Today I launch a series of posts on the subject of slavery. The thinking that lies behind this series has been brewing over the course of years. Only rarely do I wait so long before putting thoughts into writing. What is the cause here? This subject is fraught with difficulties that impede our discussion of it. I dedicate the initial post, therefore, to an exploration of those difficulties, somewhat in order to try to exalt every valley and lay low every mountain and hill before embarking upon the processional.
- It is hard to talk about slavery because we struggle to separate the subject of slavery from the subject of race. This is not a phenomenon unique to our nation or our epoch. The Spartans enslaved the helots. The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews. For as long as there has been slavery, one form of slavery has been the subjugation of one race to another. Indeed, our English word “slave” is a derivative of the name of a race—the Slavs—who were enslaved.
We do well to note, however, that it has not always been the case that slavery was tied to race. Jews sometimes enslaved other Jews. Romans sometimes enslaved other Romans. The history of non-racial slavery is as old as the history of racial slavery and persists for as long (sex trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery that is based upon something other than race).
Of course, we fought a war over a particular institution of slavery, and that episode was racial in nature and was tied to a theory of racial superiority and inferiority (as such forms of slavery sometimes are). The racism continued after the slavery had ended, and we struggle greatly to discuss slavery in any way that ever leaves the orbit of nineteenth-century American chattel slavery of blacks.
That we so rarely and so poorly discuss slavery as a matter distinct from racism is to our detriment. It allows people to defer conversations about racism that they need to enjoin and it hampers our ability to discuss slavery rationally.
- It is hard to talk about slavery because we often don’t know what slavery is, at least in any precise way. What differentiates a slave and an employee? What about a slave and a prisoner in the state penitentiary? A person who has been committed to institutional care against his or her will? A child living in your home?
We deprive people of their freedoms more than we like to think. The philosophical distinctions between the slave and the employee are rather esoteric. They often depend upon conceits like “property in the person” whereby selling your time for forty hours of the week in an ongoing contractual way is treated as though you are selling something other than yourself. Any child can see that you are not.
We trade our freedom in order to obtain things that we want more than we want freedom. Ironically, if we were unable to do so, we would hardly be free. All of us sell ourselves and vacate our freedom of self-determination in a thousand different ways. Slavery is therefore one part of a larger economic reality. Recognizing what differentiates slavery from other barterings away of our freedom is an important first step to having a conversation about slavery, as is seeing the defining characteristics that differentiate one form of slavery from another.
Talking about slavery becomes more difficult when we don’t know what we’re talking about.
For the purposes of this series of essays, I will define slavery as any situation in which another person, not your parent and not as a consequence of any crime that you have committed, gains absolute and total authority and responsibility over your economic life without paying you a monetary wage in return.
I encourage you to attempt your own definitions. The exercise will help you to see how difficult (and sometimes how arbitrary) it is to differentiate slavery from things that are still common aspects of our lives.
- Talking about slavery becomes more difficult in the midst of Libertarianism. I have expressed formerly “Why I Am Not a Libertarian” and taking a few moments to read that essay might assist you in understanding this one more fully. A great many of us have drawn conclusions about self-ownership and liberty without doing the work of delving into the finer points of the underlying premises. To do so is a robustly American thing to do, and it is not an impulse entirely antithetical to the teachings of the Bible, which has a thing or two to say about in commendation of freedom.
There is always the risk, however, that when we read “free” in the Bible we define it more in terms of contemporary political thinking than we realize. Libertarianism is not a biblical philosophy. According to the Bible, where slavery is wrong it must have a reason for being wrong (in what it does to slaves, or perhaps in what it does to masters). According to Libertarianism, slavery is wrong simply because it is not liberty—no explanation or justification is necessary.
“Slavery is wrong because it is slavery” is a level above which present-day discourse rarely rises, and as the next essay will demonstrate, this is an idea diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who must be decried by Libertarian theory as one of the great purveyors of evil in all of human history. But more of that later.
- Talking about slavery becomes more difficult because we’d rather not talk about slavery. For some people a sense of guilt for the American institution of race-based chattel slavery makes this a dangerous topic that they’d rather avoid. For others on the other side of history, painful recollections of American slavery and its aftermath make the subject so unpleasant as to render it unprofitable to discuss. Some fear that exposure of the problems of slavery will disadvantage their political agendas. Others fear that resolution of any of those problems at all will disadvantage their political agendas on the other side. Slavery has always been a topic with winners and losers.
Nevertheless, as Bible-believing Christians we must talk about slavery because the Bible does so. Unable to avoid the conversation, we might as well try to conduct it in truthful and helpful ways.
This post is admittedly preliminary. It may leave little of substance to discuss. The greatest value of this post, for my part, is simply that I will refer back to it frequently in the subsequent posts as we meet with difficult elements of the research.
This is a good topic, Bart. I hope folks will actually read what you wrote before they react. Too often, American Christians are slaves of their cultural traditions while they think they are free of bias and objective.
No doubt slavery existed in the world before the flood of Noah, and the Book of Revelation mentions slaves at the end times. I have written extensively about the world before the flood and will continue to do so. American Christians have a cultural tradition of ignoring the 1,650 years of earth history betweeen the creation and the flood.
You touched on the comparison between slavery and having children. To pose the question bluntly: Who owns the children? The parents or the state?
This might be a very long comment stream, bro.
Here is my ‘nutshell’ response. I am a slave to my Creator. He is not wicked.
I look forward to your series, Bart. I mentioned on my blog (and maybe here as well) that we need to have honest conversations rather than just saying what we think other people want to hear. Honest conversations can be difficult, but will yield the most fruit.
Bart,
Good post, I really look forward to your series on these matters. Thank you.
“For the purposes of this series of essays, I will define slavery as any situation in which another person, not your parent and not as a consequence of any crime that you have committed, gains absolute and total authority and responsibility over your economic life without paying you a monetary wage in return.”
I like that definition as far as the economic facet is concerned…but didn’t chattel slavery include but go beyond that? Here is what I mean.
It was not solely control over economic life – it was control and dominance of another entire life and existence was it not? It encompassed the idea of “owning another person’s person” so to speak. Even procreation and freedoms of expression and speech were controlled as well.
This, in my view, is at the foundation of the immorality and sinfulness of chattel slavery. That one person created equally in the image of God could attain ultimate control over the person and life just because they want to. This is foundation is what separates chattel slavery from the biblical roles of, in your quote above, parents and prison guards – – – am I making any sense?
Perhaps the economic facet is all you plan to address – in such case – nevermind – but if its a more holistic approach/discussion you are looking for – your working definition might be a little limiting? No?
Not all forms of slavery extend to “control and dominance over another entire life and existence.” Not all forms govern procreation. A significant number of non-slavery arrangements control a person’s freedom of speech or expression.
There are aspects of life and existence that do not yield easily to external control and domination. One’s relationship with God comes to mind.
If I belong to someone in the sense that I must work for him, cannot work for anyone else, cannot take advantage of more attractive working opportunities as they come along, and will not be paid for my labors, BUT I have the freedom to eat according to my likes and dislikes, refrain from marriage or choose to marry anyone available to me in my present situation, study as I like, learn a musical instrument, worship, etc., I think such a person is still a slave.
I’m interested I how you will develop this. Curt Flood et al were slaves to team owners? Hollywood actors/actresses were slaves due to personal services contracts? Non-compete contracts make individuals temporary slaves?
Look forward to reading your take on this.
It’s tough putting together a good definition, isn’t it, William!?
In the case of personal services contracts, it is a feature of our society that people actually cannot bindingly commit themselves in such a way (because we do not permit slavery). You’ll pay a penalty to walk away, but you can walk away.
Guess my working definition of chattel slavery is a little more complex than economic:
“http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controlshis life, liberty, and fortune.
That’s more like how I view it.
“If I belong to someone in the sense that I must work for him, cannot work for anyone else, cannot take advantage of more attractive working opportunities as they come along, and will not be paid for my labors, BUT I have the freedom to eat according to my likes and dislikes, refrain from marriage or choose to marry anyone available to me in my present situation, study as I like, learn a musical instrument, worship, etc., I think such a person is still a slave.”
I guess my point is economic is not not the only sense in which “ownership of another” existed. Which of those freedoms did the chattel slaves of America, for example, have? I’m not sure that any of those “Freedoms” were allowed unless they benefited the owner according to his wishes – and his wishes alone.
Oh, I ENTIRELY agree that slavery has often controlled much more than just someone’s economic existence. And one point where we seem to be talking past one another is that you keep defining CHATTEL slavery, while I keep defining slavery. You realize that chattel slavery is but one form of slavery, right?
So, there’s the tricky part of definitions: Shutting everything else out without failing to keep every proper thing in. With regard to slavery, this is a challenging task.
Slavery CAN involve much more than a person’s economic life. The question is whether it MUST entirely dominate everything before it is slavery of any kind whatsoever. I don’t think so.
Yes, Mark I understand that – however when you mentioned the word slavery today – chattel slavery is where everyone’s mind immediately goes.
Should have named Bart, not Mark.
What should help it to not be difficult is that we have non-race-based slavery in the US right now. The sex slave trade is big and growing and we need to be the people at the front of the line addressing it like we have been with abortion. I daresay that those who are for the sex slave industry aren’t soon going to come out against people speaking up against it, like they are with abortion, as long as slavery is still an issue that perpetuates racial tensions; many of the same people are invested in promoting both the sex industry and racial tensions, but the tension over slavery is one of the reasons why you don’t hear much about sex slaves.
You also don’t hear much about sex slaves because it isn’t quite the problem some evangelicals make it out to be. It exists, it is a problem, it needs to be stopped, but isn’t what some try to make it.
Statistics are hard to come by, so I’d refrain from judgment on those kinds of generalizations. The best compilation of statistics I know of is the Polaris Project.
You may not hear about sex slavery, but that is about all I hear about! My wife is involved in ministries that focus on sex trafficking and slavery and such things and we just had a big conference at our church.
Actually, this is becoming a hot-button issue in a lot of Christian circles.
The mayor came to our conference. We’d talked to the sheriff and others who said there were no such issues around here, but the mayor came and had his eyes opened (he’s a member of the other SBC church in town) and he’s committed to working with us on the issue.
I hear about it, stories and such but when the numbers come out the problem is not as large as some make it to be. I’m not sure why the stories are as exaggerated as they are, it is a problem that needs to be halted no matter how big or small, but causes are not aided by misinformation.
Hey, it happened twice in writing a reply to Chris.
Bart,
It’s amazing and uncanny, because I was thinking about this very thing, yesterday morning. I don’t know, but I was. And, I was wanting to ask about slavery being immoral, or sinful, whenever the Bible doesn’t teach this. In fact, the Apostle Paul had every opportunity to very plainly say, “Slavery is sinful;” but he didn’t. In fact, he told slaves to work hard and respect their masters. Colossians 3:22-24 And, he told masters to treat their slaves right. Colossians 4 and Ephesians 6. And then, you add on the situation with Philemon and Onesimus, where Paul told Onesimus to go back to Philemon, and he told Philemon to treat Onesimus like a brother, since he was then saved. But still, Paul didn’t get onto Philemon for having slaves. And, he didn’t tell Onesimus to run away, nor did Paul condemn slavery.
And yet, to hear a lot of Preachers talking about slavery, today, they say that slavery was evil and sinful….that the old, Southern, Christian slaveowners were…..well….every where from terrible and bad, all the way to not even being saved…all because they owned slaves.
So, what do you think about this, Bart? I would really like to hear your view on slavery and the Bible’s clear and plain teachings.
Also, I think another reason people don’t like to talk about slavery is because they’ll be labeled a racist if they don’t have the PC viewpoints and philosophies on the subject. So, they’re reluctant to even talk about it, because they’re afraid that they’ll make their Black Brothers mad at them, and be called a racist by some of the White Brothers in the Lord. So, they’d just rather keep their mouth shut. You know, it’s kind of like when your wife asks you if you like her in this blouse, or the other one? And, what do you think about this new hair style? Well, men get kind of nervous and start sweating a little bit, when their wife starts asking all of these kinds of questions.
David
BTW, I just want to say that I am thrilled to be a slave…a slave of the Lord Jesus.
Hallelujah!
David
I don’t always agree with you, David, but so far I think you’re on the right track with this one; and I’ll stand with you as one thrilled to be a slave of our Lord. (That has to be one of your best comments.) There’s no freer place to be in my estimation.
David,
There is no doubt that what you said concerning the scriptures is true. Slavery was certainly very different in the Bible than it was in the South in the 1800’s. First, most usually a slave would eventually be a free person. Second, Roman history tells us that many slaves rose to pretty high prominence in Roman culture. Third, in the absence of a social safety net, a person could sell themselves into servitude in order to pay debts or survive. Fourth, slaves were paid wages.
The American form of slavery was patently unbiblical. First, as Bill Mac, mentioned it involved kidnapping, which was condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Second, if a man slept with a female slave in the Old Testament she became his wife, not so in the South. Third, they were slaves for life. Fourth, the South broke up families and even sold the children ripping them out of the arms of their mothers. Fifth, in the Old Testament, seriously injuring your slave demanded their immediate release. Sixth, slavery was on the strict basis of race in the South. Seventh, the did not pay their slaves. What the South did was an affront to everything that we could call Christian.
John,
First of all, thank you for answering. Most certainly, there were abuses of slaves in the South, back in the day. And, some of the things done to Black folks was terrible….wrong. But, they were abuses; right? I mean, it was the abuses that was sinful. But, what about slavery?
Now, of course, once again, I’m all for freedom of every man. I’m glad there is no slavery….well, that slavery is not legal in the USA. Of course, sex slaves in our country, and in other countries exists. Also, in other countries, I believe forms of slavery still exists, as well. And, I wish that all slavery was abolished.
David
Brother David,
Yes slavery in the American form was sinful. Because as I stated, it started in kidnapping ( a capital offense in the O.T.). It was a lifelong institution. The did not pay the slaves. All of these things were endemic in the American system making it sinful.
John,
What about slavery in other places? In other ways?
Again, I’m not FOR slavery, and I don’t want anyone thinking that I’m arguing for slavery, because I’m not. I’m just trying to gain insight form yall, about the way the NT deals with slavery.
David
David,
I know it’s not the most popular thing to say, and it gives fodder to anti Christians, but slavery in some places does not appear to have been inherently sinful. In the absence of a social safety net it probably saved people from starvation. In the Roman economy slaves were held in higher esteem than day laborers because they had gainful employment.
In my opinion, the problem would be dehumanization. In the NT you were to treat a slave as a brother, you were to pay him what is fair, you were to remember that you had a master too etc..The slavery of the Bible was essentially the indentured servitude we saw in the early colonial era of our nation.
John,
But if a man slept with his slave he could still marry another woman while sleeping with his sex slave (Exodus 21:10). He could also dismiss the sex slave if he was dissatisfied with her (Exodus 21:11; Deut 21:14) – no money was to be given to her, no supplies, no goods, just cast her to the streets. He could also give her to his son (Ex 21:8; don’t try to soften this by the fact that he is to treat her as a daughter, she is still very much a sex slave). As for kidnapping slaves, slaves could be taken as spoils of war, which amounts to kidnapping (Deut 21:10). The only time kidnapping slaves is forbidden is if you kidnap an Israelite, kidnapping foreigners is not forbidden (Deut 24:7). Slaves were also bought and sold as property and handed down as an inheritance (Lev 26:44-46). Leviticus forbade treating fellow Israelites as slaves, but non-Israelites were fair game. Evidently, though, God was a bit indecisive about the whole Israelite slave thing (Exodus 21:2; Jeremiah 34:9; etc). In the prophetic messages, we see a picture of slavery in the restored Israel. In particular, those foreigners who want to join with Israel will be enslaved by Israel (Isaiah 14:2).
Thus says the word of the Lord.
It’s times like these when I’m glad no one has bought my copy of Logos. Makes it easier to find all these passages Christians love to avoid.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”
Chris, I read that through the lens of a people who had been living among pagans for hundreds of years. Not through a post enlightenment lens of Western thought of human value. Women were treated horrible. God put SOME protections in place. I thank Him that eventually people changed their thinking from that pagan mindset that valued only power and position.
Lydia,
But weren’t these commands given to them by God? Was God not yet enlightened about the treatment of women? Is he bound by what culture deems acceptable and normal?
Understanding matures in the world as the world matures. When the world was young, understanding was immature.
God worked with the world in the limited understanding they had and expects more as the world matures. Thus the church came at a time that was right and ripe for a more mature understanding of human relations.
Thus we can see a big difference in relational understandings from then to now, both in the world, and in the church.
But where hard core sin still reigns, so does poor relational understandings, as in sex traffic or Muslim ideology.
Much sin today has its idols in the background as opposed to out on display on an altar.
And I do believe that if we compare later OT Hebrew society to earlier Hebrew society, there would be a noticeable difference in relational understandings.
Chris: It seems odd of God to make a clod, but I have stumbled over many of them in my life time. And no by clod, I am not referring to you. The difficulty of the clod is the difficulty in life or the Bible. Part of the problem is that we simply do not recognize the extent of the fall of man. Consider the world as an insane asylum with the inmates in charge. There is reason to think of it as such, considering Eccles. 9:3 which speaks of the madness in man which continues until the day of his death. Few people are willing to recognize that reality. However, there are Christians who have and who did. Dr. George W. Truett, according to one of his sermons which I either heard on record or read in some book, declared in his opening statements of a sermon to an audience at the FBC Dallas, “If you only knew that has passed through my mind, since you came into this auditorium, you would not hear me. You would not listen to me.” It is quite clear that he was well aware of the great sin problem that is within each of us, a factor noted by Freud in other terms not all Christian biblical and yet, nevertheless, reflective of reality.
When people are insane, Chris, one, in this case, God, has to go to them where they are. Moreover, one must devise counseling approaches that fit the situation, some of them not at all ideal, especially, if one has in view the idea of leading and guiding and moving the person dominated by madness to a position of sanity by persuasion. At times such approach will involve counter measures and contrarieties as well as therapeutic paradoxes, reframing events and happenings or designing that they shall serve a higher purposes than one can imagine. A little study of the attitudes and training of Special Forces might provide some insights into this matter.
Do you suppose, Chris, that you might be in over your head in trying to explain how there could be no good in view of life’s circumstances. Even old Ben Franklin was willing to acknowledge the hand of providence in the rise of the new nation during the constitutional convention according to the notes of James Madison on the meetings of that august body.
Consider how you would feel, if you could remember your third Christmas, the first Christmas you remember, as one of the most miserable affairs imaginable, an event in a log cabin in Arkansas, with no electricity, one sorry looking, poorly decorated Christmas tree, one little pathetic gift, and your grandparents. Your parents torn apart by divorce, and a grief you do not understand and can’t comprehend a week from your forth birthday. Then consider how one can look back on that same Christmas seventy years later and see goodness and kindness involved, see Divine provision preparing one for the future. Could it all be a matter of perspective, Chris? After all, Pilot Knob Church near Belle, Missouri, where I served in my first pastorate, would only really be seen from one angle as a pilot knob hill, namely, from the North where settlers would be coming down or along the Gasconade River and would be using that hill as a guide for their travels. I wondered why they called it Pilot Knob until I got a glimpse of it from the North one day and learned it was all a matter of perspective.
Atheism is a matter of one perspective, up close, full of skepticism, doubtful, with no real guidance. After all, if there is no God, where is one going and to what purpose? And at the end there is nothing? But if there is a God, then there is a life beyond this one. There is also indications of His work in this world, His presence, His actions, but only as He chooses. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts than our thoughts. There is a goodness that transcends and transforms our situations just as soldiers take the view that something better is involved in their sufferings and losses in behalf of their nations. Sometimes they find the teachings of youth, the biblical motifs in their lives, come to the fore.
I think of a book, The Harristons: An American Family in Black and White, the story primarily of the slaves of a family of Hairstons who owned 22 plantations in the old South, and some of those slaves were actually children of their masters.
Interestingly enough, in World War II, one of them, an officer in a regiment of the Buffalo soldiers sat in a chapel in Arizona and heard a White Colonel tell the Black officers that the Blacks constituted 10% of the population of the US and he was going to see to it that they contributed 10% of the casualties, a violation of the basic idea that one tells a soldier that he is going to make the other fellow die for his country. In any case, after the colonel walked out of the chapel, the Black chaplain, knowing the depression the men felt, walked in quoting I Cors.13:4ff. Fast forward to the Korean Conflict and the same Hairston had become a pilot in the Air Force. he was flying a spotter plane over Okinawa and was ordered to take up a General to help the latter understand how to observe troops, etc., in flying over the battle lines. He recognized the General as the Colonel whom he blamed for the loss of many friends in WWII and determined to get even. To shorten the story, he was going to jump out of the plane with his parachute and let the General go down. In reaching for the handle of the door the words of the chaplain came back into his mind, “Love suffers long and is kind…..” He found he could not do it. He finished the flight, saluted and went on with his life. I Cors.13 had saved one White Colonels life. Atheism on the part of the African American could easily have accounted for the end of arrogant racist. Of course, he didn’t and we have a great testimony to the power of the biblical teachings. And that same power would bring peace to that home in Arkansas, a peace atheism could never bring or match or even promote as I found in my sojourn as an unbeliever.
A Christian who openly admits that the Bible does not condemn slavery! Refreshing!
Chris,
Really, I’m wanting Bart, Dwight, and others to weigh in, on this. I would really like to hear their viewpoint and explanation…based on the passages of Scripture that I mentioned above.
David
Chris,
One more thing…I’m all for freedom. I’m all for every person being looked upon as equal.
Just wanted that to plain and clear.
David
(with some more equal than others?)
Chris,
Of course not. With all people being treated right and enjoying freedom…no matter the color of their skin, nor the financial standing, nor the educational level.
David
“But weren’t these commands given to them by God? Was God not yet enlightened about the treatment of women? Is he bound by what culture deems acceptable and normal?’
God could have forced Adam not to disobey, too. of course God was/is enlightened. but people were not. why would God allow them to live and be slaves of pagans for so long? once we go down that road it is a dead end.
My view is that God met them where they were culturally. have you ever read any ancient pagan codes? they are eerily similar to some of the Mosaic law in some respects.
remember I do not read scripture through the deterministic grid.
Bart,
What a great topic and time to address it. Your title is quite interesting and revealing.
Most people that I know have know problem talking about slavery. We grew up singing about it. Learning the history of it. Making parallels to Scripture passages concerning it. Identifying with the Jews as a result of it. Talking ’bout slavery presents no difficulty at all for some of us. We strongly connect with it and embrace it.
Look forward to reading the rest of what you have I say about it. Thanks for providing another perspective for the topic.
I’ll say it. The slavery that was practiced in this country was absolutely evil. No question about it. It was rooted in greed and racial supremacy, and was effected by kidnapping, all things thoroughly condemned by the bible and even basic morality. There was not, and is not any possible moral or biblical justification for it.
Right. Agreed.
Like I posted above chattel slavery rested upon the very foundation of a belief (wrong) by one person (or group of persons) who is created in the image of God – can have complete control The life, liberty, and destiny of another who is also created equally in the image of God.
One man has no right to exercise which dominion over another. You’re right such a notion, and the actions that ensue from it – is evil.
Amen, Bill Mac. Those who fail to see this are living in their own little ghetto, where their horizons are framed by those of like mind with an undue reverence toward their Southern heritage and ancestors.
John
Hey, you all got some kind of time limit on these pages? I wrote a brief paragraph and got a blank page telling me I had “timed out.” My provider told me that that must becoming from you all, but I suspect someone else has an eye on what we say and they do not want certain things said, regardless.
It’s Dave Miller. Sometimes he does that to people he doesn’t like.
Then why did it happen to me?!
I’m getting the same message – When it happens I hit the back button and click post comment again – and it goes through.
Bart’s theory is a good one – especially since it’s happening to me. 😉
tried and it didn’t work
then a straight effort does???
For the record, it’s happened to me a couple of times as well. I have no idea what is going on. But it seems to be a widespread problem.
I don’t think it has to do with how long you take to compose your comment. I think it (erroneously) has to do with the time between when you click “Post Comment” and when the server responds. I’m not necessarily right, but that’s my theory.
What if we are enslaved already, and we do not know it?
James, I am getting this almost every time the first time I try to post something. Most every time it goes through the second time.
This is a series I look forward to seeing. Thank you.
Has anyone here read Doug Wilson’s “BLACK & TAN, A Collection of Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America.?” It is on Amazon but also at this link as a PDF for free.
http://www.canonpress.org/store/pc/catalog/Black_Tan.pdf
Black and Tan is the worst book ever on this subject. I consider it racist in it’s very words. I hope no one reads this book or at least reads it and takes it as fact. Then we would have more racists than we already do.
Debbie, I have read it and I couldn’t disagree more with your statement that it is racist. I hope people will read the free version and use their own intellect to decide the merits of any, some or all of Wilson’s arguments. Thinking people need not fear reading and deciding for themselves.
The “racist” charge is one reason we find it difficult to talk about slavery. It’s thrown out there all too often to disparage others who may disagree with you (not you specifically).
I’ll let you guys discuss the book, which I haven’t read.
I have seen this quote: “Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, malum in se, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians in slave-owning cultures to own slaves, provided they are treated well.”
All we need is a good, old-fashioned slave owning culture to show how good Christians ought to treat their slaves, one supposes?
This could be interesting. I’ll let Bart handle it.
Read the book William. It’s not that difficult.
You sure? I hate to mess with more than a couple of syllables.
Just thought hanging a quote out here would give a preview.
Here’s another quote from a different angle: “…all forms of race hatred or racial vainglory are forms of rebellion against God. Such things are
to be vigorously opposed because the Word of God opposes them. In brief, God has raised up all nations from one man (Acts 17:26). We are all cousins. And not only are the races connected through God’s creation of Adam, we are united (this time in harmony) in the redemption purchased by the Son of God.”
I think that strongly differing with Wilson’s views should not lead to a charge of racism. From what I’ve read/heard, some of his views are informed by theonomy or dominionism or something along that line, which I would greatly oppose.
The whole thing needs to be looked at in context, which I haven’t done yet.
Robert,
Thank you for that quote. Marginalization is a common tactic of people to shut down conversation. The fact is that we must answer the compelling question particularly concerning the NT, like why did Paul send Onesimus back to Philemon? Why did he say what he said about masters and servants in Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Corinthians? And we can’t have this discussion with blanket charges of racism.
I am still have trouble with that timed out problem.
Further we need to answer these questions because sincere people ask them. And insincere people use them as arguments against Christianity.
Here’s how I see it. The Gospel isn’t social activism (contrary to what some would have us believe). It isn’t about freeing bodies, but freeing souls. Slavery is evil. The “libertarian” view of slavery is correct.
If the Holy Spirit had inspired Paul to speak directly on the evils of slavery we would have an even greater opportunity to distort the gospel message into social activism.
If the Holy Spirit had inspired Paul to say directly that slavery is “a good thing” in some cases, then we would have an even greater opportunity to distort the message into allowing evil to persist.
I think it’s pretty ingenious how the N.T. is silent on this issue. But, he is God, so I guess I shouldnt be too surprised.
Robert: A racist is one who believes one race is superior to another. I believe the opposite. I don’t think the word racist is used enough. It offends people as it should. But to avoid using it is also dishonest and not solving the problem.
Most people are racist in their thinking and do not think they are racist, becoming offended when the word is used.
Debbie,
Earlier you said Doug Wilson is a racist. Here you give your definition of a racist, “A racist is one who believes one race is superior to another.”
Could you just demonstrate facts from Wilson’s life that prove your assertion that he is a racist? Thanks in advance.
Debbie, I don’t see anything wrong with your definition. I would add this from dictionary.com: “usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.” In other words, the way this works out is that someone thinks his or her own race is the one that is superior (I assume that is what you mean as well). In modern America I doubt you will find many people who admit to believing this, though some of their actions might prove otherwise.
Further, I am not so much concerned about whether the word “racist” offends someone, or whether it is used enough or not enough. To me the biggest problem is the word is often trotted out as a “game ender” (that is, discussion ender — “I don’t like/agree with what you’re saying so you are a racist. Case closed.” In most cases that is not productive. To go deeper we must show why. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” A person who is called a racist without any convincing of the will may just “wash the outside of the cup.”
Les: This horrible book, is more than just a simple disagreement. I have no problem using the word racist in describing both Doug Wilson and this book. I have a huge problem that you can’t see that.
I think you are downplaying the problem.
Ever read the book, or did you just take someone else’s word about its horrors?
Dave: I don’t comment on books I have not read.
Follow the link. Anyone can read or scan it for themselves. What I said can be checked out.
Could you just demonstrate facts from Wilson’s life that prove your assertion that he is a racist? Thanks in advance..
Les: I could demonstrate from the book in question starting with chapter 3 on to the end conclusion and from the pamphlet he wrote entitled “Southern Slavery As It Was.”
His conclusions are that slavery in America at that time was not as bad as Rome, those who owned slaves and treating them “well” according to the Bible should be in good standing in the local church, and that African American’s would not have heard the Gospel if not for being in slavery and hearing it from their owners or white people, and a host of other erroneous conclusions. He also thinks that history is wrong in the telling of slavery in the South, making it worse than it was. A lot like those who deny the Holocaust happened.
This post bothers me for the same reason, although I am open to discussion, as well as the words “I’m a slave to Christ” that some ahve posted in the comments seems to downplay the actual slavery and it’s atrocities in this countries history.
Robert: The word racist should be used where it is applicable. This is honest discussion. If one is repentant, willing to change, it’s a useful and applicable word to point to one’s sin. I think that is my goal more than an open discussion about it, although I will not rule discussion out. We have discussed to death and walked around the real problem. Racism is more subtle now, yet at times it isn’t. and most don’t mean to be racist. Most don’t realize they are racist or have racist actions or words. Yet they are.That includes many whites in the church today. Racism is taught and learned, it is not a normal human response if you will look at children who know no difference in race until taught.
There is no real discussion until racism the word is looked at and applied. For that is the problem. Doug Wilson is a good example, along with Randy White.
Debbie, and others, here is Doug Wilson in his own words from Ch. 3. It would be too much to reprint all of the book here when it is freely available at the link I already supplied, but these quotes, while lengthy, I think demonstrate that Wilson is not a racist as you insist.
Doug Wilson from Black & Tan (ch. 3)
“The slave trade was an abomination, and those evangelicals in England like William Wilberforce who led the fight against it are rightly considered heroes of the faith. The Bible clearly rejects the practice of slave trading (1 Tim. 1:10; Exod. 21:16). In a just social order, slave trading could rightly be punished with death.”
“In considering slavery itself, we must recognize the difference be- tween slavery regulated by the Mosaic law—that is, a slavery which was little more than an indentured servanthood (bond apprentice- ship for a time)—and slavery as it existed in a pagan empire such as Rome. In ancient Israel, it was the duty of those who feared God to simply obey the laws concerning slavery as God had given them, recognizing their temporary nature. The laws on slavery in the Old Testament begin with manumission or release from slavery in view (Exod. 21:2) and were given to a people who themselves had just been freed from bondage in Egypt (Exod. 20:1–2). The temporary nature of Hebraic slavery was built into it as a design feature.
But when the existing law was that of an unbelieving pagan order, like that of Rome, it was the duty of Christians living within that system to follow the biblical instructions for resisting the pagan- ism of this slavery carefully so that the Word of God would not be blasphemed (1 Tim. 6:1).”
“American slavery had the additional complication of its racial basis. And so we as Christians, and especially as American Christians, must denounce as a matter of biblical principle every form of rac- ism, racial animosity, or racial vainglory.”
“Christ died on the cross to set all men free from their sins, and all forms of external and physical slavery are built on the bedrock of slavery to sin. Therefore, the logic of the Great Commission requires the eventual death of slavery as an institution in any place where it might still exist. While Christian slaves were commanded to work hard for their masters, Christian slaves were also told to take any lawful opportunity for freedom (1 Cor. 7:20–24). This indicates that slavery as an institution is inconsistent with the fundamental Spirit of the gospel, who is the Spirit of liberty (2 Cor. 3:17).”
“The best way to subvert a pagan system of slavery is through care- ful obedience to the law of Christ. This means that while obedient Christians could have found themselves either slaves or masters, the instructions given to them in their respective stations are very clear. Christian masters were to remember that they had a Master in heaven, and this meant they had to treat their slaves charitably (Eph. 6:9). Christian slaves had to work diligently for their mas- ters, knowing that ultimately they were doing their work for God and not for men (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22–23). And Christian slaves who happened to be owned by Christian masters were told to pay even greater attention to this submissive demeanor, because the ben- eficiary of their labors was a brother in Christ (1 Tim. 6:2; Phil. 10–19). These scriptural instructions, carefully followed, resulted, over time, in a peaceful elimination of Roman slavery, and had they been consistently applied by Southerners, they would have had an analogous impact on the slavery of the antebellum South.”
Les: Yes, I know. Doug Wilson writes it over and over again in various places in the book. He then goes on to show he is quite the opposite. It’s as I said. People will deny being racist while in fact being quite racist. It’s happened on these discussions as well.
Pen and Pulpit denies their being racist in attitude while they write the racist things they write. It’s why no discussion, honest discussion can ever take place.
By the way, when Doug Wilson talks of Roman slavery vs. American pre-Civil War slavery, he is talking in the sense of the slavery in America of Black slaves, was good in comparison to Roman slavery and not sin as he feels the Roman slavery was.
Debbie,
“He then goes on to show he is quite the opposite.”
Specifically how Debbie? Proof, proof.
Or no matter what someone says to the opposite and lacking any evidence of actions to the contrary we are just supposed to take Debbie’s pronouncement that Wilson and anyine else is a racist.
Debbie, you are shaming the name is Christ setting yourself up as budget of men’s hearts.
Les I gave proof. All one has to do is read through chapter 3 to the end of the book, or just read the conclusions. You gave the link. I believe people can click on the link. You may not like my proof Les. In fact I know you don’t. But Wilson’s own words indict him over and over again.
Debbie, you are shaming the name is Christ setting yourself up as budget of men’s hearts.
Not working here Les. Abuse of any kind never does.
Debbie,
“Les I gave proof. All one has to do is read through chapter 3 to the end of the book, or just read the conclusions. You gave the link. I believe people can click on the link. You may not like my proof Les.”
Proof? That DW is a racist? In spite of his direct words in chapter 3 and following, some of which I reproduced here? Amazing really.
“Abuse of any kind never does.”
And now I’m abusing you? That would be funny if not for the fact that you make light of genuine abuse.
“Most people are racist in their thinking and do not think they are racist, becoming offended when the word is used.”
Yikes. What an impossible standard. This is the position of “thought police”. So the only position to take is to admit one is a racist. Reminds me of the tactics used in the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
So how would someone, say on this blog, convince you they are not a racist in their thoughts?
Debbie, are you a racist?
Lydia: Forgive me Lydia, but your statement is rich coming from you, considering the company you keep of late and the words you write in their comment section. But I would also add that much of what has happened is wrong, and the thoughts behind it are wrong, hurting other human beings, such as woman and the roles. If not for change of thought, we would be in worse than we are as women. Racism is wrong thought and that thought needs to be changed for the good of all. Racism hurts, maims and kills those who are not like the racist.
The first step I think is to admit that one is a racist and to look at why. Racism is taught. Talk about the thought police.
Second: Listen. Don’t talk, listen to Black people like Dr. McKissic, and for crying out loud don’t tell them to “get over it”, “move on” etc. That is dismissing what they have been through, and not 40 years ago, but today, yesterday.
Stand up to anyone who makes a racist remark. Don’t tolerate it. I used to work for a rather large retail chain for many years, we had Muslims working with us. After the bombing at the Boston Marathon, some customers would say horrible things to the Muslim workers. Store management promptly told the customer they would not tolerate such speech and escorted the customer out, leaving their basket behind. I was proud to work for such a place.
Stop reading the inflammatory ridiculous articles on things like Ferguson from Conservative monthly, Fox news or I am Republican and proud of it weekly. They are untrue, lies.
Nothing hard or impossible. IOW act like a Christian human being who loves others. In this case, do what Christ would do. See if he would say some of the things being said.
So Debbie,
I ask again, are you a racist?
Les: I have told a story many times, and I’ll do it again in answer to your question. I was in kindergarten and had a black girlfriend who lived on the next block. We held hands as we walked as little girls will do. An adult relative of mine told me not to do that as her color would rub off on me. It hit me hard then and I still remember it years later. I ignored this relative and continued on even as a kindergartner.
I had relatives that used the N word. I could not stand the word as a young child nor later in life, I chastised whoever used that word and I wasn’t shy about it. That went for phrases against Mexican people or whoever. I taught my children to do the same. They do and are teaching their children who I pray will teach their children.
Debbie, with all due respect, you still have not directly answered my question, are you a racist?
I sincerely hope I am not Les. I could always become that which I hate. And I do hate racism. So I sincerely hope I am not.
Debbie,
“I sincerely hope I am not Les. I could always become that which I hate. And I do hate racism. So I sincerely hope I am not.”
Interesting that you state here and reiterate here that Doug Wilson, whom I seriously doubt you know even casually or have ever met, is a racist and yet about yourself, you “hope” you’re not a racist? You don’t know whether you are “one who believes one race is superior to another.” Really Debbie?
Really Les.
Debbie,
“Les I gave proof. All one has to do is read through chapter 3 to the end of the book, or just read the conclusions. You gave the link. I believe people can click on the link. You may not like my proof Les.”
Proof? That DW is a racist? In spite of his direct words in chapter 3 and following, some of which I reproduced here? Amazing really.
“Abuse of any kind never does.”
And now I’m abusing you? That would be funny if not for the fact that you make light of genuine abuse.
Les,
“…make light of actual abuse”.
Yes! Just as she makes light of real bigotry and what Andy has called the superiority complex – that’s the problem with people so frivolously throwing around such words, absent real proof, because doing so robs from real and important situations for momentary gain of “shutting down disagreement/discussion”.
Such actions may lead people to think they have won the debate – but actually it harms the cause that they are claiming to defend!
Every time I try to cite the stats for the mulatto pop. and give two examples about T. Jefferson’s descendants that I encountered this thing says I am timed out.
Again, since just a few even responded to my comment…..I would really like to see people deal with the passages I mentioned. Bart, maybe you’re gonna do that in your future posts, because I would really like to see your take on those passages of Scripture.
I do believe that freedom for all men is the best way for a society. I’m all for ALL people being treated right. But, again, I really don’t see the NT condemning or condoning slavery. It just kind of deals with it as something that was. And, Paul told slaves how to work for their masters, and how masters should treat their slaves. And, thru the years, I have compared this to the relationship between business owners/bosses and employees….with the difference being that in a free society, we get to choose whether we want to work for a certain “master,” or not. But, they still control our lives to a certain degree…. our ability to buy food, pay for housing, buy clothes, healthcare, etc.
Looking forward to hearing discussions about this…
David
But Vol, surely you see that when Paul speaks of treating your slaves well and “Masters” and all of that he’s not speaking of chattel slavery like what place in the America? As John pointed out earlier – the type of slavery that was being addressed there was totally different it was an economic arrangement that worked for the benefit of both the “master” and the “slave.” This was not so in the American form of slavery – no, it had is its foundation a sense of superiority and a control of the personhood of another – completely sinful – totally Abhorrent – and in no way biblically or morally justified.
Tarheel,
That’s what I’m asking. Thanks for responding.
David
David, I think your question about dealing with scriptural passages points up one of the difficulties of talking about/discussion of the topic of slavery. It is a passionate subject and we often get more focused on our opinions about it (whether based on scripture or not) rather than taking a detailed look at and discussion of the passages about it in both the Old & New Testaments. I do have confidence, though, that is exactly part of what Bart intends to do.
As an aside to all, back in 2008 Mercer University issued a critical edition of Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution, an 1845 discussion of the subject between Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland (edited by Southeastern profs Nathan Finn & Keith Harper). This gives an interesting perspective into the discussion being had between Baptists of that era.
We wear German watches and drive Japanese cars, move on.
Anyone want to raise their hand and suggest that the slavery practiced in America was not sinful? Seriously? Racial supremacy, check. Greed, check. Kidnapping, check. How many biblical precepts must be broken before it becomes sinful? How about forcing people to work (with a whip at their backs) so you don’t have to? (If anyone does not work, they should not eat).
So long as they are treated well? What does that look like exactly? What if they refuse to work? What kind of biblically sanctioned punishment could be meted out to make them work? What if they tried to escape? What does “treating them well” look like in that case? A stern talking to? The timeout chair? I doubt it.
Bill Mac,
Who are you talking to? or, about?
David
David: I hope I’m talking to no one. But I can’t help feeling that some people think that American slavery was not sinful but rather biblically sanctioned. I think if people think that, they need to say so plainly.
“”My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses…We recognize the negro as God and God’s Book and God’s Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him – our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude…You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.”
Jefferson Davis
Bill,
I’m not sure which of those items you mention are supposed to be sinful according to the Bible. Americans were not kidnapping Israelites, so they were okay on the kidnapping thing; racism was not forbidden, in fact, the entire ethnic identity of Israel was focused on seeing themselves as somehow special; greed, sure, I get that, but it isn’t going to be any different than what was taking place in the Old Testament; etc, etc. See my comment above for more. Modern Christians want to make a clear distinction between biblical slavery and American chattel slavery, but it just isn’t all that easy to do. And as you note, “So long as they are treated well?” – that is one argument often raised in defense of OT slavery, “They treated the slaves well!” But as you observe, it is not a legitimate defense.
Chris,
Manstealing, greed, and racial supremacy are forbidden to Christians in the NT. I’m pretty sure.
Exactly right Bill Mac,
1Ti 1:9-10 knowing this, that the law is not given for a righteous person but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and totally worldly, for the one who kills his father and the one who kills his mother, for murderers, (10) sexually immoral people, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
Two thoughts:
First, the NT nowhere undoes the slavery permissions of the OT. The primary sociological difference between OT and NT is political control – Jews (and Christians) are subjects of Rome and do not have the authority to do things such as dictate laws, engage in warfare, etc, and thus must operate within the applicable laws. Christianity fits within Roman law, and only later becomes openly persecuted. Even Jews fit within Roman law, and only come under fire following the Jewish rebellion. Christians share some of the penalty for the Jewish rebellion because of their Jewish roots. But now I digress.
Second, while I grant that God changed his mind on some matters, it still remains that the divinely inspired Bible records the God-ordained practice of slavery in the theocratic Old Testament as practiced by the sovereignly chosen nation of Israel. Even if things changed in the New Testament (Philemon at least hints that they haven’t changed all that much), such atrocities nonetheless occurred – with divine sanction – in the OT, as I noted with those various OT passages.
Chris R.,
In rereading Wilson on this issue I am reminded of something. It really makes no sense for us who love God and his word to listen to you and others who hate God and his word as you try to teach or correct or point out things from God whom you hate and his word which you hate.
“In rereading Wilson on this issue I am reminded of something. It really makes no sense for us who love God and his word to listen to you and others who hate God and his word as you try to teach or correct or point out things from God whom you hate and his word which you hate.”
I think just the opposite. Love does not mean agreeing with Chris. It is just more frustrating because the foundational arguments won’t work with him. There will never be agreement with him as an atheist. Just as I will never have agreement on many issues with my Muslim and atheist friends. They are still my friends.
As long as Chris does not want to kill me because of what I believe, I am not sure why there is a problem. There is too much shunning going on out there in Christendom. That shunning keeps us in isolated bubbles that are not good for us.
If we love God, we love all His creation but that does not mean we give passes on “logic/ reason” or “right/wrong”. Luther was wrong about “reason”, you know. IMHO, God is perfectly reasonable and just. He wants Chris back. So it makes sense to me that there might be a glimmer of hope that if one sees Christ reflected back out to them that is the best defense of truth. Just some thoughts.
But Chris, you don’t have to be a liberal now, too, you know. :o) Just kidding!!!
It’s nit shunning Lydia. It’s just an acknowledgment of what I just said to Chris.
Les,
All I did was quote the Bible. It says what it says. I do understand if you’re uncomfortable with what it says.
Chris I’m not uncomfortable about what the bible says. And if all you do is quite the Bible, fine. But when you attempt to draw conclusions about what it means, well no need for us to take you seriously. That’s all I’m saying. You can’t understand truly the things of God since you have not his Spirit.
Les,
What conclusions? I was saying what it says. I did notice no one attempted to challenge a single instance. Your response is the classic dodge – no way to answer the obvious, so turn the guns on the person saying the uncomfortable things.
Chris your earlier comments deny your now claim.
And nothing the bi me says makes me uncomfortable. It’s Gods holy word after all.
Try following the confusing trajectory of “Black and Tan” into “Slavery As it Was” because so many history scholars took it on. Wilson’s world is a land of smoke and mirrors. It became a problem for him because it was being taught in “Christian” schools and the bad publicity was a problem so he revised it.
That former was originally hosted/promoted by the “League of the South” (Steve Wilkins co Founder and buddy of Wilson) and a Kinist website called “Little Geneva”. They are Reformed Confederate Theonomists. And yes, Wilson has been a part of that world. It is sick stuff including his part in match making for a pedophile. (There is always some truth mixed with evil. That is how people get sucked in)
This is a dark world to even research. Full of smoke and mirrors, redefining concepts/words and presenting evil as good. It gives me the creeps to even see him quoted.
I can remember reading Blog and Mablog years back and thinking what a bizarre fringe of Christendom it was. Wilson would demand the name of your pastor and his phone number if you dared disagree with him so he could call for your “discipline”. He was into the whole Federal Vision/Theonomy world. There was another blog back in those days written by a guy who studied under Wilson and wrote about life in the “kirk”. If even a quarter of it was true (he had documents) then Wilson is someone to avoid like the plague.
It has been astonishing to watch Wilson being mainstreamed in Christendom. Quoting Wilson on this subject is not wise, however, I have no doubt that because Piper promoted him, many will not bother to do due diligence on him. I have only written about a small part of the problem.
One of the problems I see with this subject is that people tend to take OT/NT narratives and apply them to today. We don’t live in 1st Century Rome. Nor have we been in bondage to Pagans for generations.
Take the issue of polygamy and insert the same sort of trajectory I am seeing here. It just does not work. It is in these sorts of discussions when one inserts determinism– it becomes “God’s intention”. There is no way around it. Slavery was part of God’s plan? Wilson thinks so and makes excuses for it. The Gospel becomes: So you are a slave? Ok, be a good slave then.
NT Wright does a great job with Philemon in “Paul and the Faithfulness of God” that is worth a read. Philemon has been one of my favorite books in the NT because it turns the culture on it’s head through love not politics. The Roman code said Oni could be put to death for running away. Paul said, treat him as a brother in Christ. What more do we need unless we are waiting around for God to force us to do the right things?
In this discussion, we should probably focus on those who owned slaves or had indentured servants. Where was their Holy Spirit? Do “man of his time” arguments really work? I think not. I know that we see God working through, around and over His fallen creation for His redemptive plan. They had a choice. The Israelites were to be the light of the world and they failed miserably. We have a choice, too, in whether to be the light of the world. Promoting Wilson’s teachings is not being the light, IMO.
Lydia,
But to the question (well really a statement by Debbie) is Wilson a racist? Do tell.
“But to the question (well really a statement by Debbie) is Wilson a racist? Do tell.”
I have no idea if he “practices” racism.
I am not even sure what “racism” means anymore as we both saw on previous threads concerning Ferguson.
I have major problems with his views on women, I can tell you that.
You know I am big into judging individual behavior and not “groups”. I prefer we focus on individual responsibility and not groups where wrong doing can be easily excused because of group think.
I see Wilson as trying to present slavery as “God’s intention” what took place in scripture. I just don’t read that into it. Permission (when dealing with a very pagan culture) is not the same as intentionally ordaining something. But then I tend to read the Mosaic law through the lens of a very pagan culture and the Israelites coming out of bondage to Egypt. People had to be taken care of in that shame/honor pagan culture. So we see a lot of things that make us uncomfortable. I don’t think it was God’s intentions at all for his creation.
Well I’m glad to see you not declare him a racist like Debbie has or even declare if he practices racism.
Most people are racist? By what scientific method did you come up with that conclusion?
Bill,
When people speak ignorantly and make spurious claims, I find it is best to ignore them.
Mike: Some of your statements I could take to task as well. You may call me ignorant. You may threaten me with God’s wrath, but I stand by what I said. I live in the world, I work in the world. I see discrimination and racism every day. I work with African Americans and Muslims who have to endure racist remarks from the public on a weekly if not daily basis. It is tough on them and it’s nothing to dismiss as is being done here.
The church is full of it as has been shown on blogs and comments. It needs to be dealt with, so call me ignorant but I think it is the church who is ignorant and in denial. Not all of course, just a good many. I think Alan Cross’ book to be a much better read. And more accurate.
I might add Mexicans and Filipinos in the above list. As I have heard stories of racist remarks being made to them as well from the public. Non-English speaking races are especially a target.
Am I the only one bothered by this kind of statement? Debbie, there are no “English Speaking Races.” (of course their are no separate races of humans at all…but that’s another argument.)
If a German, or Swiss, or French Person came to the US, and spoke bad or no English, he would likely face intentional and unintentional discrimination and unkind comments…that’s not racism, but it is human superiority complex af work. (Unless this bad speaking foreigner appeared to be very wealthy and successful, and then most white Americans would likely go out of their way to help him and explain things to him.
The opposite is also true…I have known Hispanics and Asians who have grown up in the US, so they have no foreign accent and are fully culturated as Americans…these people are generally treated more as “like me” by white Americans than their ethnically similar, but culturally and linguistically different, peers.
One more, during my time in Boston, I witnessed the odd phenomenon that true Africans (people who grew up in Africa) were often treated differently (better, with less suspicion, black stereotypes, etc.) than black Americans.
Given these examples..I am hard pressed to call this phenomenon racism. In fact such a label seems to insure rather than clarify the issue…for MANY, the issue is not the ethnic appearance of a person, but their real or perceived cultural and/or economic (see rich/poor) divide values. Every individual, and group of individuals, in fallenness, wants to see their group as superior, and wants to see their group escape oppression and/or maintain positions of power and influence. Sometimes it is expressed in racism, but often it is other ways.
Should read, “Such a label seems to OBSCURE rather than clarify the issue.”
(not “insure”…stupid phone…)
Andy,
“Am I the only one bothered by this kind of statement? ”
Almost everything Debbie has said on this thread is somewhat bothersome. Apparently she knows how to, and actually does, discern what is in other people’s hearts. This in direct opposition to what the scriptures say one should do.
“Debbie, there are no “English Speaking Races.” (of course their are no separate races of humans at all…but that’s another argument.)”
Amen!!! Preach!
Andy: You and I would disagree strongly on this statement given the reality of the situation.
Debbie,
You are more than welcome to point out my errors.
But because you have seen racism by ^SOME^ of the public or you have read racist remarks by ^SOME^ Christian bloggers does not lead to your unrighteous anti-Christ remarks.
So I suggest you get off that high horse you have climbed up on and repent.
I read alot and I work out in the world Bill. With real people. I grew up with racism everywhere. I still go home and find it. It’s called observation and common sense. Living in the real world.
You work in the real world? As opposed to what? The fake world? I’m sure you know a lot of people, a few thousand perhaps. You’ve probably read or heard of a few thousand more. And you know, for a fact, that most of them are racist? But not you, I suppose. Of course that means you have never heard of or met the other 6.9+ billion people in the world but you seem to know that the majority of them are racist too. And most of them aren’t white. Or did you mean to say that most white people are racist? Of course there are still a billion or so white people so it’s still quite a claim to know what’s in all their hearts.
Or did you mean to say that most white people are racist?
Yes. Unfortunately yes. Yes. As opposed to a fake world.
So, there are about a billion white people in the world. And you know, from your interaction with a few hundred people (or a few thousand at most), that most of them are racist? How, exactly?
But not you, right?
And what is the “fake world” that the rest of us evidently inhabit? Are the organizations we work at not real? Are the people we interact with not real? I work alongside ethnic minorities every day. They are my colleagues and my students and my superiors. Are not real?
“Or did you mean to say that most white people are racist?
Yes. Unfortunately yes. Yes. ”
Which is really strange since it took white voters in America to elect a black president not once, but twice.
Which is really strange since it took white voters in America to elect a black president not once, but twice.
Not exactly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/southern-whites-loyalty-to-gop-nearing-that-of-blacks-to-democrats.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Answers to your questions Bill. Once again, yes and to the second part of ” but not you right”? I refer you to the answer I have already given to Les. I think I give no room for doubt on any of my answers. You are reading correctly.
This part of this conversation is wholly unproductive. Let’s move on, okay?
Yes Dave. I will do this. You are right.
If you all want to have an even deeper perspective, you all should try the Abolitionists at the North (at used back in the 1800s). They were full convinced that the Bible condemned slavery. I took a course in the subject at Morehead State. Unfortunately, my works in history or dislocated in piles of books (two rooms full plus a big stack in the basement (about 15000 hard bound or paper backs.) I will remind you all that John Brown was a Calvinist and as opposed to slavery as Richard Furman was in support of it (Furman’s item in 1823-24 supporting the institution had a down side according to one source I had, namely, when the Civil War started a cannon ball buried itself in his grave near the FBC of Charleston, but then I heard his grave was in or near Georgetown, SC.). The primary aim of the Bible is the relief of the difficulty between God and man, meaning man’s sinful and fallen condition which issues in sinful acts for which the punishment comes due. A lot of what we read in the Bible is simply descriptive remarks, not prescriptive. Paul’s remarks to Philemon regarding Onesimus being by that time a brother is considered to be the undoing of the grounds of slavery. After all, it is a particular hard person who can hold a brother in slavery, and, if you want a lesson in the cost, just consider the South and what it cost Southerners in lives, property, finances, etc. Pshaw! We were still wallowing in poverty as a result of that War which was the result of slavery and that as late as the mid-twentieth century. One lady told me that her father was still paying a Civil War tax on peaches shipped North in the 1950s. Seems the Reconstructionists in Congress passed some taxes to make the Southerners pay for the war. Only fair, I suppose, all things considered, but not very pleasant, when you are on the receiving end of something someone did nearly a hundred years before. O and by the way there were Baptists in the South (Va., NC, and perhaps elsewhere) who felt led to oppose slavery. They were called “The Friends of Humanity.” Some of them in Va. moved to Kentucky. Others, I suppose went into the upper mid-west. Folks this subject requires a whole semester of study at the Graduate Level. My professor at Morehead was Dr. Victor Howard, who had a Ph.D. in the field from Ohio State University. Lest anyone get to thinking that African Americans could not fall for the same hook, line, and sinker that the Bible approves of slavery, let them consider that there were Blacks who owned slaves. As I have said elsewhere, some owned anywhere from 60-90 slaves. One who was married to a White woman owned 200. And let me add that Thomas J. Jackson who is memorialized in a stained glass window in a Black Presbyterian Church was threatened by the attorney of the town in which he taught (at VMI, name of town escapes me for the moment) for teaching African American children to read and write so they could read their Bibles. Yep, old Stonewall himself. But none of this makes slavery approved of God or acceptable. God just has a habit of meeting man where he is in order to change him so he can go where he does not deserve. Now to see if I am timed out.
Praise the Lord! I did not time out in the above. So I will say the folks who run things do not want us to think the unthinkable fact that we are enslaved already. Lets see if that times out. Somehow I doubt it.
“Most people are racist.”
I hear this a lot, and in some sense I agree that because of our sinful, fallen self-centeredness, we ALL have a tendancy to view the group that we are a part of as better in some ways than the groups others are a part of. Racism is only one manifestation of this.
-Americans think we have the best country.
-Wealthy people consider themselves more competent and intellegent than poor.
-poor people consider themselves more authentic, harder-working, and less greedy than wealthy.
-Calvinists consider themselves more enlightened than non-calvinists, and vice-versa.
-Republicans consider themselves better than Dems, and vice-versa.
-Both Seminary Educated Pastors, and many less educated pastors consider their education path to be superior in some ways.
The point is, it’s not an ethnic problem, it’s a superiority and power problem: I believe those like me (by any definition) are “better” than those unlike me, and so tend to work toward the ideals and goals of my “group” to be established in any setting: Local church debates about music, sbc debates about calvinism, financial decisions of our government. So I have 2 observations:
1. In the Gospel, I need to fight this tendancy in myself, and be re-oriented to redefine who is “like me”. If I go into a cafeteria, and the tables are predictably self-segregating (blacks, whites, asians, hispanics all in their own huddles), my flesh tendency is to find the people that look like me and say “like me”! I fit here. In Christ, I can look at any Christian and say “Like me”!
2. Those of us who are used to enjoying the position of white “moral-majority” in America, in which the church has enjoyed some level of political influence and respect…can learn a bit from our black brothers and sisters about what it means to be in a subjected minority…because we are quickly headed that direction. For most of history, Christianity itself has been the subjected minority. There seemed to have been an anomaly from that pattern in the United states, but that seems to be quickly fading…So our black-church friends can now say to us: “welcome to the club.”
Totally agree Andy. Well put.
Andy: I don’t disagree, but when you hear something like “most people are racist”, the unspoken addendum to that phrase is “but not me”.
To say in our fallen state we are all tempted by various sins (including racism) is true, and spoken from a position of humility. To say “most people are racists” is spoken from a position of superiority.
Thoughtful post. I think you are near the center of the issue.
My last Quoted thought, “Welcome to the club” is from this very thought-provoking message from Carl Ellis at the recent Sojourn Conference. You can find the audio here: http://www.sojournnetwork.com/audio/
Just click on the one that says “Carl Ellis: Mission and Race.”
(The others are good too) 🙂
“Lydia: Forgive me Lydia, but your statement is rich coming from you, considering the company you keep of late and the words you write in their comment section.”
How strange. Am I posing as a Klan member on other blogs or something?
” But I would also add that much of what has happened is wrong, and the thoughts behind it are wrong, hurting other human beings, such as woman and the roles. If not for change of thought, we would be in worse than we are as women.”
Actually, it was a change of “laws”. People made their case and the sausage making process of changing laws went into effect. Whether people changed their thoughts is a moot point. There will always be jerks and Neanderthals around. Don’t let them hold you back.
” Racism is wrong thought and that thought needs to be changed for the good of all. Racism hurts, maims and kills those who are not like the racist. ”
But you claim most people are racist and just won’t admit it. But, most people are not maiming and killing. So I am confused.
“The first step I think is to admit that one is a racist and to look at why. Racism is taught. Talk about the thought police.”
This is exactly how the Chicoms did it during the Cultural Revolution. And yes, they had “steps” where they had to “admit” they had elitist thoughts, like you suggest above about racism. You might consider writing a Little Red Book for this process.
Lydia: It was a change in thinking that led to those laws. It took many people pointing out the wrongs and evil of slavery, segregation, etc. over and over again for hundreds of years. Laws aren’t just made, there is always a change in thinking. There is usually a battle before those laws are made on such things as human treatment. Martin Luther King and others made such an effort. The laws didn’t just appear overnight.
As for your confusion. Yes I know you are confused it shows in your comments concerning me.
“Martin Luther King and others made such an effort.”
Go back and read some history of his approach. He was not telling people how racist they were. His appeal and strategy was very different than what I am hearing from you.
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”
? Martin Luther King Jr.
“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”
? Martin Luther King Jr.
“Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shore, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it. Our children are still taught to respect the violence which reduced a red-skinned people of an earlier culture into a few fragmented groups herded into impoverished reservations.”
? Martin Luther King Jr.
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”
That is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. Your proposed indictment of “thoughts” is far from King’s approach.
Debbie,
You quoted MLK here:
“Our children are still taught to respect the violence which reduced a red-skinned people of an earlier culture into a few fragmented groups herded into impoverished reservations.”
Red skinned? Was MLK a racist?
Debbie, Lydia is correct – you are wrong.
MLK’s approach, among others, was to “call out” the greatness of the ideals of freedom and equality that were so rooted in the founding of this country and in so doing to “call out” those who rejected those ideals not by calling them names – but by calling them “home” so to speak. (for example see his “I have a dream speech”)
He also consistently called upon the church to step up and do the biblical and right thing – see his letter from the Birmingham jail for reference.
He was not a perfect man, but I have no reservations calling him a much needed patriotic and Christian prophet for “such a time as this” to lead the civil rights movement.
These were just two among his many outstanding speeches/writings but I think these two were in large part the most defining, and dare be audacious enough to say, most productive, of his repertoire.
The indictment of thoughts is unbiblical.
Certainly our thoughts can turn to sin, but not necessarily so. To look on a woman isn’t a sin, but to look on her in lust is. To be angry in itself is not a sin, but it can lead to sin.
Even the temptation to sin is not a sin.
Thus we can all be tempted to sin racially without ever sinning.
James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
But sin happens when, as the next verse tells us:
15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
To condemn thoughts is not to leave place for the way of escape:
1st Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
In reality, not every white person is tempted racially, but for those who are, and for those who are who are not white, there is a way of escape to avoid sin.
And those who promote a truth other than this are divisive and need to repent.
Bring on the re-education camps.
One last point and I’ll stop.
Racism is thinking one race is superior to another. That includes thinking a particular race (or races) is less racist than another.
Debbie, Do you mean this part of the NYT article?
“President Obama’s landslide victory in 2008 was supposed to herald the beginning of a new Democratic era. And yet, six years later, there is not even a clear Democratic majority in the country, let alone one poised for 30 years of dominance.
It’s not because Mr. Obama’s so-called new coalition of young and nonwhite voters failed to live up to its potential. They again turned out in record numbers in 2012.”