higher criticism that proposes an uninspired text presupposes the text is not inerrant.
I don’t take a “salvic” [sic] position on the age of the earth, though I have my opinion on the matter and think it does indeed pose problems for any assurance of salvation. But, I wasn’t addressing that issue.
Also, not believing that Moses was the author of the books attributed to him does mean that one does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible because the Lord Himself says Moses wrote the books attributed to him–your argument against the death event does not mitigate the general authorship position.
So, you seem to conflate “third tier” (a principle I don’t use because it has no biblical warrant) with “salvic” issues.
I don’t think there is some clear demarcation between the value of truth. It isn’t like baloney that can be cut up and served piecemeal. Truth is either all true or all false.
Also, in regard to the different uses of the names for God, you have chosen to simply look at one alternative–multiple authors (as with classic liberals). I see it as one author with two different applications for the same event–but I digress.
I am not branding you as a liberal or anything else. I am speaking in regard to your argument that seems to misstate what I believe as one who holds to Mosaic authorship, and also misstating the ramifications of higher criticism in regard to inspiration.
Interestingly, I went to seminary (the first one) over 30 years ago, and by my second seminary incarceration higher criticism was abandoned by most
serious students of the bible outside of liberal denominations.
Good points Jack.
“I went to seminary (the first one) over 30 years ago, and by my second seminary incarceration higher criticism was abandoned by most
serious students of the bible outside of liberal denominations.”
My experience as well Jack.
Jack and Les,
Curious, was your second experience in an SBC seminary? Was it after the purging of all dissenting views?
Chris,
I moved on after one year (1984-85) of that nonsense in NOBTS to Mid America BTS and then a degree from Covenant Theological Sem.
Would this have been Covenant the PCA seminary after the PCA split off from the PCUSA in order to form an ultra-conservative denomination?
“Would this have been Covenant the PCA seminary after the PCA split off from the PCUSA in order to form an ultra-conservative denomination?”
Covenant had formerly been part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPCES). 1982 changed that relationship. The critical year for the PCA was 1973 as they left actually the old PC in the US after their slide into liberalism and neo orthodoxy. This is all available online.
“I am somewhat taken with your condescending attitude I didn’t say anything about your uncle being a Christian or not being a Christian. I’ve never met him.”
Sorry Jack. I should not have answered other comments in the same comment to you. That is confusing, I know.
“My point was that “higher criticism” is about the issue of inspiration. I didn’t mention inerrancy because higher criticism that proposes an uninspired text presupposes the text is not inerrant.”
I don’t do seminary “Christianese”. Can you bring that down a few notches so this pew peasant girl can understand?
“I don’t take a “salvic” [sic] position on the age of the earth, though I have my opinion on the matter and think it does indeed pose problems for any assurance of salvation. But, I wasn’t addressing that issue.”
What is the difference? Assurance is pretty important, no?
“Also, not believing that Moses was the author of the books attributed to him does mean that one does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible because the Lord Himself says Moses wrote the books attributed to him–your argument against the death event does not mitigate the general authorship position.”
I gave several reasons but ok, I guess that means I cannot believe the scriptures were inspired. I guess I have to take your word for it. (I am going to sneak and believe it anyway. :o))
“So, you seem to conflate “third tier” (a principle I don’t use because it has no biblical warrant) with “salvic” issues.”
You mean sort of like how everything is the Gospel these days? Gospel marriage, Gospel kids, Gospel quit smoking programs, etc, etc. Actually I don’t equate third tier with salvic issues.
“I don’t think there is some clear demarcation between the value of truth. It isn’t like baloney that can be cut up and served piecemeal. Truth is either all true or all false.”
I can agree with that. perhaps you can explain Article 10 of the Chicago Statement to me. Is it truth or presupposition based upon circumstantial evidence? I find it is full of cognitive dissonance but I am sure you can set me straight. :o)
“Also, in regard to the different uses of the names for God, you have chosen to simply look at one alternative–multiple authors (as with classic liberals). I see it as one author with two different applications for the same event–but I digress.”
Ok. Moses liked Elohim for his chapter 1 and Yahweh for his Chapter 2. Why? Why different creation accounts one with more detail than others. Why do other ANE creation accounts sound similar? Here is an example:
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/lam_scholarly_essay.pdf
Why the fear of us plebes reading other scholarship? I don’t get it.
“I am not branding you as a liberal or anything else. I am speaking in regard to your argument that seems to misstate what I believe as one who holds to Mosaic authorship, and also misstating the ramifications of higher criticism in regard to inspiration.”
Higher Criticism. here we go again. If I had a dollar for every SBTS student who used those words to dismiss folks over the last 15 years, I would be well off. I did ask if that included German Jewish scholars. :o) And why is it such a sin to look for archeological evidence or historical context? Do you sniff at the Dead Sea Scrolls?
“Interestingly, I went to seminary (the first one) over 30 years ago, and by my second seminary incarceration higher criticism was abandoned by most
serious students of the bible outside of liberal denominations.”
It always boils down to liberal/conservative. Serious students vs the liberals, etc, etc. I know the drill. The problem is those distinctions are blurring in many walks of life including the study of scripture and historical context. The problem really stems from the fact we all have access to the same Holy Spirit. And that does not bode well for guys who want to scripture to control others or appear to have a corner on truth of every detail.
Methinks you do condescending quite well, btw. But of course, it is perfectly ok when you do it, right?
And we wonder why people are becoming nones and dones.
Jack, I am not smart enough to converse with you.
“…doctrines that are not salvic.”
Well that’s good. So we can expect a coming silence on other non salvific issues such as Calvinistic theology? 🙂
Jack, right. I remember back in 1984-85, my one year at NOBTS, the prof putting this junk forward as the best way to view the Pentateuch authorship. It was junk then and still is. Really only liberals have hung on to this for obvious reasons. The NOBTS prof also championed the notion that virtually all the miracles in the OT were really explained just fine by natural occurring events or didn’t really happen.
I can see why, at least so far, neither Ryan or Lydia want to come right out and champion the discredited view of the Pentateuch authorship.
Granted it is only “discredited” by a small subset of scholars who hold prior allegiance to a particular view of inspiration and authorship.
I fall into the “camp” of Chris on this issue (but would not suggest he is a liberal [that would be for him to assert if such were the case], as I would for myself) and would assert that ‘discredited’ is such a strong word, and I, further, would not suggest it is a word that the broader academic community would use. Wellhausen is to be congratulated for raising a question concerning the development of parts of the Old Testament, for his question has sparked many subsequent questions. Subsequent proposals, whether revisions of Wellhausen or those going in other directions have a soft underbelly, too, which in turn raises additional questions to pursue. This is the way knowledge advances. Nonetheless, these passages speak to us today as they have to those in the past, but perhaps not in the same way.
Do the other so called scholars “hold prior allegiance to a particular view of inspiration and authorship?” Nay, they can’t have any bias, right?
Everyone has biases, but do you dispute the fact that your preconceptions absolutely dictate what you must conclude about the text? The trick to rational thinking is being aware of biases and working to keep them in check. Keeping biases in check is something a conservative Christian ideology will not allow. Biases are instead the fundamentals of the faith, the lens through which all other knowledge is to be interpreted.
One of the great examples of this is Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis, which has been quoted throughout this discussion. He is rather famous for saying there is nothing that could change his mind. A video from his group presents the delightful comment from one intelligent fellow who says that if the Bible taught 2+2=5, he would believe it, while seeking to understand how 2+2=5. There isn’t much hope for a mindset so rigidly locked by an antiquated ideology, so steadfast in its refusal to even consider a world in which the guards are let down, the biases are relaxed, in which an attempt is made to see things from a position of neutrality. That kind of thinking tends to produce atheists. Speaking from experience.
“Everyone has biases, but do you dispute the fact that your preconceptions absolutely dictate what you must conclude about the text?”
Which text?
“The trick to rational thinking is being aware of biases and working to keep them in check. Keeping biases in check is something a conservative Christian ideology will not allow.”
Are you suggesting that a Christian cannot think rationally as he/she approaches the bible?
Further,
““The trick to rational thinking is being aware of biases and working to keep them in check.”
Are you suggesting you and other atheists have mastered this?
Les,
“Which text?”
Take your pick. In this case, a particular view in inerrancy and inspiration dictate What One Must Believe regarding authorship of the Pentateuch and whether or not there was an actual Adam and Eve.
“Are you suggesting that a Christian cannot think rationally as he/she approaches the bible?”
It depends what you mean. Christians can apply rational tools when trying to think through a text – its meaning, its connection to other texts, etc – but generally speaking, conservative Christians frown upon taking a rational approach to determining whether or not a text is actually true. The preconception is, “This is the Bible, of course it is true! Now I just have to decide what it means!” Of course, the particular hermeneutic one adopts does tend to predetermine what one will conclude about a text, which is why people typically choose a hermeneutic in line with their theological commitments. There are occasional defections to other theological commitments (an Arminian becoming Calvinist, etc) but they tend to be the exception.
My primary criticism in this: a refusal to consider that the text may simply be wrong, or that something may be happening in the text that undermines what we think it means, or that the Bible advocates things we would call atrocities if anyone else did them but we call divine justice because God does it, etc, etc.
“Are you suggesting you and other atheists have mastered this?”
Nice dodge, but of course not. But here’s the difference: the recognition that detachment and neutrality must be sought rather than proudly holding fast to preconception.
Chris,
You remind me of this:
“Spinoza saw dogmatic Christianity as the great enemy of the modern age and his project of biblical criticism was expressly intended to liberate Christianity from its dogmatic moorings.”
and…
““Spinoza’s intent is clear, if indirect: false Christianity is dogmatic Christianity of any stripe. It is a child of unreason. For the sake of reason, dogmatic Christianity must be overcome.”
Carry on. It’s being attempted for, well, a long time.
Les,
Replies like that do a good job of demonstrating my point, but hardly form an effective rebuttal. Obfuscate, distract, misdirect, accuse, demonize, stigmatize, ostracize, confuse, distort, but for the love of God (literally), do not consider the argument. There are even those around these parts who think dissenting voices such as mine should simply be shut out entirely. We can’t have people thinking they can approach the Bible with the thought, “You know, maybe this isn’t true…”
Chris, my last one for the night. Our approaches are so far apart as to be fruitless really. You cannot truly understand the bible. It reads, for you, like any other literature or People’s Magazine. So with that, one more quote that reminds me of you:
“Since Spinoza believed in no personal God, it was impossible for God to have inspired the Bible in any sense. Instead, Spinoza believed that the Bible was simply a product of human authorship, reflecting all of the historical circumstances, prejudices, and faults of those authors. As a thoroughgoing rationalist, Spinoza believed that the goal of human existence should be to live by the service of reason alone.”
Les,
“You cannot truly understand the bible.”
And there we have the dodge of dodges. Roughly translated: “I don’t even have to listen to you. Since you don’t have the Spirit, you can’t even understand this to begin with!”
This is perhaps the greatest weapon in the Christian arsenal to protect them from even considering what a non-Christian might have to say. Let’s go back to the bit where this kind of thinking is irrational…
“That kind of thinking tends to produce atheists. Speaking from experience.”
No – actually what happens is atheists who are posing as Christians often tire of the posing and come out as to what they really are.
1 John 1:18-19
Tarheel,
Another great dodge: “You never were a Christian! I don’t have to listen to you!” Granted, I was as confident of the mercy and grace extended to me by the saving grace of Jesus Christ and the salvific decrees of the Father and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit as any of you are now, but, hey, we could all be posers. Tarheel, are you an atheist in disguise?
Chris Roberts,
He has no bias who has the utter certainty of incontrovertible proof. God has revealed truth in His Word, and He continues to reveal that it is true. As the omnipotent God who desires to communicate truth to men, He is able and does authenticate that revelation with a legitimacy and certainty that goes far beyond anything that could ever be hoped for by any scientific evidence. It is merely out a rebellious unbelief and pure skepticism that one would expect a believer to hold such divine authentication and revelation with a “healthy skepticism” or “neutral objectivity.” And again, this discussion is not the place for atheists like you to try to make their empistemological case against such revelation—whether by ridicule or by supposed reasoning.
Ken,
You and I both know it is empty rhetoric to speak of “incontrovertible proof” within Christianity. It is bare assertion without the slightest hint of substance.
Chris Roberts,
You call it a bare assertion, without substance. And of course, you would, since that Substance is within the true believer, having been filled with the substance of the Holy Spirit of God Himself. The assertion is only bare becomes without the ability to impart that Substance to you or present it to you for your examination. Scripture, in Rom. 1, also makes the bare assertion that you—and all other unbelievers—are without excuse, since God has revealed the truth of His existence to you, and react by suppressing that truth. In such cases, Chris, a BARE assertion is not necessarily a FALSE assertion. You might not get the proof you insist upon in this life, but you will be proven on the side of error when you stand before the God who is the Author and Revealer of these truths. And when the skeptic stands before God on that Day, it will be shown that his unbelief came from His innermost rejection of truth—first, rejected, and then disbelieved. All of your arguments against this are mere bare assertions themselves, being unable to disprove it.
And once again, let me remind you that this discussion is not supposed to be a platform for atheists like you to make your case.
correct “The assertion is only bare becomes without the ability to impart that Substance to you or present it to you for your examination” to read “The assertion is only bare because I’m without the ability to impart that Substance to you or present it to you for your examination.”
Ken,
Your claim is bare and without substance because it is, by its very nature, undeniably irrational (and I suspect that you would not only agree with this, but be proud of the fact). Which leads us back to the original claim.
There is nothing irrational about believing what God has revealed to you with the certainty that only God can provide. There is something irrational, however, about the atheists inner contradiction of willfully suppressing what his innermost self knows is true—and then hoping to salve the inner sting of truth with claims to reason and objectivity, and confident demands for naturalistic proofs. Such a blind unbelief may serve you in this world, but you will stand one day before the God of Truth, and all your excuses will fail.
Ken,
We may need to discuss the meaning of the word “rational”, I suspect even that much may escape you…
Rational: In accordance with the principles of reason.
There are two kinds of skepics, those seeking the truth and those seeking to argue against the truth. Only the former make for good discussion, as in the latter case, it is pearls before swine. Which are you?
One might note that “seeking truth” does not begin with “we already have incontrovertible, unquestionable proof written on our hearts by an invisible God”
I never said I don’t have to listen to you….I’m just aware of what you are.
We do already have the truth. Believing that is the essence of the Christian faith. We do not hope we will be proven right in the end. We know we will be proven right in the end. Meanwhile, no one can prove us wrong. All you can do is decry the method as unwise or irrational in your eyes; but your eyes do not see what we see.
Ken,
I’m saving your comment as the quintessential example of Christian irrationality. It couldn’t be stated more perfectly.
Chris,
Given our presupposition, our view is not the least bit irrational, but your is. Given your presuppositions, our view may be irrational. However, we reject your presuppositions, and you reject ours. Nonetheless, this is a tangent that ought to be reserved for a topic more to the point.
Ken,
Your presupposition is itself irrational. Holding irrational presuppositions doesn’t magically make a view rational. But as you say, we’re a bit off topic. Not to fear! Something on this might just show up on my blog tomorrow.
Les,
I’m not coming out in favor of or against any specific scholarship. I’m speaking of what I have learned and understood through study, examining the text, and understanding how information was translated- as far as we know- in ANE culture. Oral culture. Not a lot written down at first. We know there had to be a time when things began to be written down because we have Ezra discovering the law and reading it to the people. Did Moses- under inspiration- write every word? I doubt it, but it’s possible. Why does he have to write every word? Only because of a poor understanding on our part of how the Jews referred to their law.
If we would stop trying to shoehorn everything into a neat perfect little package and making the Gospel depend on such asinine things as whether Moses called himself the most humble man on earth or whether the last chapter of Deuteronomy was written by Moses or someone else, we would be better off.
The Gospel hinges on Jesus, not who wrote Numbers. We don’t lose Jesus in His sinless perfection if Moses did or didn’t write Numbers.
Ryan, I’m just going to repeat what Lydia said earlier, but for different reasons. Yikes!
Ryan,
If you read Les’s comments from before. He admitted that not necessarily every word was written by Moses. So I guess I really don’t understand your last comment to him. All I know is that it certainly appears that Christ ascribed it to Moses.
As I said in a discussion a few months ago, I don’t think one has to be YEC to be a Christian or to even have a plausible orthodox argument. I do however, believe that one must believe in a literal Adam to be Orthodox.
John Wylie,
Amen!
David
PS. Ryan, Moses could’ve written all of the things in the Pentateuch, except the two verses you point out. Someone could’ve added those verses to it. It still wouldn’t change the fact that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. And, in fact, Jesus does say that Moses wrote them. That is so clear that there’s just no way to wiggle out of it. Also, there are passages from the rest of the NT, which shows that the Apostles and others believed Moses wrote them.
So, again, my question…was Jesus being deceptive, in order to go along what the people of that day and time falsely believed? Was He lying to them? Or, was Jesus ignorant about the origins of the Pentateuch, and just didn’t know any better?
Either way, it presents some real serious problems, whenever someone accepts the JEDP theory.
David
It’s interesting to me that what was called a “horrible theory” that I was supposedly “horribly wrong” for holding has led the argument into whether or not Moses really did write the first five books of the Bible. The “horrible theory” that I espoused was simply taking the Bible at its word, and believing that all men descended from Adam, and from Noah, and was racially homogenous at the beginning; thus, the distinct “races” that are now present came about from isolation and natural genetic loss, both being the results of human sin (without Babel, we wouldn’t have had such isolation, and without the fall of man, we would have maintained a perfect and complete DNA). It says a lot that such a question devolves into an argument over higher criticism and whether or not Cain married his sister. Still, such arguments are out of place when discussing racial reconciliation (the genetic issue being only ancillary to show that God’s ultimate plan for humanity was not the existence of racial group identities & loyalties).
“I can see why, at least so far, neither Ryan or Lydia want to come right out and champion the discredited view of the Pentateuch authorship.”
I am not well read enough on this issue to “champion” it. I fully admit that. I have always had issues with pastors declaring Moses wrote it for several reasons. Some I have mentioned.
But, even you seem to agree that Moses did not write parts of it so I am even more perplexed than ever concerning your reaction.
And calling it a ‘discredited view’ is meaningless to me. It simply becomes an issue of your scholars are better than my scholars. That is a black hole.
I do not think Jesus is a liar. I think Jesus communicated to His Jewish audience in a way they would understand. I think we tend to overlay 20th Century thinking onto 1st Century communication– way too often. Ryan mentioned the “Book of Moses” that I would use as one simple example of that.
And I most certainly believe in the Miracles. Why does it always have to descend into that mode?
I really wish there could be discussions on such non salvic issues such as YEC/OEC, mutualism and inerrancy in evangelical circles that did not descend into accusing folks of being “liberal”.
So will leave it there. I made a mistake mentioning it, I realize that.
Lydia,
“But, even you seem to agree that Moses did not write parts of it so I am even more perplexed than ever concerning your reaction.”
If you read up on it more you’d understand why I can say that and believe that Moses authored the Pentateuch. There’s plenty out there on such a view.
I wasn’t calling you a liberal or a denier of miracles. Pardon if you took it that way. The liberal label was meant to refer to so called scholars and the miracle denier was in reference to my prof at New Orleans Baptist Seminary. Not meant for you, so please forgive if I inferred that.
It bears repeating: I didn’t say that instances of racism could not be found, nor that instances of high-profile racism or racism by some people in key positions could not be found—or even that instances of institutional oppression could not be found. It’s not that I necessarily accept all your examples as correct. Some may be debatable. But my purpose in writing the article above is not say that many individual examples of racism do not still occur. But rather, that they are not true of how the majority of white individuals think toward race (black or their own); and further, that attempts to argue that such multiple charges when taken together ought to indict the white race as a whole are ineffective, since the average white person will respond by looking to the content of his own character and confidently reply,
Yes, there is work still to do in cleaning up the vestiges of the institutional and personal racism of the past. But motivating and inspiring people to the task cannot be done by the old thinking of that past. Reconciliation can never be on the level of the races as a whole. Whites are individualized and see reconciliation as a personal matter, not a race as a whole. We see that the black race was abused and oppressed as a whole in history, and we see instances of abuse present today; but we no longer comprehend the existence of an oppressor race as an entity—rather, we find individual oppressors with which we recognize no implicating union.
The abuses that happen, if they are racial abuses, are against the group—against individuals for being members of that group. When a group is oppressed and abused, they tend to stick together and maintain the group identity—and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, for members of the majority race to embrace and maintain a group identity is to embrace the role of oppressor group. Most whites reject this role and the group identity that goes with it.
Just as it would be helpful for whites to better understand the the solidarity with which black people suffer racial abuse, it would be helpful for black people to better understand the absence of white solidarity in the acts and even systems of abuse.
The answer, it seems to me, is not to get the white race to again take up the mantle of racial solidarity so every individual can bear the weight of conscience for the guilt of the race. Rather, the answer is to continue Dr. King’s struggle to completely remove that group identity from every last white person, so that minorities will only be treated as individuals, and those individual can then be free to eventually drop their own racial solidarity. But as long as there continues to be oppression, then the racial solidarity of the oppressed continues to be justified.
Ken,
Then if there are examples of blacks or any other non-white people oppressing whites, should whites then regather into racial solidarity?
Or do you not think that black racists exist? Or Mexican-American racists, do they exist?
Simply because some whites still exhibit bias does not mean that solidarity that encourages segregation is a good or right thing.
My observation is that while it is possible that certain shootings of young black men by the police were racially motivated, there is no evidence of racial bias. But the solidarity of the black community is evident, because even though the numbers of young men slain by the police is sad, it certainly pales with the immense number of young black men killed by other black men.
But we see no riots or protests over these killings. We see no riots or protests over the fatherless homes of young black children, where the young ladies grow up and have kids from multiple young men, and where the boys grow up to not only spread their seed around, but turn to crime against one another, and those actions continue the tragic cycle.
But we do see prominent black men pushing for more money fro the government, more free education, more help in buying homes, and so forth. And some of these also stir up the hurts and pains of the community and transfer the cause from the bad choices the community as a whole makes to the idea that there is discrimination by whites against blacks, and the oppression against blacks from both way back then and yet is still today.
That the way forward is not to keep circling the wagons in the black community but to take a hard look at their own bad choices, and that starts with their spiritual leaders. And when the black community starts be real and honest about their own faults, in house faults, the can start to correct them. And from that correction, the by comparison minimal bias f a few bad white apples will be much easier to overcome. For one reason, they will the majority of whites helping them and agreeing with them.
But when they instead riot and tear down their own communities, burning their own businesses to the ground, for a ~~possible~~ racist atrocity, in a town where most don’t even bother to vote [i.e.: care about] civically, why should others think that people who act like that desire to be a part of a constructive and growing society?
I read 100’s of comments. The answer is that there is a whole lot of people who just don’t get why they act the way they do. Why should protesting lead to stealing and robbing and arson?
Is their rage because their great gramps was a slave? Or that a police offer profiled them late one night driving a mercedes in a poor neighborhood? Blacks have EARNED that profile. But why burn down a sister’s beauty shop? Why rob a and steal from a brother’s electronic or appliance store?
Lawlessness unleashed reveals the heart of the community. Most didn’t vote, but many rioted. It is so sad. And segregating themselves as a Black Church doesn’t help the problem, it sends a message that its us versus whites, even in religion. Yet the real problem is that its blacks versus blacks.
Mike,
I think we as whites have an obligation to acknowledge the black racial-group identification in their suffering (past and present); but I think we have lost the right to use their group identity—borne out of our oppressing them—to indict them for anything as a group. Just as we the group indictment of whites, pointing out that only some are racists and abusers and not all or even most, we have no excuse for not applying that atomization to any supposed guilt of the black race. Not all blacks are rioters, not all blacks think that disagreeing with a grand jury justifies violence and theft, not all blacks are guilty of whatever we might want to attribute to them.
You ask if black people should also give up the racial group-identity. Perhaps… but we as members of a race with a terrible history of oppressing them have lost any moral high ground from which to insist that they do so.
Mike,
Could you take a look at these words that you wrote:
“Is their rage because their great gramps was a slave? Or that a police offer profiled them late one night driving a mercedes in a poor neighborhood? Blacks have EARNED that profile”
Do you really think those are words that would compel an African American person to want to trust you, dialogue with you? Do they convey a sense of understanding of the struggles that African Americans have endured in the US since they were brought over here against their will?
There was an article in The Atlantic this fall that made the case for reparations- an incendiary term I know- based on the 200+ years of economic impact on specifically African American people as the result of slavery and Jim Crow. Google it. It’s worth a read and when you get done you will want to remove the above comment from cyber space.
To say that “Blacks have earned that profile” as you typed is to reveal the real heart of the matter. Why? Why do you think it’s ok to judge a person in an instant by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character? Do you want to be judged as a white person as an “oppressor” based on the actions of people in the past and present?
Profiling anyone is not right or just. It leads to the problems we are now having as we try to have a national dialogue on race and Justice. It leads to Trayvon Martin being killed. It leads to Reginald Denny being beaten within an inch of his life.
I think based on your comments you have some serious soul searching to do.
This video shows why some people get treated rough by the police. And, what do you think stirred these young men up, to act this way towards the Cops?
http://fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/video-east-nashville-arrest-goes-viral-25765.shtml
David
“And of course, you would, since that Substance is within the true believer, having been filled with the substance of the Holy Spirit of God Himself. ”
Yes! One hardly hears of the Holy Spirit these days.
Ken,
You asked Chris R. which kind of skeptic he is.
2nd Peter 2
These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”
The dog proves he is still only a dog and the sow, always only a sow.
My advice, to you, and to other Christians, is to ignore him.
He is not here to learn about our faith, but to mock and belittle.
Blessings to you brother,
mike
I enjoyed the gloating condescension in your voice as you posted that.
And you’re right that I’m not here to learn about the faith – I “know” Christianity as well as anyone here. I would, however, like to help people realize there are other ways to think about these matters. But I know, I know – dissenting voices need not apply.
(And to save you the trouble: I know the automatic response is additional smug condescension about how I never really knew Christ or Christianity even if I have head knowledge, etc. Yes, yes, I’ve heard – and even used, in my once and former Christian days – all those dodges before.)
Chris,
Many people have “known” Christianity the way you do. Head facts. It’s another thing altogether to know the God of Christianity. You know the former facts. You don’t know latter Author and Finisher of the faith once for all delivered.
You can of course, if you will abandon yourself and trust in Jesus to forgive your sons. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Many of us here do pray for you regularly that God will be pleased to one day use all the verses you’ve memorized and all the truths about Christ you know and once championed to, by his Spirit, open your blind eyes and free you from your sin bondage.
And there it is.
Chris,
You…”And to save you the trouble: I know the automatic response is additional smug condescension about…”
There was nothing smug or condescending about my response.
Indeed.
And BTW Chris, “dissenting voices need not apply,” you’ve not been silenced here, have you? You’re still commenting regularly. But you won’t get a free pass either, as none of us should. You do come across often as if you’ve got a big chip on your shoulder and *seem* to want to provoke us believers into some sort of predictable response, predicted often by you. Then you can say as you did a few minutes ago, “and there it is.” Just buck up, hitch up your pants and stop trying to come off as an atheist victim of marginalization by crazy Christians. That would help.
Les,
True, I’ve not been silenced, but I’m noting that there are a few who have said I should be, and a few who have said I should simply be ignored. Either way: don’t pay attention to the atheist. Granted, some who say I should be ignored can’t resist jumping in when I comment.
This is a private Baptist blog. The moderators can do with it as they wish. But I tend to stay out of most post discussions and jump in only when there’s something relevant to an ongoing discussion. I’m as firm in my disagreements as I’ve ever been (you know, back in the days when you liked what I had to say) with no change in my discussion approach – which is to say, respectful but unyielding. On the other hand, just today I’ve been called dog and sow. At other times, a fool. Hellbound. Etc, etc. Granted, the Bible justifies your name calling and threat leveling, which tends to say something about the Bible. But as I’ve mentioned before, I understand your mindset. It was, after all, once mine as well.
And with that…off to see American Sniper shortly.
Chris, each one of us here is a guest (moderators and contributors excepted) and each has an opinion on you being here or if you shouldn’t be here. So that’s just life in blog world.
Yes, I liked what you used to say. When you said truthful things, even from an unsaved heart, truth is truth. It preceded you and will stand over your grave.
Dog and sow. The biblical language is what it is and it’s truth. I assume those words don’t bother you do they? We have our biblical language and you should expect to see it employed here. It’s not name calling in the usual way an calling is understood and certainly not threatening. From your viewpoint the words come from mere humans of old anyway supposedly from a God you don’t believe in. No need to take it personal or be offended. If it bothers you too much, well…
I don’t mind engaging you on some things. As I’ve said before, I’ll not engage you on biblical interpretative issues because you do not have the Holy Spirit to help you understand the spiritual meaning. On other things, no problem.
Of course it’s name calling and threatening in the usual way. The only difference is you think God told you you’re allowed to do it, which is where the smug condescension often comes in. And they aren’t words from men of old, they are words from the people who choose to use them now.
Should have been here…
And with that…off to see American Sniper shortly.
Okay folks, I’m going to wrap up the discussion on this post. It’s chased quite the bunny trails…