What Is Racism?

Racism is a very serious thing these days. We hear of race riots in America, just when some people thought we had moved past all that. There are blatant forms of racism, and more subtle forms of it. But before we get into that, we need to ask an important question: why is a white guy like me talking about this subject, and what right do I have to do so? There are two ways of answering that question. The first is that racism can be just as much against white people (theoretically) as against any other race. We haven’t seen much of that in America. But it does exist, especially in more subtle forms of racism, which we can get into below. The second part of the answer is that a white person can and should care about what happens to other parts of the human race. Just because I have not been a victim of racism doesn’t mean I can’t say anything about it. I haven’t been a victim of mugging either, but I presume that would not preclude me from saying something about it. I do have an imagination, and I hope all my readers do, too.

The biblical truth is that all humans come from Adam, and all humans come from Noah. As C.S. Lewis might say, that is grand enough to exalt any person, and humble enough to remind anyone that we are but dust. One of the most important features of racism, then, is either a partial or full denial of this fundamental truth. This goes a long way towards a definition. If we are not all from the same origin, then we have room to claim that one race is superior to another. This is one of the biggest problems with the theory of multiple origins of the human race. Evolution and the denial of the historical Adam will have racism as its intended or unintended consequence. Ben Stein showed this quite eloquently in his movie “Expelled,” which you should see if you haven’t yet. Since we are all from one origin, then no one part of the human race can lift itself above any other part of the human race. We are all one human race. The image of God is stamped on every human being. That image of God commands respect and dignity. To denigrate an image bearer, making the person somehow less than human, is therefore a direct attack on God.

There are, however, more subtle forms of racism, and here I am going to get very politically incorrect (as if my statements on evolution were not!). I believe that affirmative action is racist. When it comes to college scholarship and such things, I believe that those who hand them out should be color-blind. However, making a certain quota of African-Americans, or any other minority, is basically saying to them, “You can’t make it without our help.” I know very well the counter-argument: African-Americans have not had access to the kind of schooling that white children have had. But I would remind people of the arguments of Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams (especially the first named): anyone working hard can overcome any obstacles. They have all argued, in one way or another, that affirmative action and the welfare state have wreaked havoc on the black community. The disintegration of the family is another serious factor. These things are harming African-Americans today more than other factors, I believe. The Japanese faced incredible prejudice after World War II. So did the Germans and Italians. They didn’t have access to the best schools either. What did they do? They worked hard and overcame the obstacles. Many African-Americans have done the same. But not all of them have. Many believe that they are owed something for what they or their ancestors suffered. What do I owe them? I owe them the respect and dignity that is owed to all human beings. I do not owe them for what my ancestors may or may not have done. Ezekiel 18 is very important here (I will be writing a post on the relationship of Daniel 9 and Ezekiel 18 at some point in the near future, Lord-willing). The fathers are not responsible for the guilt of the son, nor is the son responsible for the guilt of the father. Acknowledging the sin that someone else has done is one thing, and is very understandable (and can certainly help in the case of race relations today). But that does not mean the same thing as what some seem to be claiming: that there is actual ontological transference of guilt. I have had it said to me that I am guilty of racism simply because I am white. Folks, that is just as much the sin of racism as saying that an African-American is not human because he is black.

What difference does the amount of melanin in the skin make? This is simply micro-evolution. The African-American has more melanin in the skin. Over many generations in the incredibly hot climates of Africa, the people developed darker and darker skin in order to adapt to their surroundings. This is the beauty of the adaptive characteristics of humans. The flip side of this adaptive characteristic is the very pale complexion of Norwegians. They adapted to their frigid climate in the opposite way. If lots of Africans migrated to Norway, over a period of a few hundred years, their skin would lighten quite noticeably. Similarly, if the Norwegian migrated to Africa, his skin would darken quite a bit just in his own lifetime. It is quite silly to make skin color determinative of worth.

The much more difficult question is that of different cultures. It is here, for instance, that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X differed. King was in the south and argued for racial integration and desegregation. The south was segregated (and still is in some ways, though not in transportation and education, the issues that were uppermost in the Civil Rights era). Racism showed itself in exclusion. In the north, however, where Malcolm X mostly lived and spoke, there was no segregation. More subtle attitudes were the problem. This is why (so argues James Cone) King argues for desegregation while Malcolm X argues for segregation. They had different contexts. Which of them is correct? This is not an easy question to answer. There is nothing wrong with desiring to keep a particular culture stable (anyone seen “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”?). Any minority group that comes to America usually desires to keep its traditions alive and well, and those traditions can come into jeopardy when full integration is encouraged. On the other hand, segregation can result in exclusion, which is not healthy. The influence of other cultures is usually salutary, if for no other reason than that one knows one’s own culture better and values it more when compared to other cultures. This comparison itself has pitfalls, of course, because non-moral cultural issues can become a subtle basis for racism quite easily when non-moral issues become “better” or “worse” than what other cultures have.

To conclude, racism as usually understood means a person believes his race is better than another race. This can be blatant, or it can be subtle. We need to be very careful about how we think through these issues, and we need to do a lot of listening. I learned a lot, for instance, about ministering in an African-American context this year at General Assembly by listening to my African-American brothers. Avoiding racism is actually pretty simple: treat each person you meet as an image-bearer of God. That person deserves dignity and respect.

199 Comments

  1. Ron said,

    June 16, 2015 at 9:57 pm

    What should we think of this piece as it relates to superiority in sports?

    http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/01/21/why-blacks-are-good-at-sports/

  2. June 17, 2015 at 1:11 am

    Holy Moly, this is one of the most out-of-touch and terrible posts about race I believe I’ve ever read…well, I tried to read it, but when I got to this, “The biblical truth is that all humans come from Adam, and all humans come from Noah. As C.S. Lewis might say, that is grand enough to exalt any person, and humble enough to remind anyone that we are but dust” I choked on my crumpet. C.S. Lewis would never have lent his name to such a narrow fundamentalist reading of Genesis.

    Genetics is 100% clear that we did not descend from one human pair (Adam and Eve), and certainly not from a second pair, Noah and Naamah. Give me a break to those who think otherwise. Only the most tragic fundamentalist reading of Genesis would demand against all anthropological and genetic data that the present human race descended from a human pair within the last 10K years.

    Then you say, “If we are not all from the same origin, then we have room to claim that one race is superior to another.” No we don’t, that’s dumb; it’s an argument without a rationale. If God breathed life into the human race, however it was first constituted, then we are all made in the image of God and thus equal in this eyes. So, we can’t claim superiority because all of us are equally dependent upon God. To claim that this is only true if there were no homo sapiens before the first pair 6K years ago is deluded, limiting of God’s power, and ignorant of science.

  3. kirimilydia said,

    June 17, 2015 at 2:47 am

    when we stop judging people based on their skin color and ethnicity is the only way we can realize how beautiful human kind is. we have the same color of blood running in our veins which makes us more similar than ever what does skin color dictate?

  4. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 8:06 am

    “Since we are all from one origin, then no one part of the human race can lift itself above any other part of the human race. We are all one human race.”

    What confuses me is it seems that race is being used in two different ways. Here it seems to be supposed that there is only one race. So, naturally the whole race cannot become higher or lower than the itself.

    Yet here at least two races are implied: “To conclude, racism as usually understood means a person believes his race is better than another race.” That sentiment presupposes races within the human race.

    If we use the latter notion of race, which allows for races (plural), I have no problem saying that Asians are superior to whites in mathematics. Whether they are superior by nature or due to effort is another matter. Where things get a little less PC is when someone acknowledges that his own race is superior to another race in some particular way.

    I would think that racism entails thinking that one race has greater intrinsic worth and, therefore, has the inherent right to dominate, which speaks to dignity and respect. That unfortunate mindset, however, doesn’t preclude recognizing that x race excels more than y race at z discipline. Even if one were to believe that one race is intrinsically more intelligent and another is intrinsically more physically gifted doesn’t imply racism anymore than considering women the weaker sex implies sexist chauvinism. I tend to marvel at the abilities of other races, just like I tend to marvel at the somewhat unique abilities of the weaker vessel. Leave God’s wisdom, purpose and love out of the equation and things can get sinful rather quickly.

    In sum, I don’t think the root of racism is the belief that some can be superior in any given way, but rather that man causes himself to differ from another AND that gifts imply intrinsic worth.

  5. davidj said,

    June 17, 2015 at 8:39 am

    Though well intentioned, I think some of your comments reveal a vast oversimplification of matters. You write, “anyone working hard can overcome any obstacles.” You are perpetuating one of the worst myths among white conservatives. It isn’t true. I thought that ten years ago myself but have concluded it is a fallacy.

    You are putting the focus on individual responsibility. If people would only work harder, they wouldn’t be in this situation. I would argue that the focus should be equally, if not more, on systemic injustice. Affirmative action was an attempt to correct a system injustice. You may not agree with its effectiveness but you don’t offer any alternatives besides “hard work.” I don’t think you grasp the depth of the matter.

  6. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 9:16 am

    “The second part of the answer is that a white person can and should care about what happens to other parts of the human race”

    That’s another fine insight. In fact, although I oppose affirmative action and can see it as an unintended form racism, I can’t but recognize that a race can be disadvantaged due to injustices of the past. And, although I find it counter productive (and wrong) to tip the scales according to affirmative action principles, I’d rather aid the disadvantaged in his preparation for a prize yet while not wanting his results graded on a separate curve. The former desire has to do with caring about the human race, but so should my disdain for affirmative action!

    I believe I’m in agreement with the post in toto. I’m a bit concerned of the tendency to make wax noses out of the idea and with the spirit of the age say that no superiority in an intrinsic sense means no distinctions and unique gifts whatsoever.

  7. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 9:22 am

    Davidj,

    Regarding your post to Lane, he’s capable of defending himself but let me merely say, one does hope to preach another day. IOW, it’s not fallacious to assert that affirmative action is wrong without offering an alternative, let alone offering one then and there.

  8. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 9:30 am

    Davidj,

    “You are putting the focus on individual responsibility. If people would only work harder, they wouldn’t be in this situation.”

    That sentiment was not conveyed. In fact, the accent was arguably on the injustices due to racism!

    “I would argue that the focus should be equally, if not more, on systemic injustice. Affirmative action was an attempt to correct a system injustice. You may not agree with its effectiveness but you don’t offer any alternatives besides “hard work.””

    Again, not true. And, not only is it ineffective, it’s another injustice.

    “I don’t think you grasp the depth of the matter.”

    And this is so because he posted some seed thoughts? Again, one does hope to preach another day. :)

  9. William Hill said,

    June 17, 2015 at 10:26 am

    #2 — “Genetics is 100% clear that we did not descend from one human pair (Adam and Eve), and certainly not from a second pair, Noah and Naamah. Give me a break to those who think otherwise. Only the most tragic fundamentalist reading of Genesis would demand against all anthropological and genetic data that the present human race descended from a human pair within the last 10K years.

    Then you say, “If we are not all from the same origin, then we have room to claim that one race is superior to another.” No we don’t, that’s dumb; it’s an argument without a rationale. If God breathed life into the human race, however it was first constituted, then we are all made in the image of God and thus equal in this eyes. So, we can’t claim superiority because all of us are equally dependent upon God. To claim that this is only true if there were no homo sapiens before the first pair 6K years ago is deluded, limiting of God’s power, and ignorant of science.”

    Well then…this statement seems to fly in the face of our confessional standards. What am I missing?

  10. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 11:03 am

    “Well then…this statement seems to fly in the face of our confessional standards. What am I missing?”

    William,

    Maybe “our confessional standards” aren’t *his* confessional standards?

  11. Andy Webb said,

    June 17, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Hi Bryan,

    You said, “Genetics is 100% clear that we did not descend from one human pair (Adam and Eve), and certainly not from a second pair, Noah and Naamah. Give me a break to those who think otherwise. Only the most tragic fundamentalist reading of Genesis would demand against all anthropological and genetic data that the present human race descended from a human pair within the last 10K years.”

    Could you then please explain to us the origins of humanity and the development of the races?

    Thanks!

  12. Andrew Duggan said,

    June 17, 2015 at 11:20 am

    @Ron and William,

    Bryan Prentiss is the pastor of Intown Presbyterian Church a PCA church (at least according to the PCA itself) in Portland OR.

    The church’s own website didn’t have any obvious affliation info available.

    But it is the the PCA Presbytery of the Northwest, for those who know about that.

  13. Ken Pierce said,

    June 17, 2015 at 11:41 am

    Brian, you can dismiss it as ‘dumb’ but it is simply historical fact that leading early geneticists (Louis Agassiz most prominently) argued for polygenesis, and, following from that, that blacks were members of a different species. This argument was picked up by later political progressives and social engineers of the the Margaret Sanger type. So, it’s not exactly far fetched. Those who stood against it were Old School Southern Presbyterian theologians who, for their sinful awful shortsightedness on race and slavery, believed that black men and women had souls, were capable of redemption, and, in the new heavens and new earth, would be the equals, if not the betters, of their masters (this from my PhD research on BM Palmer). I am no worshipper of the Southern Divines –I think we reverence them far too highly and are not forthcoming about their theological and ecclesiological errors among others, but the truth is that, historically speaking, polygenesis was born and rooted in racism, wherever it stands today.

    Though I tend to agree the initial post is misguided. Sorry, Lane!

  14. Andy Wortman said,

    June 17, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    Brian,

    When and where did that large population become human? Was it gradual or instantaneous? Did God “inject” souls into some sort of pre-adamite population? How does one distinguish the populations before and after the event? Perhaps I should ask another question, do you actually believe that man has a soul as well as a body? “Science” isn’t currently very favorable to a soul/brain dichotomy right now either, so if you have already boarded the “science says” train are you prepared to ride it to the end?

  15. Nathanael said,

    June 17, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    “To conclude, racism as usually understood means a person believes his race is better than another race.”

    In other words, to you racism is an intelligent person taking notice of reality.

    Bit of an odd self-defeating position to take. If, for example, someone should be unfortunate enough to notice that East Asians are better than other races at abstract mathematics, robotics, and similiar fields, this makes that person a racist under your definition. Thus if being observant of the world God created is a good thing, then your racism definition is a good thing and should be promoted rather than repented of. But if being observant of the world God created is a bad thing because racism is bad, then to not sin means being forced to deny what anyone with eyes can see and Christianity’s claim to Truth is proven false.

  16. Don said,

    June 17, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    In the north, however, where Malcolm X mostly lived and spoke, there was no segregation.

    This assertion has no basis in historical reality. Brown v. Board of Ed was Kansas City. “Separate but Equal” was litigated against a northern city on purpose.

  17. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Nathaniel,

    Some of my posts aim to flesh that out, but I must and do believe Lane recognizes these distinctions and also praises God for them. I find his post more “food for thought” rather than an exhaustive treatise. Surely at least this white man cannot jump.

    On a related matter, I took a test not too long ago aimed at assessing my ability to deduce conclusions from a series of facts. I was to stick only to the facts as stated. Then I was asked to infer conclusions by using the same facts plus what I consider “common knowledge” (which allows room for assumptions). I struggle with the latter… (not that I don’t struggle with the former).

  18. Chris said,

    June 17, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Soon, I hope very soon, Christians will return to reason. It seems post 1960s our eyes observe the natural world around us but our minds tell us to conclude otherwise. It is not simple PC gone wild. It is the wholesale conversion of the evangelical mind to the world’s doctrine on race that denies what any fair thinking and unafraid human being can plainly see – that God made and, yes, divided the races each with its own purposes according to His will, with each their own abilities and strengths, and with their own faults and sinful tendencies. Am I now a badthinker to ask who the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth are today?

  19. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Nathanael,

    Sorry for misspelling your name.

    Andrew,

    Thanks for the info. Also, I think I now know a cousin of yours, even worship with him.

  20. Wayne Larson said,

    June 17, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    I think we need to be more careful when it comes to sin and it’s relationship to society and culture. Sin in the heart gives rise to action, action over time forms character, character lived out collectively produces culture, and culture reinforces notions of normalcy. It’s never simply a matter of making sure we don’t hold personal animosity against anyone of another race, we also need discernment in order to see where society and culture masks injustice and reinforces indignities that might not be obvious to those who benefit from the hidden injustices and indignities. Here it is important to be humble and seek to learn from our brothers and sisters who face these realities on a daily basis. Learning to see these things and working to correct them does require a repentance – it may be a repentance of a sin of the low hand rather than a sin of the high hand, but it is a first step nonetheless.

  21. Truth2Freedom said,

    June 17, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Reblogged this on Truth2Freedom's Blog.

  22. Reed Here said,

    June 17, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Lane, due to the needs of our congregation I’ve given quite a bit of time this past year to these particular issues. As you are interested, I’d be glad to share what I’ve think I’ve learned.

    As to Ezk 18, agreed, an essential passage. Yet I think the coordination of this passage with others that suggest that in some manner we ARE judged for the guilt of the fathers is going to be a bit more complex than will work with your initial caveat. Not saying you are categorically wrong
    . Am saying that such passages as Isa 14:21 and Jer 32:18, et. al, are going to require a bit more Turretin-esque coordination.

    At this point, for our congregation, I see massive failures, at least in terms of the sin of the priest and Levite in the Good Samaritan story, the sin of indifference. The positive commands regarding the application of the 6th commandment clearly apply. As well. The whole federal structuring of our faith, e.g., Rom 5, suggests we ignore the concepts of covenantal-generational culpability at the peril of losing the core of the gospel.

    Yes, I know how serious I am saying this is. I’m o.k. with bring disagreed with.

  23. Reed Here said,

    June 17, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    Bryan, I echo Andy’s request in no. 11. Your fellow TE.

  24. Wayne Larson said,

    June 17, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    Nathanael, are you a member of a PCA church? If so which one?

  25. Nathanael said,

    June 17, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Ron,

    No biggie about the name. My parents picked the Biblical spelling and people have been misspelling ever since. :)

    The problem here is that we just saw six paragraphs discussing this issue and the best definition he could come up with is in no way automatically sinful, the opposite in fact. And yet in every single one of these “racial reconciliation” resolutions the term is automatically assumed to be the most heinous sin imaginable.

    So we’ve got a whole denomination accusing entire generations of their ancestors, who were head and shoulders more Godly than anyone the PCA can boast of today, of sloppily defined non-sins just to score politically correct brownie points with the New York Times crowd who are still going to hate them regardless. It’s madness.

    Wayne,

    It’s the First Presbyterian Church of I don’t like what you’re saying so I’m going to get someone to bully you.

  26. Wayne Larson said,

    June 17, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Nathanael, I see you didn’t answer my question. I will pray that the Lord will open your hear to bring true repentance and free you from the evil of Kinism and segregationist ideologies.

  27. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    Although I fully support good relationships and mutual assistance to our brothers in Christ of all races and nations, I must ask myself several honest questions in reference to this resolution.

    1. Does an apology by present day people for possible sins committed by others really increase good relationships with folks today? 2. How could the PCA legitimately apologize for its supposed sins during the Civil Rights period when it didn’t even exist then, it was formed in 1973? 3. Is it really possible in God’s eyes for one person(s) to apologize for the actions of another(s), or the PCA to apologize for another Presbyterian denomination? 4. Isn’t such an apology so broad in reference to WHO sinned and WHAT their sin is, that it actually goes against church doctrine as it is destructive of the peace of the church?
    Let’s view this from another perspective. What would happen if a black denomination were to issue an apology for what they did wrongly during the Civil Rights period? For it to be legitimate, it would have to be from a church that existed during that period, it would have to name specific sins and it would have to name specific individuals. In the PCA it would be against church order for a minister to commit adultery, to beat women, to plagiarize his doctorate dissertation, to instigate others to violence, to encourage people of their congregation and others to willfully disobey local and State civil laws, to a large degree to become involved with civil issues and not primarily keep to the preaching of God’s word. Since Martin Luther King, Jr. did all these things (see Abernathy’s biography), would it not be more legitimate for the denomination that ordained him to issue an apology?

    Surely I doubt they will. And even if they were to do so I don’t know that it would be of any real benefit as we need to be more concerned about doing God’s work today than apologizing for what others may have done wrongly years ago. Judging those of the past by today’s notions, revising history and making attention garnering, politically correct statements which demean others, are not helpful.

    And finally, the proposed resolution mentioned Brown vs. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Regardless of one’s position on these acts and any benefits resulting from them, they are all un-Constitutional. The Constitution clearly specifies that those powers not given to the federal government, which includes internal State policies, are reserved by the States. Church ministers of the past should not have supported these acts because they violated legitimate laws. These acts also have made a precedence that the federal government has used to force other social policy changes. Roe vs. Wade is an example, the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, probably shortly the forced recognition of sodomite marriages, and I anticipate soon the silencing of Christian churches and ministers who oppose anything the federal government deems right and forces upon the people of These United States.

  28. Nathanael said,

    June 17, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    I answered the spirit of your question and I don’t need to repent of non-sins. Do you have an issue with all God-ordained property, familial, and national boundaries or just the ones the pagan culture has told you are unacceptable?

  29. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    “No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

    ~ Dr. John E. Richards
    PCA Founder

  30. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    “The problem here is that we just saw six paragraphs discussing this issue and the best definition he could come up with is in no way automatically sinful, the opposite in fact. ”

    Nathanael,

    I agree that the definition could be taken in such in such a way as to cause someone like me to be labeled a racist for thinking that on the whole blacks are superior athletes and Asians are superior in math, etc. However, I’m going to interpret the definition differently unless corrected.

  31. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    On the whole blacks are superior athletes and Asians are superior in Math. Just as whites are superior in building civilization.

  32. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    But does this “superiority” trump matters of faith, hope and love? Does it make way for advancement in respect for human dignity, and greater appreciation for God’s grace bestowed by sovereign choice? Does it humble us and exalt God, or exalt man in his vanity?

  33. Ken Pierce said,

    June 17, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    If whites are superior in building civilization, are they also superior in blowing it to smithereens, marching Jews off to die, and putting enough nuclear firepower in the world to destroy it 5 times over? This point is not new with me, it dates to Friedrich Schlegel in the early 19th century. Live through a European war, and see just how civilized we are. The world is a wretched awful place, and Jesus judges all cultures and races.

  34. June 17, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    I’m trying to make sense of this post, but I admit I am struggling. I hear much talk about the institutional sin of *racism* and its part in the *systemic injustice* of our forebears. I’ve referenced the 15+ translations of the Word available to me, but I seem to be unable to find mention of the *sin of racism* in a single one. Most of the versions I’ve checked tell me that sin is the violating or transgressing of God’s law. That means that there must be a law somewhere in Scripture defining racism, associating racism with one of the commandments, forbidding racism under statute, and outlining appropriate judgment for one found guilty of violating said statute. Maybe it’s me. Perhaps i just need to study a more accurate translation, such as the FRU (Fairies, Rainbows, and Unicorns) version. I’m sure it must be in there.

    If you expect me to parade around in sackcloth and ashes mourning the oppression of others at the hands of my ancestors, you need to give me more to go on than the pathetic, limp-wristed “there’s only one race, the human race, and observing otherwise is the unforgivable sin” pablum.

    As Col. Sherman Potter would have said, “HORSE FEATHERS.”

  35. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    32.) Ron said,
    June 17, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    But does this “superiority” trump matters of faith, hope and love? Does it make way for advancement in respect for human dignity, and greater appreciation for God’s grace bestowed by sovereign choice? Does it humble us and exalt God, or exalt man in his vanity?

    Q. 1 — No
    Q. 2 — It might or might not depending on the person and situation
    Q. 3 — It could do both depending on the man in question.

    Of course on none of these questions was there ever any hint from me on any position on any of these issue.

    Ken Pierce said,
    June 17, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    If whites are superior in building civilization, are they also superior in blowing it to smithereens, marching Jews off to die, and putting enough nuclear firepower in the world to destroy it 5 times over? This point is not new with me, it dates to Friedrich Schlegel in the early 19th century. Live through a European war, and see just how civilized we are. The world is a wretched awful place, and Jesus judges all cultures and races.

    Yes, it does seem that the genius of whites also includes the genius at being really efficient at Killing large numbers of people. Whereas the Aztecs and Ndebele and the Shona were using the crudest of weapons to kill countless numbers of people. Of course genius can be used both positively and negatively depending on the genius’ relation to Christ.

    Jews also seem to have this genius. Witness their capability of killing tens of millions of Christians in Russia and the Ukraine.

    It is precisely because of my concern to not live through war that finds me so strenuously objecting to the latent genocide that is contained in germ form in the kinds of “confessions” that the PCA has made.

    Finally, no one ever said that Jesus doesn’t judge all cultures and races. Indeed, those who have been given much will be judged more harshly for squandering the genius they were given.

  36. Bill Stephens said,

    June 17, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    On the subject of racism, I have heard from the pulpit and also in study materials that the Judaizers in the New Testament were racists. I tend to not believe that. They were theologically wrong but I don’t think you can say they were racists. I would appreciate your thoughts. – Bill Stephens

  37. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 7:26 pm

    “Of course on none of these questions was there ever any hint from me on any position on any of these issue.”

    Enoch,

    Of course. And, I was giving you the judgment of charity all along. Yet, if I was as quick to judge what’s behind your posts, like you’re quick to judge the motive for the foolishness of some in the PCA, I might not have assumed the best about you.

  38. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    ” Just as whites are superior in building civilization.”

    Pretty tough to run a controlled experiment on that one, especially since natural resources and necessity of advancements aren’t universal or invariant.

  39. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 8:04 pm

    Pretty tough to run a controlled experiment on that one, especially since natural resources and necessity of advancements aren’t universal or invariant.

    Oh I don’t know. I’d say the entire expanse of history is a pretty good experiment.

    _____________

    Of course. And, I was giving you the judgment of charity all along. Yet, if I was as quick to judge what’s behind your posts, like you’re quick to judge the motive for the foolishness of some in the PCA, I might not have assumed the best about you.

    My whole point was aimed at their foolishness and now here you are agreeing with me about their foolishness.

  40. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 8:13 pm

    I never denied the foolishness. I just don’t presume to know the motive, but I suspect it’s gospel driven first and foremost.

  41. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    I never denied the foolishness. I just don’t presume to know the motive, but I suspect it’s gospel driven first and foremost.

    A Gospel driven foolishness?

    Do you mean that they are well intentioned because of a errant understanding of the Gospel?

    Whether all of this is malevolent or foolish in terms of motive the end consequent will be a black eye for Biblical Christianity and a diminishing of God’s glory as observed by men.

  42. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    A Gospel driven foolishness?

    Do you mean that they are well intentioned because of a errant understanding of the Gospel?

    I have no idea what you’re trying to say. I don’t see how an errant understanding of the gospel can be the the cause of good intentions.

    In any case, some who delight in the salvation of lost souls and peace among believers can try to achieve those desirable ends through misguided means. Pragmatism can cause people to do questionable things. We saw this kind of thing for decades with Billy Graham and his alliance with Rome.

  43. Pete Rambo said,

    June 17, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    While the PCA may/may not have significant issues of black/white racism to confess and deal with (more likely individually than corporately), they do, along with the whole of Christendom, have significant issues of racism going back 1800+ years against the Jews.

    Witness the history of blood libels, pogroms, antiSemitism and hate fostered by Church Fathers and Church doctrines, echoed in pulpits and around ‘good Christian’ tables. We have blood on our hands.

    Serious repentance must begin there. Not only for our sins, but also the sins of our fathers!

  44. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    I don’t see how an errant understanding of the gospel can be the the cause of good intentions.

    Per your reasoning It could well be the case that it was Billy Graham’s errant understanding of the Gospel that accordingly led to the pragmatism of his “good” intentions.

    That should be clear enough.

  45. Enoch Powell said,

    June 17, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    they do, along with the whole of Christendom, have significant issues of racism going back 1800+ years against the Jews.

    Witness the history of blood libels, pogroms, antiSemitism and hate fostered by Church Fathers and Church doctrines, echoed in pulpits and around ‘good Christian’ tables. We have blood on our hands.

    And here Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, and Calvin have always been my favorite Church Fathers.

  46. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 11:01 pm

    Per your reasoning It could well be the case that it was Billy Graham’s errant understanding of the Gospel that accordingly led to the pragmatism of his “good” intentions.

    Enoch,

    If you don’t mind, please put forth a precise argument that leads to conclusion p<: Ron’s reasoning implies that an aberrant view of the gospel can lead to good intentions.

  47. Ron said,

    June 17, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    Here, Enoch.

    I wrote: In any case, some who delight in the salvation of lost souls and peace among believers can try to achieve those desirable ends through misguided means.

    Gospel driven in this context means that those who want to share the pure gospel and are driven by the desire to declare the good news without hindrance, can be driven to desirable ends through misguided means…in this case the misguided means of removing obstacles that cannot be removed properly in the manner in which they try…Pragmatism can cause people to do questionable things. We saw this kind of thing for decades with Billy Graham and his alliance with Rome.

    I don’t believe it was an aberrant gospel message that caused Billy Graham to discharge the gospel in impurity, but rather his desire to get the message to the a lost world any way he possibly could.

  48. Tony Rogers said,

    June 17, 2015 at 11:50 pm

    Brian,

    “…I choked on my crumpet.” If that were so, we would have been spared a half-baked post.

    You dismissed a literal reading of Genesis by calling it a “narrow fundamentalist reading.” How is that a refutation of anyone other than those who already share your prejudice?

    Speaking of narrow fundamentalist ideas, has anyone ever told you that people who believe science yields 100% certainty are philosophically naïve? The next thing you will tell us is that this extends not only to the concepts but also to the very words scientists use to express such ideas.

    As for C. S. Lewis, who spoke reprehensibly of certain Psalms, and of various and sundry passages of Scripture as containing “embarrassing errors,” I am not sure he would not have lent his name to what you brand an error. Since Lewis was not, as you say, a fundamentalist, he did not try to reinterpret the Bible to make it look like it agreed with scientific theories currently in vogue. Lewis simply called anything he disagreed with embarrassing or wrong, and that was an end of it; he did not try to “reinterpret” the Bible like someone might do if they are trying to retain their ministerial status in a denomination that believes the Bible is 100% the word of God and not subject to error.

  49. June 18, 2015 at 12:05 am

    Ron, are you aware of the low percentages of they that went forward at Graham’s events as well as the low percentages of they that did the same at Harvest Crusades having made highly charged emotional professions of faith in Christ that were & are false ?
    What seems right to men can be a destructive force against him.
    – tkbk –

  50. June 18, 2015 at 12:07 am

    I should have said the low percentages of genuine converts.
    Is there an edit feature here ?
    – tkbk –

  51. greenbaggins said,

    June 18, 2015 at 9:02 am

    Ron, you are correct that I have been operating with two different definitions of the word “race.” These two definitions are, I believe, common in public speech. “Race” can be used of homo sapiens as a whole (“the human race'”) and it can be used of a particular ethnic group (“the African race”). I am not aware than any one given use of that word is ambiguous in the original post. Is there a specific instance where it is unclear?

    Ron, you are also correct in answering others regarding my views on the strengths of different races. Generalizations about race will always have many exceptions. I can agree, however, that different races appear to have different strengths. What I was referring to in the post was whether one race had more intrinsic worth than another race, which I deny.

    Brian, I think you need to treat with a bit more respect a view that not only has wide currency in the PCA, but has been the majority position of the church in its past history before the theory of evolution came along.

    Edward, the word “racism” is not in the Bible, but don’t you think Galatians 3:28 speaks to the issue? Do not make the fallacy of supposing that because a certain word does not appear in the Bible, that therefore an idea does not occur in the Bible. If you start thinking that way, you will deny the Trinity, because that word doesn’t appear in the Bible either.

    Reed, I will be working up a post on the various Scripture passages regarding corporate responsibility in the future, although I may have to do a fair bi of reading on the subject first.

  52. Reed Here said,

    June 18, 2015 at 9:07 am

    As per blog rules, I am speaking to a position being espoused in this post. I’m offering no personal attacks.

    Kinism is a pernicious evil, exactly opposed to the gospel and Christ. Flee from it.

    Reed (no longer moderator, so don’t go giving Lane a hard time)

  53. June 18, 2015 at 9:08 am

    “Edward, the word “racism” is not in the Bible, but don’t you think Galatians 3:28 speaks to the issue?”

    No more than it speaks to the issue of “sexism” and “heteronormativitism.” Are these sins as well?

  54. Reed Here said,

    June 18, 2015 at 9:31 am

    Working toward a biblical definition of racism, I suggest, at least involved the following considerations:

    The second, and then in relation the first, Great Commandments.
    The “stranger” passages in the OT.
    The 6th commandment’s positive obligations.
    The Good Samaritan parable in Luke.
    Paul’s comments about divisions being removed in Christ.
    The structure and facts of Acts as an intentional reversal of the Tower of Babel in Gn 11, in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in Gn 12.
    The mixed ethnic congregations of Acts, and Paul’s letters.
    The worship of the One congregation in Rev 5.

    Just a starting list. One thing is clear though: racism is not a Darwinian-Marxist construct, but a Biblical issue.

  55. June 18, 2015 at 9:52 am

    “The “stranger” passages in the OT.”

    Which state that they cannot permanently inherit land in Israel (Lev. 25) and could not rule in Israel (Deut. 1 and 17:15).

    “Paul’s comments about divisions being removed in Christ.”

    Like the division of sex or gender (Gal. 3:28)?

    “The structure and facts of Acts as an intentional reversal of the Tower of Babel in Gn 11, in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in Gn 12.”

    It wasn’t a “reversal” of Babel at all. Everyone heard the Gospel in their own language. There was no consequent amalgamation into one huge nation.

    “The mixed ethnic congregations of Acts, and Paul’s letters.”

    They weren’t mixed. Ethnic groups were and still are distinguishable.

    “The worship of the One congregation in Rev 5.”

    Which is distinguished by nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues. There are and always will be nations (plural) of them which are saved (Rev. 21:24-26, 22:2).

  56. musicosity1 said,

    June 18, 2015 at 10:14 am

    Brian Prentiss, is your exegesis of Scripture is driven by “anthropological and genetic data”? That sounds like a stated difference with WCF 1.9-10. Has such a difference been reported to your presbytery?

  57. Enoch Powell said,

    June 18, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    As per blog rules, I am speaking to a position being espoused in this post. I’m offering no personal attacks.

    The denial of Kinism is a pernicious evil, exactly opposed to the gospel and Christ. Flee from it.

  58. June 18, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    Regarding Gal 3:28, it speaks only to salvific spiritual matters not being bound by the God given & purposed distinctions of our earthly existence.
    Everybody may be saved but nobody can do as they please in practice outside of those God given earthly distinctions & purposes & be saved spiritually.
    Why do so many believe that the normal preference of that which appears on sight as being bone of ones bone & flesh of ones flesh in the opposite gender over that which on sight looks foreign to it be said to carry a racist worldview ? It is absurd to make such a claim.
    – tkbk –

  59. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 18, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    greenbaggins: “Edward, the word “racism” is not in the Bible, but don’t you think Galatians 3:28 speaks to the issue?”

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

    Albert Barnes on Galatians 3:28 “it means only that all people are on a level in regard to religion. This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that people are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society.”

  60. Wayne Larson said,

    June 18, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    I see this is a blog where someone can say something about Genesis and he is pounded upon, yet anonymous and pseudonymous kinists and segregationists can speak out with impunity. This will be the last time I visit this blog.

  61. Reed Here said,

    June 18, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Wayne, a bit unfair, given my comments calling kinism a pernicious evil.

    Bryan Prentiss’ comment slammed most the TE’s commenting here. So far, haven’t seen anyone respond rudely to him in kind.

  62. Ron Henzel said,

    June 18, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    Stuart,

    Actually, Albert Barnes’ comments on Galatians 3:28 were quite a bit more extended than your exceedingly brief excerpt might suggest. You cited but a few sentence pertaining exclusively to the clause, “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” out of about two and a half pages on this verse alone. Of particular interest are his remarks near the end of his extended comment on the clause, “There is neither bond nor free”:

    This doctrine would lead to universal emancipation. All are on a level before God. In the kingdom of Jesus there is neither bond nor free. One is as much an object of favour as another. With this feeling, how can a Christian hold his fellow Christian in bondage? How can he regard as “a chattle,” or “a thing,” one who, like himself, is an heir of glory? How can he sell him on whom the blood of Jesus has been sprinkled? Let him feel that his slave is his equal in the sight of God; that with himself he is an heir of glory; that together they are soon to stand on Mount Sion above; that the slave is an immortal being, and has been redeemed by the blood of Calvary, and how can he hold such a being in bondage, and how can he transfer him from place to place, and from hand to hand, for gold? If all masters and all slaves were to become Christians, slavery would at once cease; and the prevalence of the single principle before us would put an end to all the ways in which man oppresses his fellow-man. Accordingly, it is well known that in about three centuries the influence of Christianity banished slavery from the Roman empire.

    [Albert Barnes, “Galatians,” in Notes on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Books, 2004), 354.]

    Contrary to what your excerpt suggests, Barnes believed that our equality before God should lead to practical expressions of equality between all men.

  63. Ron Henzel said,

    June 18, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    David Carlton,

    Regarding Acts 2:7-11, you wrote:

    It wasn’t a “reversal” of Babel at all. Everyone heard the Gospel in their own language. There was no consequent amalgamation into one huge nation.

    It did not have to result in an actual “amalgamation into one huge nation” in order to constitute a very real, though temporary, reversal of the confusion of languages at Babel, as well as one which typified the ultimate reversal of Babel at the consummation of history.

    Citing Reed’s reference to “The mixed ethnic congregations of Acts, and Paul’s letters,” you wrote:

    They weren’t mixed. Ethnic groups were and still are distinguishable.

    The fact that the ethnic groups were distinguishable did not mean that they did not mix within congregations and intermarry. During Paul’s missionary journeys he encountered synagogues that already accommodated both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:43; 14:1), and intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles was common. Timothy, for example, had a Jewish mother and a Greek father (Acts 16:3). And the fact that local churches contained a mix of Jews and Gentiles is well attested (Gal. 2:11-13).

  64. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 18, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    “Contrary to what your excerpt suggests, Barnes believed that our equality before God should lead to practical expressions of equality between all men.”

    The subject I was addressing was greenbaggins reference to Galatians 3:28 and thus I limited my quote of Barnes to where he specifically addressed that passage. Here is the larger context:

    “Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek – All are on a level; all are saved in the same way; all are entitled to the same privileges. There is no favoritism on account of birth, beauty, or blood. All confess that they are sinners; all are saved by the merits of the same Saviour; all are admitted to the same privileges as children of God. The word “Greek” here is used to denote the Gentiles generally; since the whole world was divided by the Jews into “Jews and Greeks” – the Greeks being the foreign nation best known to them. The Syriac renders it here “Aramean,” using the word to denote the Gentiles generally. The meaning is, that whatever was the birth, or rank, or nation, or color, or complexion, all under the gospel were on a level. They were admitted to the same privileges, and endowed with the same hopes of eternal life. This does not mean that all the civil distinctions among people are to be disregarded.

    It does not mean that no respect is to be shown to those in office, or to people in elevated rank. It does not mean that all are on a level in regard to talents, comforts, or wealth; but it means only that all people are on a level “in regard to religion.” This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that people are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society. Paul means to teach that no man has any preference or advantage in the kingdom of God because he is a rich man, or because he is of elevated rank; no one is under any disadvantage because he is poor, or because he is ignorant, or a slave. All at the foot of the cross are sinners; all at the communion table are saved by the same grace; all who enter into heaven, will enter clothed in the same robes of salvation, and arranged, not as princes and nobles, and rich men and poor men, in separate orders and ranks, but mingling together as redeemed by the same blood, and arranged in ranks according to their eminence in holiness; compare my notes at Isa_56:8.”

  65. Ron Henzel said,

    June 18, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    Stuart,

    Once again, you quote from a section of Barnes’ comments on Galatians 3:28 that does not speak to the issue of racism, which is why Lane cited it, while I quote from the section that does, inasmuch as slavery was the supreme example of racism in his day.

    The fact that Barnes may have approved of, or at least did not condemn, the social distinctions that existed in his day does not negate the fact that later he clearly indicated that to be equal before God meant to be worthy of equal treatment on earth by all men. Thus he thought Galatians 3:28 did speak to the issue of racism. He does not actually say that he approved of the way that social distinctions kept groups from mingling in his own day, but in the quote your provided he clearly approves of the fact that one day all the redeemed will mingle together in spite of their earthly distinctions.

  66. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 18, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    My point in quoting Barnes is that it’s just as bogus use the “there is neither Jew nor Greek” part of Galatians 3:28 to support the concept of “racism,” as it is to use the “there is neither male nor female” part of Galatians 3:28 to support the concept of “sexism.”

  67. Ron said,

    June 18, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    “Is there a specific instance where it is unclear?”

    Lane (GB),

    No, I’m clear on what you meant. My “concern” was that the spirit of the age fosters a notion that there can be no differences whatsoever between the races. Some might impugn that ism to you since on the topic of racism you spoke of (began with?) the one human race that stands and falls as a unit of one, and no part of the race can rise above the other because it’s one single race. You noted that the root of racism is the denial of the same origin, the one human race. Coming to these notions with the presupposition of the age, one might infer that you (with this age) believe that races, plural, are illusory. If that is granted, then no race can possess different characteristics, greater virtue or whatever – your point regarding the one human race. I must admit, I was a bit confused at first, which is why I began with a link, looking for your affirmation of the differences that can be indexed to race, but was soon persuaded that you must believe what was not stated.

    Thx

  68. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 18, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    “Once again, you quote from a section of Barnes’ comments on Galatians 3:28 that does not speak to the issue of racism”

    There is no part of Barnes’ comments that speak of racism. That is a man-made “sin” foreign to the Bible. What I did quote from Barnes was his commentary on the only part of the verse that specifically mentions different ethnic groups (“There is neither Jew nor Greek”). The other parts speak of social status (“there is neither bond nor free”) and gender (“there is neither male nor female”).

  69. June 18, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    Ron Henzel,

    You wrote in regards to Babel,

    “It did not have to result in an actual “amalgamation into one huge nation” in order to constitute a very real, though temporary, reversal of the confusion of languages at Babel, as well as one which typified the ultimate reversal of Babel at the consummation of history.”

    I don’t see Pentecost as a reversal of Babel at all, temporary or otherwise. I find no Biblical evidence that there will be an “ultimate reversal of Babel at the consummation of history.” I agree with what Francis Nigel Lee said of Babel, “Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow. . . . In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it. . . . But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.” -Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. “Race, People, and Nationality.” 2/2/2005

    You said in regards to mixed churches,

    “The fact that the ethnic groups were distinguishable did not mean that they did not mix within congregations and intermarry. During Paul’s missionary journeys he encountered synagogues that already accommodated both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:43; 14:1), and intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles was common. Timothy, for example, had a Jewish mother and a Greek father (Acts 16:3). And the fact that local churches contained a mix of Jews and Gentiles is well attested (Gal. 2:11-13).”

    I disagree that marriage was common. Galatia is a large Roman province, so there very easily could have been different congregations within this area. The Grecians still recognized their widows as their widows in Acts 6 as opposed to those of Jewish Christians. Timothy doesn’t prove much either. It isn’t unlikely that his father was a Hellenist, which is why Paul praises the faith of Timothy’s mother and grandmother, but does not mention his father (2 Tim. 1:5), and also why Timothy was circumcised later in life (Acts 16:1) rather than after birth.

  70. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 18, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    “later he clearly indicated that to be equal before God meant to be worthy of equal treatment on earth by all men.”

    I don’t think Barnes’ was advocating that we should have “equal treatment on earth by all men” in every respect. I don’t have equal treatment everywhere I go, neither should I. If I go to China, for example, I don’t receive treatment equal to the Chinese natives, and being a foreigner, I have no right to expect it. And, if they so desire, the Chinese have every right to exclude me from the citizenship I would need in order to receive equal treatment, solely on the basis that I am not ethnically Chinese.

  71. June 18, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    Ron Henzel,

    For the sake of clarity, would you mind clarifying what “racism” is supposed to mean? Is it a denial of absolute equality of the races in all talents and aptitudes? Is it the belief that civil privileges in countries should be limited to ethnic natives (thus rendering Christendom “racist” prior to the 1960s)?

  72. Don said,

    June 18, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    David Carlton 69,

    Timothy doesn’t prove much either. It isn’t unlikely that his father was a Hellenist

    So when Acts says that “his father was a Greek” twice in three verses, that means his father was a Hellenistic Jew? Really?

  73. June 18, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    Don, I mention it as a possibility. In any event; it’s likely that Timothy’s father was an unbeliever for the reasons that I mentioned above. He is no more an example of God approving of mixing than of inter-religious marriage.

  74. Don said,

    June 18, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    David Carlton 73,

    I mention it as a possibility.

    You have no basis in the text for such speculation.

    You are also shifting the goalposts from whether such marriages were common to whether God would approve of them. The first question can be resolved by anthropological/archeological studies. The second–more generally–King David’s great grandparents seemed to make out OK.

  75. Tim Harris said,

    June 18, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    Don 74,
    The logic of possibility would be this: if possibly P, then NOT necessarily (not P). Which is universally accepted in modal logic. Thus, speculation as to a possibility can lead to a logical inference, namely the inability to assert necessity of its denial.

    Also, I’m wondering in view of Deut. 23:3, if on your view David should count as a Moabite? Don’t take this as a hostile question: it’s a juxtaposition that I don’t understand at this point and hope you can illuminate it.

  76. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 18, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    I think we can go to two extremes of error regarding racial/ethnic distinctions: on the one hand, trying to maintain an unchanging standard of racial purity, and imagining that there are hard and fast lines between groups of people that have never deviated over time, which has never been the case and should not be our goal to pursue, if it were even possible; and on the other hand, abandoning all distinctions in favor of a one-world melting pot of humanity, using the fact that there has been a certain amount of flux in ethnicity over the centuries as an excuse to deny the value of maintaining any boundaries at all.

  77. Mark B said,

    June 18, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    What is Racism?
    A few thoughts that may or may not advance the conversation. When I was in school, it was defined as white men in America trying to keep everyone else subservient. People who weren’t white couldn’t be racist (because whites were in power). Liberals still define it that way for the most part, however, generally it seems that the average Joe defines it as not liking someone of a different race. Racism is a modern American Liberal construct that can be useful for discussing relationships between Blacks and Whites in America, but it’s exceedingly anachronistic to read our modern conception of Racism back into history, either to support an “antiracist” agenda or to support a “racist” agenda. Some folks back in the ancient Roman empire almost certainly disliked people who were different from them (it’s human nature), but applying the term racism to that causes confusion rather than promoting understanding (similar to the way that the concept of slavery has some fundamental differences between that era and 1840’s America). Or another example, “significant issues of racism going back 1800+ years against the Jews” doesn’t relate much to what is generally assumed by a commentator on NPR discussing the latest case regarding a white police officer and a black criminal. (Not because there weren’t horrible things written/done against Jews in the last 1800 years, but because there were other reasons those things were written/done that have little to do with the modern American conception of race).

  78. Reed Here said,

    June 18, 2015 at 11:01 pm

    Can Dylann Roof’s motives and actions be used to define racism?

  79. Don said,

    June 18, 2015 at 11:45 pm

    Tim Harris 75,
    No, the logic is “Sometimes in the New Testament the context makes it clear that ‘Greek’ means ‘Hellenized Jew’ so I’ll raise that as a possibility here since it’s convenient for my case even though there is no reason to do so from the context.”

    Deut. 23:3 was apparently a great problem for the Jewish rabbis, since it obviously challenged the legitimacy of David’s rule. By the time Targum Ruth was written (1189 AD) and probably long before, Ruth 1:16-17 had become not just Ruth’s expression of dedication to Naomi, but of her conversion to Judaism. I guess, according to this interpretation, she may have somehow changed her ethnicity, not just religion, to no longer be Moabite, but I’m not sure about that.

  80. Ron Henzel said,

    June 19, 2015 at 1:13 am

    Stuart,

    You wrote:

    My point in quoting Barnes is that it’s just as bogus use the “there is neither Jew nor Greek” part of Galatians 3:28 to support the concept of “racism,” as it is to use the “there is neither male nor female” part of Galatians 3:28 to support the concept of “sexism.”

    And my point is that it’s bogus to use Barnes in support of your thesis.

    You wrote:

    There is no part of Barnes’ comments that speak of racism. That is a man-made “sin” foreign to the Bible.

    Racism may be alternately defined as either the “poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race,” or “the belief that some races of people are better than others.” Anyone who does not see how both of these are sins is spiritually blind.

    You wrote:

    I don’t have equal treatment everywhere I go, neither should I. If I go to China, for example, I don’t receive treatment equal to the Chinese natives, and being a foreigner, I have no right to expect it.

    You are confusing the concept of “equal treatment” with that of “identical treatment.” “Equal treatment” means to be treated as an equal in terms of respect, courtesy, and such legal rights as those concerning individual liberties and due process.

    I think we can go to two extremes of error regarding racial/ethnic distinctions: on the one hand, trying to maintain an unchanging standard of racial purity, and imagining that there are hard and fast lines between groups of people that have never deviated over time, which has never been the case and should not be our goal to pursue, if it were even possible; and on the other hand, abandoning all distinctions in favor of a one-world melting pot of humanity, using the fact that there has been a certain amount of flux in ethnicity over the centuries as an excuse to deny the value of maintaining any boundaries at all.

    Precisely how would you go about “maintaining” ethnic “boundaries?” Should we re-institute segregation? Jim Crow laws? Apartheid? How about some good old fashioned ethnic cleansing? I find that those who ignorantly and wickedly proclaim that racism is a “man-made sin foreign to the Bible” always turn right around and create their own man-made sins that are foreign to the Bible, such as “race mixing” and “miscegenation.”

  81. Ron Henzel said,

    June 19, 2015 at 2:13 am

    David,

    You wrote,

    I don’t see Pentecost as a reversal of Babel at all, temporary or otherwise. I find no Biblical evidence that there will be an “ultimate reversal of Babel at the consummation of history.” I agree with what Francis Nigel Lee said of Babel, “Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow. . . . In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it. . . . But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.” -Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. “Race, People, and Nationality.” 2/2/2005

    With all due respect to the late Dr. Lee, Christians already have been “amalgamated into one huge nation.” Peter wrote: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light,” (1 Peter 2:9). It is biblically ignorant to assert otherwise.

    And the whole “cultural treasures” of the nations with all their alleged “glory and honor” is a topic of dispute among Reformed theologians. Will we be admiring the Mona Lisa in the eternity that follows the eschaton, or will it get burned up with everything else to pave the way for the new heavens and the new earth (2 Peter 3:7)? The jury is out. So it’s hardly a nail I’d want to hang a major theological conclusion on.

    I wrote:

    “The fact that the ethnic groups were distinguishable did not mean that they did not mix within congregations and intermarry. During Paul’s missionary journeys he encountered synagogues that already accommodated both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:43; 14:1), and intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles was common. Timothy, for example, had a Jewish mother and a Greek father (Acts 16:3). And the fact that local churches contained a mix of Jews and Gentiles is well attested (Gal. 2:11-13).”

    And you replied:

    I disagree that marriage was common. Galatia is a large Roman province, so there very easily could have been different congregations within this area.

    You “disagree that marriage was common?” So is your thesis that they just shacked-up a lot? Okay, perhaps I should assume that you actually meant “inter-marriage.”

    But on what basis to you disagree? Did you get in a time machine, go back to ancient Galatia, and take a survey?

    Yes, it is quite apparent that Galatia was a significant region with different congregations. But how, pray tell, does that have anything whatsoever to do with the question of inter-marriage? It does not follow that because it was a region with several churches that ethnic groups did not inter-marry. In fact, the size of the region would tend to favor the opposite conclusion, because we know that ethnic inter-marriage has always been a consistent fact of history, as well as a consistent feature of biblical history. Did not Moses marry a Cushite? Did not Salmon, the father of Boaz, marry a Canaanite? Did not Boaz marry a Moabitess? Did not Bathsheba marry a Hittite before she married David?

    And we happen know from history that the region of Galatia, be it north or south, had its own interesting brand of ethnic diversity. The reason it was named “Galatia,” in fact, was because of a large, historically-recent settlement of Celts, relatives of the Gauls, who had been ceded land by a previous ruler. We also know that, over time, those people assimilated into the broader culture. To think that this happened without inter-marriage is an untenable hypothesis.

    You wrote:

    The Grecians still recognized their widows as their widows in Acts 6 as opposed to those of Jewish Christians.

    Whle the KJV uses the term “Grecians” in Acts 6:1, it is not a reference to an ethnic distinction, because those being referred were Greek-speaking Jewish Christians who had been converted at Pentecost and had not returned to their native lands after their conversion to the Gospel. The Greek word is Ἑλληνιστής (Hellēnistēs;cf. Acts 9:29; 11:20), which means “Hellenists,” and has been variously translated “Grecian Jews” (ERV, ASV), “Hellenistic Jews” (NASB, HCSB), “Hellenists” (ESV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV), and “Hebraic Jews” (NIV). The KJV conveys the impression that the term is and ethnic reference; it is not. The word is similar to Ἑλληνιστί (Hellēnisti) which denotes the Greek language. The word for a Greek person in the masculine is Ἕλλην (Hellēn) and in the feminine is Ἑλληνίς (Hellēnis).

    So in Acts 6 we do not have anything that supports the notion of keeping ethnic groups separate. We do, on the other hand, have an account of a charge of unfair discrimination being brought against the church. Although the charge is neither ethnically nor racially based, inasmuch as it was being brought by Jews against other Jews, it was nevertheless a charge of discrimination. And the response of the apostles was not to say, “Bah! Discrimination is a man-made sin! Tell those Hellenistic Jews to quit their whining and just be glad we feed them at all!”

    You wrote:

    Timothy doesn’t prove much either. It isn’t unlikely that his father was a Hellenist, …

    So you understand the Greek/Hellenist distinction when it comes to Timothy’s father, but you ignore it in Acts 6 when you want to use that text?

    You wrote:

    …which is why Paul praises the faith of Timothy’s mother and grandmother, but does not mention his father (2 Tim. 1:5), and also why Timothy was circumcised later in life (Acts 16:1) rather than after birth.

    And apparently your reason for raising this point is clarified by what you wrote to Don:

    In any event; it’s likely that Timothy’s father was an unbeliever for the reasons that I mentioned above. He is no more an example of God approving of mixing than of inter-religious marriage.

    The burden of proof does not rest on those who say that God approves of ethnically- or racially-mixed marriages, but rather on those who say that He disapproves of them. Where are your texts?

    You wrote:

    For the sake of clarity, would you mind clarifying what “racism” is supposed to mean?

    Supposed to mean?” Is this, like, a foreign term to you? Do you not own a dictionary? Are you not aware that they are available online?

    You wrote:

    Is it a denial of absolute equality of the races in all talents and aptitudes? Is it the belief that civil privileges in countries should be limited to ethnic natives (thus rendering Christendom “racist” prior to the 1960s)?

    I realize that our educational system has not been doing its job in recent decades, but I find it rather unfathomable that I should have to define such a common term when readily-available reference works can easily be consulted. As I just wrote to Stuart:

    Racism may be alternately defined as either the “poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race,” or “the belief that some races of people are better than others.” Anyone who does not see how both of these are sins is spiritually blind.

    But I tell you what: you just follow this here link: Merriam-Webster’s Definition of “Racism.” And you will see that my two definitions came from the partial definition supplied at the top of the page. If you want the full definition, just keep reading.

    Glad I could be of help.

  82. June 19, 2015 at 2:43 am

    Ron, I see no defining what racism is by you personally & please do not expect they that know they aren’t racists regardless of your clearly undefined opinion to agree with egalitarian definitions authored or edited by the same mindset.
    I don’t find it odd in the least bit that the 1828 Webster has neither racist nor racism listed, because after all, it is only in the imaginations of the egalitarians that have manipulated folks into the belief that we are all the same.
    In 58 I described one particular that the accusation of racism is tossed at. It truely is absurd that such an accusation is nowadays so carelessly flung at such a normal & natural preference.
    – tkbk –

  83. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 7:31 am

    “Racism may be alternately defined as either the “poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race,” or “the belief that some races of people are better than others.” Anyone who does not see how both of these are sins is spiritually blind.”

    Maybe, but you would have to further define “poor treatment.” If poor treatment is just refusing to allow certain people from certain areas because of ethnicity or race, then I would disagree with you. That is what national borders are for and they have historically been determined by blood kinship. Japan has always been Japan because it is occupied by those of Japanese lineage and Sweden has always been Sweden because it was the land of the ethnic Swedes.

    And there is no sin in excluding people from certain parts of our lives at certain times. For example, if you were to have a reunion of the Henzel family and you excluded me because I don’t belong to your tribe, you certainly would not be in sin for doing so.

  84. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 7:38 am

    “You are confusing the concept of “equal treatment” with that of “identical treatment.” “Equal treatment” means to be treated as an equal in terms of respect, courtesy, and such legal rights as those concerning individual liberties and due process.”

    You hadn’t clarified what you meant by “equal treatment.” Now that you have, I agree with you on this point, which does not nullify my original point that certain people in particular places are granted rights and privileges based on blood kinship that other people are not granted because they are not of the same lineage.

  85. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 7:45 am

    “Precisely how would you go about “maintaining” ethnic “boundaries?”

    The same way that it has always been done — through national borders. Nationality and ethnicity have always been synonymous until very recently. In fact, the word “nation” in our English Bibles is the translation of the Greek word “ethnos” from which we get the word “ethnic.” Even when I was a kid in America back in the sixties and seventies, people would ask “What is your nationality?” when they were inquiring about someone’s ethnic background.

  86. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 8:00 am

    “With all due respect to the late Dr. Lee, Christians already have been “amalgamated into one huge nation.” Peter wrote: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light,” (1 Peter 2:9). It is biblically ignorant to assert otherwise.”

    That is true in one sense but not another. The church is one through all ages and is an international institution. But it’s quite obvious that Christians never interpreted that to mean that physical nationality had been abrogated or become inconsequential, otherwise they would not have maintained borders between nations for the last twenty centuries. And there is nothing in the Bible indicating that they should have done otherwise.

  87. Enoch Powell said,

    June 19, 2015 at 8:05 am

    Can Dylann Roof’s motives and actions be used to define racism?

    No more or no less as the motives and actions of Al Sharpton, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, the Jena six, Tawana Brawley, Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Vanessa Coleman and Eric Boyd.

    Reed … Naturally no Christian here who is being described as a “Kinist” would support what Dylan Storm Roof is accused of. Therefore the alleged Racism (he hasn’t been convicted of anything) of Roof is not something that any Christian would share in.

  88. Enoch Powell said,

    June 19, 2015 at 8:15 am

    “With all due respect to the late Dr. Lee, Christians already have been “amalgamated into one huge nation.” Peter wrote: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light,” (1 Peter 2:9). It is biblically ignorant to assert otherwise.”

    If we read Peter in light of Revelation, where we see all the references to NationS being in the new Jerusalem one must conclude that Peter is speaking in a Spiritual sense. Spiritually we are all united to Christ and so form one Spiritual Nation. But that does not mean, per the references to NationS in Revelation that we become amalgamated.

    NT Scholar Martin J. Wyngaarden, in The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94 could write,

    “More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

    “For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

    Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

    Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

  89. Enoch Powell said,

    June 19, 2015 at 8:33 am

    What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

    The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

    ~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

    Sometimes I hear Engels in the voices of our “Christian” ministers.

  90. Ken Pierce said,

    June 19, 2015 at 9:16 am

    Enoch, it seems like you are making a simple category mistake, and your whole argument hinges upon it: the equation of race and ‘nation’ (or people group). The Israelites were forbidden from marrying even other Semites (even their closest kin the Edomites, who got special treatment because of their descent from Isaac). Moses, however, married a Cushite (descendant of Ham), Rahab (a Canaanite) and Ruth (a Moabite) were brought not only among the people of God, but into line of Messiah. The lines of distinction were those of faith, not ethnicity.

    And, even if we granted for purposes of argument that the nations were not to intermarry. What then? Should the descendants of the English in the US not date the descendants of Germans? England itself is an amalgamation of different tribes. Should an Angle not marry a Jute? Even the much vaunted “anglo-saxon” is an amalgamated tribe. “aryan” is a false category. There are distinguishing physical characteristics and skin tones even within, say, Spain. Race is an artificial category. There are as many differences between being Korean and Japanese, or Mongolian and Thai, as there are between black and white. The world is already a melting pot.

    And RE Engels: let’s think on that (genetic fallacy though it is). Why might there be a similar offer made by communism to that made by the gospel? Quite simply this: communism is the most pure representative we have yet seen in history of the false god-state of Revelation. All the falsehoods of Revelation are counterfeits of the true: false God, false Christ, false church, false gospel. Communism promises a worker’s paradise as the inevitable outcome of history, not ‘pie in the sky when you die, hie hie.’ It does this by promising to eradicate all distinctions between humanity. It promises a counterfeit of the church, with its eternal reward, and its erasure of all lines of privilege (Jew-Gentile, slave free, male female etc). NB: I am not saying that there don’t remain (roughly speaking) distinctions. I am simply saying that of course Satan offers counterfeits that seem similar to what the church offers –or they wouldn’t be very good counterfeits.

  91. Enoch Powell said,

    June 19, 2015 at 9:57 am

    No category mistake here Rev. Pierce.

    1.) Many many of the Older commentaries dispute that Moses’s wife was a descendant of Ham.

    John Calvin believed the wife in Numbers 12 to be Zipporah, Moses’s first wife:

    [B]ecause they were unable to allege any grounds, upon which Moses in himself was not far their superior, they seek to bring disgrace upon him on account of his wife; as if in half of himself he was inferior to them, because he had married a woman who was not of their own race, but a foreigner. They, therefore, cast ignominious aspersions upon him in the person of his wife, as if it were not at all becoming that he should be accounted the prince and head of the people, since his wife, and the companion of his bed, was a Gentile woman. I do not by any means agree with those who think that she was any other than Zipporah, since we hear nothing of the death of Zipporah, nay, she had been brought back by Jethro, her father, only a little while before the delivery of the Law; whilst it is too absurd to charge the holy Prophet with the reproach of polygamy. Besides, as an octogenarian, he would have been but little suited for a second marriage. Again, how would such a marriage have been practicable in the desert? It is, therefore, sufficiently clear that they refer to Zipporah, who is called an Ethiopian woman, because the Scripture comprehends the Midianites under this name: although I have no doubt but that they maliciously selected this name, for the purpose of awakening greater odium against Moses.

    Ruth and Rahab can be sorted out much the same way and I can tease that out here if you like.

    Next Rev. Pierce we consider your comment about ethnicity.The examples you give amount to difference among cousins. English, German, Angle, Saxon etc. are all descendants and branches of the same people group. A people group distinct from Xhosa, Ndeble, Manchurians, Pygmies, Miao, or Han people groups. You see … no category mistake here.

    And though the Cultural Marxists and the NWO fan types the world is NOT a already a melting pot. There clearly remain distinct races and people groups.Goodness … one would think that this is obvious what with all the complaining about the “evil white man.”

    Also, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah play havoc with your contention that the lines of distinction were ONLY faith.

    And really, good Rev. you have done nothing to quarantine the Engles quote as a exemplar of the genetic fallacy.

    On this point … I just want to make sure that I’m understanding you. that you are contending that Christian and anti-Christianity that is Marxism agree on the necessity that distinctions are really not that important, except roughly speaking?

    And please understand that no Christian argued that “race is an artificial category,” until the advent and work of the Jewish sociologist Franz Boas. Have you read anything on Franz Boas to know how you are being influenced?

    I’ll finish with a couple quotes so we can see the anti-thesis on this subject between Historic Christianity and what is being championed here by many who are either confused or malevolent.

    “The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”

    Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
    City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16:

    “The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.”

    “No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

    John Edwards Richards
    One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

    “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

    —Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
    “The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959:

    Thank you for the conversation Rev. Pierce.

  92. Ken Pierce said,

    June 19, 2015 at 10:27 am

    Actually not true about Boas. You will find the same idea in Christian conservative philosopher Frederick Schlegel in the early nineteenth century and in Alexander MacLeod, the Covenanter, in 1802. So again with the genetic fallacy.

    Zipporah doesn’t solve your problem though. She is still a Midianite.

    I am saying that what communism offers in a false way by erasing distinctions, Christianity offers in a true way by building one new people out of the many nations. In one sense the counterfeit and the true are similar but only in appearance. In reality they are polar opposites. Communism teaches that to have equality all things like wealth etc must be erased. Christianity says that we can have unity in spite of external distinctions. Those are polar opposites.

  93. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    Ken Pierce: “I am simply saying that of course Satan offers counterfeits that seem similar to what the church offers –or they wouldn’t be very good counterfeits.”

    Using the biblical statements about the church being one nation or one race, and extending that far beyond its intended spiritual meaning to the point where it would justify the amalgamation and destruction of physical nations and races, is a Satanic counterfeit of the Bible’s teaching about the unity of the church.

  94. Ken Pierce said,

    June 19, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Destruction of nations and elimination of races? Who is arguing that? That sounds like the old fear tactic that somehow desegregation would lead to ‘pollution’ of the white race. I’m secure enough in my Dutch Anglo whiteness to not worry about things like that. I think that differing cultures enrich the church. It would be foolish to erase them. That said, such is no argument against intermarriage. And I’m certainly not advocating for a worldwide government or erasure of nations which, again, is a counterfeit of the reign of Christ.

  95. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    “Destruction of nations and elimination of races? Who is arguing that?”

    I think it is quite obvious that this would be the end result of a consistent application of your views regarding race.

  96. Ken Pierce said,

    June 19, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    I’m sorry, but that is just ludicrous. I only interact with people who try to understand what I’m actually saying.

  97. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    I am interacting with your statements and I think your objection is ludicrous, so we should just agree to call it quits at this point.

  98. Reed Here said,

    June 19, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Ken, well said. It is as if the kinists think that the result, intentional or otherwise, of allowing for freedom of integration will result in the forced “amalgamation” of all races into one uber race, Coffee (colored) Man.

    How simply ludicrous. How fundamentally opposed to the gospel.

  99. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    “allowing for freedom of integration”

    What about freedom of segregation?

  100. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    If you allow no segregation, then you are forcing amalgamation.

  101. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    And forced amalgamation is fundamentally opposed to the gospel.

  102. June 19, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    “It is as if the kinists think that the result, intentional or otherwise, of allowing for freedom of integration will result in the forced “amalgamation” of all races into one uber race, Coffee (colored) Man.”

    Quite the contrary. Without forced integration the races naturally remain separate. Only today’s culture which encourages and often enforces integration can produce a different result.

  103. Don said,

    June 19, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    ” Without forced integration the races naturally remain separate.”

    Quit hallucinating.

  104. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    This quote from the recent Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Racial Reconciliation is coming pretty close to forced integration. They have resolved to “seek to increase” the ethnic and racial mixture at all levels. It’s not happening naturally, so they have to make it happen artificially. What a coincidence that the church is pursuing a goal nowhere mentioned in Scripture (i.e., racial and ethnic diversity) just as the heathen culture around us is promoting the same “value”!

    “RESOLVED, That we urge churches to demonstrate their heart for racial reconciliation by seeking to increase racial and ethnic diversity in church staff roles, leadership positions, and church membership”

  105. Reed Here said,

    June 19, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    O.k., y’all define terms in odds ways. What is your definition of forced integration?

  106. Reed Here said,

    June 19, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    So if I want to belong to a church that looked like the churches Paul planted, mixed ethnicities, am I sinning?

  107. Reed Here said,

    June 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    Stuart, sure you want to live by what comes naturally?

  108. Reed Here said,

    June 19, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    Forced amalgamation is opposed to the gospel? Maybe.

    Natural segregation most certainly is opposed to the gospel.

    Voluntary integration is a fruit of the gospel.

  109. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    “Forced amalgamation is opposed to the gospel?”

    Certainly.

    “Natural segregation most certainly is opposed to the gospel.”

    Baloney.

    “Voluntary integration is a fruit of the gospel.”

    Nonsense.

    The gospel does not change a man’s inherent affinity for, and allegiance to, those of his own race and ethnic group, just as it does not change his affinity for, and allegiance to, his closer relations such as those of his extended and immediate family.

  110. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 19, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    “So if I want to belong to a church that looked like the churches Paul planted, mixed ethnicities, am I sinning?”

    With the exception of some of the large seacoast cities, I doubt that there was much of an ethnic mixture in the early churches because people were not nearly as mobile as they are today with our modern methods of transportation, but that could be a lengthy discussion in itself.

    If a church is faithfully preaching the Bible in a diverse area and naturally draws a mixture of ethnicities and races, no problem. But where does the Bible make ethnic/racial diversity a goal to be pursued in and of itself, or say that it is the evidence of a faithful and healthy church?

  111. Mark B said,

    June 19, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    What is the point of this discussion in an American context? Ever since we brought large numbers of African slaves here and later freed them we have not had a Sweden or a Japan. Ethnically America is what it is. What do kinists see as a solution to American society as it exists now?

  112. Howie Donahoe said,

    June 19, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    If it wasn’t already happening, perhaps now’s the time for our South Carolina PCA churches to lead the effort to get their legislators to take the confederate flag off the front lawn of the State Legislature.

  113. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:29 am

    This comment thread has strayed quite far from the point of Lane’s post, which was summed up in his final paragraph:

    To conclude, racism as usually understood means a person believes his race is better than another race. This can be blatant, or it can be subtle. We need to be very careful about how we think through these issues, and we need to do a lot of listening. I learned a lot, for instance, about ministering in an African-American context this year at General Assembly by listening to my African-American brothers. Avoiding racism is actually pretty simple: treat each person you meet as an image-bearer of God. That person deserves dignity and respect.

    Dignity and respect is not defined by our desires, but by God’s word. God’s word does not give anyone the right to determine where someone else lives, what schools their children attend, what jobs they can have, or whom they can marry, on the basis of ethnicity or skin color. To determine such things for any given group of people automatically reduces them in dignity and respect, because it curtails the same basic freedoms that those who would determine them for others would oppose if the situation were reversed. And given both the pervasiveness and perversity of sin, in purely historical terms, determining these things for other groups has invariably meant taking the better land, appropriating the better schools, and hoarding the better jobs, while relegating the other group to the second-rate in all those categories and passing on what we have kept to our children. Among other things, racism is a cloak for greed.

    God has appointed both the histories and boundaries of every nation, including ours, but national identity has never been determined solely by bloodline. The Etruscans, who spoke a non-Indo European language, were absorbed by the Latins. The Basques, another non-Indo European ethnic groups, has always been part of Spain, whether ruled by the Romans, the Visigoths, the Moors, or the Spanish. Eight percent of China’s population consists of 55 ethnic minorities, who, along with the Han majority, speak 292 different languages. India has six major ethnic categories (in our country some might call them races) that subdivide into several dozen ethnic groups that speak 122 major languages and 1,599 other languages. The United States is far from utterly unique in the fact or extent of its diversity.

    Intermarriage in all these cases is a well-attested fact (e.g., 5 percent of marriages in India are inter-caste) and has always been throughout history, as is seen in the Ottoman Empire (various sultans had European wives), the Roman Empire (think: Antony and Cleopatra), and many others. During the Roman period especially, transportation either by road or by boat on the Mediterranean was safe, affordable, and (when by boat) swift, as the book of Acts and many other historical sources attest. This inevitably led to intermarriage between races and ethnic groups.

    Human biological diversity is the result of God’s providence, but while languages and national divisions are also part of His providence, they came through man’s rebellion at Babel, and are thus the consequences of sin, and the hatreds that emerged between the resulting ethnic groups are obvious sins. The ethnocentric and racist beliefs that one group is better or more worthy than another is rooted in both rebellion against God and historical ignorance. Western Civilization in its so-called “glory” encompasses barely one-tenth of recorded history, and in its ascendancy to global power it encompasses barely five percent. Not to mention the fact that Western Civilization as we know it would no doubt have never existed were it not for Christianity, and lacking that, Christmas Day in AD 800 would have probably witnessed a caliphate spread across Europe in place of the crowning of Charlemagne! If Christianity had remained rooted in the Mid-East, or had found its center of gravity in either India or China, we’d probably be talking about the ascendancy of Eastern Civilization right now instead of Western, and be learning about their arts and sciences instead of ours. God made Western Civilization; westerners didn’t.

    On the one hand, God’s purpose in dividing us into language groups was that we would populate the whole earth, and that purpose will never be thwarted. For that reason alone, there will continue to be national boundaries and national identities. Thus it is probably safe to say that intermarriage will never become more than the choice of a small percentage of people. It will probably continue to be more convenient to marry someone who speaks your own language and comes from your own racial group for a long time to come. There is no practical, political, or legal way to “force amalgamation,” and there never will be. Sounding alarm bells about it is not only biblically and historically ignorant, but it is pernicious, because it seeks to turn something into an evil that is clearly not even a sin—and all on the basis of racist paranoia.

    Racism is rooted in fear, and that fear is rooted in hatred. Racists treat others as less respectable and worthy than members of their own race because they fear that one day they will wake up to find themselves at the bottom of the social ladder, and quite frankly, they would rather see other races at the bottom of that ladder because, well, they hate them. Thus Christianity and racism are so incompatible that the minute you try to merge them, you begin constructing another Gospel that neither Paul nor any of the apostles ever preached, bringing Paul’s anathema upon yourself. Sorry, but you can’t make hatred a part of the Gospel.

  114. Tim Harris said,

    June 20, 2015 at 7:05 am

    Spoken as I thought only the SPLC was capable of speaking.

  115. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 8:03 am

    Tim,

    And you have spoken as I thought only a hateful, spiteful, unregenerate child of Satan is capable of speaking.

  116. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 10:03 am

    “Sorry, but you can’t make hatred a part of the Gospel.”

    No, but apparently you can construct long straw man arguments in order to slander those who don’t agree with your Cultural Marxist views about race.

  117. Ron said,

    June 20, 2015 at 10:18 am

    “RESOLVED, That we urge churches to demonstrate their heart for racial reconciliation by seeking to increase racial and ethnic diversity in church staff roles, leadership positions, and church membership”

    Guys,

    I find it hard to believe that this is not universally and obviously objectionable. The next thing you know we’ll be labeling non-Christians “Christian” if not ordaining unqualified persons, even unbelievers.

    I’m a member of a fairly diversified church in the heart of a major city. It’s natural that it would be that way and I enjoy its realness. If I lived in some remote, rural community I might not expect to see such broad representation.

    This SBC agenda not only appears to be a work of the flesh, but a misguided one at that… It can only compromise the pure preaching of the word and sincere labor of the saints.

    I met for prayer and fellowship last Saturday morning with two other men. They happen both to be black. I’m not. If our church had such an agenda, I suspect we would have been robbed of the sweet, meaningful time we had together in the Lord – if we even would have gotten together under such a forced program. These men are my dear friends and not statistical representatives I must get to know in order to make quota. Very disheartening, this SBC pronouncement.

  118. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 10:39 am

    Mark B: “What do kinists see as a solution to American society as it exists now?”

    Most of us think that America is going to eventually fall apart and then be divided along ethnic lines. Ethnicity and nation are pretty much synonymous in the Bible, so it make sense that if the U.S.A. does splinter, it would occur along those lines. Here’s an article you might be interested in reading:

    http://www.puritans.net/homelands/

  119. Ron said,

    June 20, 2015 at 10:42 am

    “Racism is rooted in fear, and that fear is rooted in hatred.”

    Ron,

    I have a slightly different take. That being, racism is rooted in fear, and that fear is rooted in ignorance and mental laziness.

    No understanding –> fear –> racism

    From those roots springs the fear and then the hatred. Hatred is the way the racist copes with his fears.

  120. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 10:48 am

    “A racist is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers — like virtually everyone — to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving.”

    John Bryant

  121. Ron said,

    June 20, 2015 at 10:55 am

    Stuart,

    Why would you label yourself according to an esoteric definition that leaves out the common understanding of inherent superiority?

  122. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:40 am

    Stuart,

    I wrote:

    Sorry, but you can’t make hatred a part of the Gospel.

    And you replied:

    No, but apparently you can construct long straw man arguments in order to slander those who don’t agree with your Cultural Marxist views about race.

    And with this comment you:

    (a) failed to demonstrate how any of my arguments were straw man argument, and

    (b) committed your own straw man fallacy by labeling me a “Cultural Marxist.”

    I am not a Marxist, either culturally or ideologically or in any other sense of the word.

  123. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:41 am

    The point of the John Bryant quote is that some of the behavior which people today try to portray as perverse and evil with the label “racist,” such as honoring our race, revering our ancestry, preferring to be with our own kind, and believing that our genetic inheritance is worth preserving, is perfectly natural behavior that is not sinful in any way.

  124. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am

    Ron, a few thoughts posted on the other thread:

    I understand that kinism adopts some valid artifacts found in Scripture. But it very quickly, creatively and deceptively adapts those artifacts to arguments that are exactly opposed to the gospel.

    This is why I say kinism is a pernicious of evil. Like ancient “Christian” gnosticism, it offers itself at THE “true” interpretation of the Bible. And like that ancient evil of gnosticism, it will only destroy.

    The key lie of kinism is found in Jesus’ second great commandment. Any study of kinism websites, social media pages, etc., will affirm two facts: 1) kinism affirms the command to love others as self, 2) kinism’s definition of what such love should look like is exactly opposite and diametrically opposed to Jesus’ own definition of such love. Thus kinism is just another head of the wily old Serpent, a multi-headed hydra that only seeks to devour and destroy the Kingdom of God. It is an expression of biblical racism, hatred for another based on ethnic differences. (And it overlaps the banks of that stream in some places.)

    So fighting kinism as if it were an intramural debate within the gospel believing Church is like fighting a hydra with a friendly chat. One sound whack of the gospel sword cutting off the head of an argument results in multiple additional arguments-lies sprouting from the stump. It will never be proven wrong by debating it as if it were reasonable. It can only be eradicated by the hardest of gospel means.

    Some who affirm kinism will prove that their portraits are found in 2 Peter 2. Others, those simply enamored and hypotized the serpentine swaying of the Snakes’ eyes in the arguments based on biblical artifacts, will be some of Jude’s brands plucked from the fire.

    So while I’d enjoy, as I had time or course, exploring the artifacts that kinism has wickedly adopted as its own, I insist on doing so apart from debating with those who are even enamored by kinism. That’s like debating the best way to eradicate a fatal cancer with someone who thinks it is necessarily beneficial somehow, somewhere, in some multiverse existence that has no actually relevance to ours.

    What utter foolishness! Kill the cancer, burn the stumps of the hydra, and fusion torch its corpse. Then, in tripled layered hazmat suits, examine its all one wishes. But be warned, until Christ returns with the judgment of fire that destroys all this world and its corruption, there will be a seed in that corpse, and it will sprout new zombie-life.

    Kinism is a pernicious evil. Next, expect a retort from someone who worships at its feet that demonstrates the reality of its character. May God have mercy on his soul. Flee the evil.

  125. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am

    Ron,

    You wrote:

    I have a slightly different take. That being, racism is rooted in fear, and that fear is rooted in ignorance and mental laziness.

    No understanding –> fear –> racism

    I think in many cases your model is a sufficient representation of reality—perhaps even for most people with racist tendencies. However, I do believe that for some, particularly the hardcore racists, the lack of understanding is deliberately cultivated because it is motivated by a kind of antipathy that I can only call “hatred.”

  126. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am

    “you (a) failed to demonstrate how any of my arguments were straw man argument, and

    I don’t have time to dissect your long-winded post to show what is already plainly obvious.

    “(b) committed your own straw man fallacy by labeling me a “Cultural Marxist.”

    You are a Cultural Marxist. Your views about race and your liberal use of the Trotskite label “racist” make that also plainly obvious.

  127. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:46 am

    correction: Trotskyite

  128. Ron said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:48 am

    Stuart,

    Then, at best you’re unwise and at worst you’re not forthright. I’ll strive to believe the best about you, while proceeding with caution.

  129. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:49 am

    “2) kinism’s definition of what such love should look like is exactly opposite and diametrically opposed to Jesus’ own definition of such love.”

    How so?

  130. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 11:54 am

    I’m not forthright about what, Ron? I don’t know what your comment is referring to.

  131. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    “Kill the cancer, burn the stumps of the hydra, and fusion torch its corpse. Then, in tripled layered hazmat suits, examine its all one wishes. But be warned, until Christ returns with the judgment of fire that destroys all this world and its corruption, there will be a seed in that corpse, and it will sprout new zombie-life.

    Kinism is a pernicious evil. Next, expect a retort from someone who worships at its feet that demonstrates the reality of its character. May God have mercy on his soul. Flee the evil.”

    Oh boy! If you can’t deal with the kinists through lucid argumentation, then at least keep your fingers off the keyboard. You are starting to sound like Jack Van Impe or some other hyper-dramatic apocalyptic loonie.

  132. Ron said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    Reed,

    You’ll get no argument from me. It’s a common practice among deceivers to define their position by means of accentuating the most palatable precepts contained therein. Related to that tactic is that of defining a word like “racist” with non-objectionable propositions. Once racist is defined in this way, people can behave according to the true meaning of the word and as their justification they merely need to point themselves to the acceptance of the definition, which was of course revised. This is a pervasive tactic employed by heterodoxy groups, one in particular I’m thinking of that claims the Confession yet cannot produce agreement from any ecclesiastical body.

  133. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    “It’s a common practice among deceivers to define their position by means of accentuating the most palatable precepts contained therein. Related to that tactic is that of defining a word like “racist” with non-objectionable propositions.”

    The purpose of the John Bryant quote is to show that “racism” is not a valid concept at all.

  134. Ron said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    “I’m not forthright about what, Ron? I don’t know what your comment is referring to.”

    Stuart,

    I didn’t say you’re not forthright.

    That you’d put forth a definition of a word that omits its sinful aspect, which is at the heart of the word’s actual meaning, and then proceed to identify with the word in its revisionary form is at best unwise. The only alternative I can think of is that you’re not being forthright. So, I find you foolish for not choosing your words better and not distancing yourself from the supremacy ideology of racism.

  135. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    In other words, the John Bryant quote was just mockery of the concept of “racism.” And even if it was an attempt to redefine it, I don’t know how redefining a word that was never used by any orthodox Christian in the history of the church could be heterodox. How can a concept that was never orthodox be perverted into something heterodox?

  136. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    Stuart, thanks for the confirming retort. Its great to be proven true by the affirmation of a lie from Christ’s enemy, Satan.

  137. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    I distance myself from ideologies that do any or all of the following: (1) deny all men are fallen and in need of salvation through the redemption of Jesus Christ; (2) deny that all men are descendants of Adam; (3) deny the right of self-determination for any ethnic group (i.e., the idea that one ethnic group has a birthright to rule over another — which is what I call supremacist).

    What I cannot deny is the obvious fact that some groups (ethnicities and races) have been more blessed by God than others. Conversely, I have to accept the fact that other racial and ethnic groups have been deprived of blessings and allowed to fall to a lower state in some regards.

  138. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    “Stuart, thanks for the confirming retort. Its great to be proven true by the affirmation of a lie from Christ’s enemy, Satan.”

    You are very welcome, Mr. Van Impe.

  139. Ron said,

    June 20, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Stuart,

    My parting words are, work hard to ensure your good is not spoken evil of, which might require a different approach.

  140. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    Stuart,

    You wrote:

    The point of the John Bryant quote is that some of the behavior which people today try to portray as perverse and evil with the label “racist,” such as honoring our race, revering our ancestry, preferring to be with our own kind, and believing that our genetic inheritance is worth preserving, is perfectly natural behavior that is not sinful in any way.

    As a Reformed Christian who believes in the universality of total depravity, I have to question what it means to “honor our race,” especially when (a) our race has a long history of slaughtering its own members because they belonged to different national subgroups within the race, and (b) it seems to suggest that it is illegitimate to honor other races to the same extent that we honor our own. Even the most honorable individual has something that would make him or her ashamed if everyone knew about it. Much more our race. I think it’s okay to be grateful for how God has blessed us as a people, as long as we realize that anything and everything positive about us comes from His hand, not ours, and that His redemptive plan does not include our race to any greater extent or a higher degree of preference than any other race.

    The same goes for “revering our ancestry.” I live in Lee County, Florida, where a statue of Robert E. Lee stands across the river near the county buildings in Fort Myers. I personally think that General Lee was an honorable Christian man who followed his conscience. And while I do not know what I would have done in his shoes, he was just a man, condemned before God apart from Christ, as the rest of us. I’d like to think that he would not feel comfortable knowing that he was the object of reverence, and prefer to see it directed toward God. Revering ancestors is something pagans do.

    As for “preferring to be with our own kind:” that’s just another form of the sin of favoritism. And the Scriptural purpose of marriage and raising a family is to obey God’s command to fill the earth, not to preserve one’s “genetic inheritance.” That idea is essentially Darwinist.

    But all these low-brow platitudes are all smokescreens for racial hatred anyway, so it’s silly to take them seriously

  141. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Stuart,

    You wrote:

    You are a Cultural Marxist. Your views about race and your liberal use of the Trotskite label “racist” make that also plainly obvious.

    Racism was in the English dictionary before 99 percent of the people who used it ever heard of Trotsky. My views about race come from the Bible. Yours come from paganism.

  142. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    Stuart,

    You wrote:

    What I cannot deny is the obvious fact that some groups (ethnicities and races) have been more blessed by God than others. Conversely, I have to accept the fact that other racial and ethnic groups have been deprived of blessings and allowed to fall to a lower state in some regards.

    This is an historically-myopic perspective. Every racial and ethnic group that has enjoyed an exalted position has also been abased, and our day in the sun looks more like a couple of hours compared to what other groups have enjoyed. Two-hundred-fifty years ago, the Ottomans still had the wealthiest and most advanced civilization on earth. They looked upon Western Europeans as only slightly higher than baboons. From all outward appearances they were the ones God appeared to have blessed, and that had been the case for more than 1,000 years! True, within 50 years Europeans had begun carving up their empire—but to think that a measly couple of centuries of surpassing the Ottomans is some kind of divine certification of superiority is both historically and biblically foolish.

  143. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    Ron,

    You wrote:

    It’s a common practice among deceivers to define their position by means of accentuating the most palatable precepts contained therein.

    Excellent observation!

    You wrote:

    Related to that tactic is that of defining a word like “racist” with non-objectionable propositions.

    It’s downright Orwellian, isn’t it? And Orwellian Newspeak was designed to illustrate how the Soviets manipulated language. So, in keeping with the Satanic origin of their system, kinists use Soviet techniques while erecting the smokescreen accusation that biblical Christians are like the Soviets. In this respect they are typical con artists.

    You wrote:

    Once racist is defined in this way, people can behave according to the true meaning of the word and as their justification they merely need to point themselves to the acceptance of the definition, which was of course revised.

    Yes, the ultimate verbal shell game, straight out of 1984.

    You wrote:

    This is a pervasive tactic employed by heterodoxy groups, one in particular I’m thinking of that claims the Confession yet cannot produce agreement from any ecclesiastical body.

    Yes, the Gnostics were the pioneers of this technique. The Arians followed closely behind.

    Kinists are like murderers caught in the very act, who, when required to enter a plea before the judge say, “Wait a minute—how are you defining ‘murder?'”

  144. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    “but to think that a measly couple of centuries of surpassing the Ottomans is some kind of divine certification of superiority is both historically and biblically foolish”

    I am not talking about “a measly couple of centuries.” I had in mind the entire history of white Europeans as compared to the entire history of negro Africans. The foolishness is in denying the obvious superiority of the former over the latter in terms of those attributes required to build and sustain a high level of civilization.

  145. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    “Revering ancestors is something pagans do.”

    Ridiculous.

  146. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    “It’s downright Orwellian, isn’t it?”

    What’s Orwellian is applying a label that carries an evil connotation (i.e., “racism”) to traits that are not in any way sinful and which all Christians of all ages until the last few decades accepted as normal and even virtuous — such as honoring your ancestry, being loyal to your particular ethnic group and desiring to preserve it, and having a desire to be among those of a similar ethnic or racial background. It’s really no different than the pagans who apply the label of “sexism” to a traditional, biblical view of women in order to cast that view in an evil light. In fact, both “racism” and “sexism” are examples of Marxist, egalitarian concepts from the same Satanic tree.

  147. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Stuart,

    You wrote:

    I am not talking about “a measly couple of centuries.” I had in mind the entire history of white Europeans as compared to the entire history of negro Africans.

    Fine. For about 4,000 years or so, the cultural and technical achievements of white Northern Europeans were generally on a par with that of sub-Saharan Africans. At times it even lagged far behind such empires as those of Ethiopia and Mali, especially during the High Middle Ages with respect to the latter. About 800 years ago a mini-renaissance began when Western Europeans began reading Aristotle in Latin translations from Arabic translation from Greek originals, but militarily, economically, and socially, the only things keeping them from being devoured by the Arabs were their geographical advantages, parallel to the ones that kept sub-Saharan Africans from a similar fate.

    In the meantime, sub-Saharan Africans had the geographical disadvantage of occupying a continent that was mostly plateau with few navigable rivers, meaning that just about anywhere they settled in the interior cut them off from exposure to the progress of other civilizations. Europeans would have fared no better than they did under the same circumstances. But along the coastline, places like Somalia served as lavish, cosmopolitan nexuses for trade between Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East that made most European ports look anemic by comparison.

    You wrote:

    The foolishness is in denying the obvious superiority of the former over the latter in terms of those attributes required to build and sustain a high level of civilization.

    What’s foolish is attributing whatever “superiority” one may posit to genetics rather than to the providence of God in terms of providing the circumstances of technical and cultural advancement to one group while denying them to others. And the fact is that white Europeans have not been faithful stewards of their advantages. The Renaissance of the 14th to 16th centuries was at times little more than baptized paganism.

  148. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    “As for “preferring to be with our own kind:” that’s just another form of the sin of favoritism.”

    That’s laughable. I suppose you and your family members sit randomly scattered throughout the assembly when you go to a church meeting rather than together, because you don’t want to show a preference for your own kind and be guilty of the sin of favoritism. And, if you have children, I’m sure you don’t bestow gifts on them more than you do on the other kids in the neighborhood because that would clearly be a case of sinful favoritism.

  149. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    “What’s foolish is attributing whatever “superiority” one may posit to genetics rather than to the providence of God in terms of providing the circumstances of technical and cultural advancement to one group while denying them to others.”

    What’s foolish is failing to understand that the providence of God extends to the genetic makeup of races and ethnic groups.

  150. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Stuart,

    I wrote to Ron:

    “It’s downright Orwellian, isn’t it?”

    And you replied:

    What’s Orwellian is applying a label that carries an evil connotation (i.e., “racism”) to traits that are not in any way sinful and which all Christians of all ages until the last few decades accepted as normal and even virtuous — such as honoring your ancestry, being loyal to your particular ethnic group and desiring to preserve it, and having a desire to be among those of a similar ethnic or racial background.

    This is simply the fallacy of petitio principii: begging the question. Your premise that racism refers to essentially good things is but a thinly-veiled version of your conclusion: that it is wrong to call racism “bad.” You know very well that no one except racists of your stripe actually defines the word that way, and thus you seek to perpetuate your deception.

    You wrote:

    It’s really no different than the pagans who apply the label of “sexism” to a traditional, biblical view of women in order to cast that view in an evil light. In fact, both “racism” and “sexism” are examples of Marxist, egalitarian concepts from the same Satanic tree.

    Same circus; different clowns. Little wonder that “kinism” begins with a “K.”

  151. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    Stuart,

    You wrote:

    What’s foolish is failing to understand that the providence of God extends to the genetic makeup of races and ethnic groups.

    Now you’re presenting a straw-man fallacy. I never said that God’s providence does not extend to genetics. In fact, everything I said assumes that it does. What I said was that your presumption that genetics has provided white people with superior traits is an unfounded and faulty assumption.

  152. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    “In the meantime, sub-Saharan Africans had the geographical disadvantage of occupying a continent that was mostly plateau with few navigable rivers, meaning that just about anywhere they settled in the interior cut them off from exposure to the progress of other civilizations. Europeans would have fared no better than they did under the same circumstances.”

    You’re right, Ron Henzel. You have opened my eyes. In fact, I think we should pause for a moment and give thanks for the great contributions of sub-Saharan Africans to American society. Their peaceful and generous nature make them ideal neighbors, lending testimony to their exceptional family values and parenting skills which are unrivaled by any other race of people. Their commitment to academic excellence enriches our schools and serves as an example to all who hope to achieve prominence as a people. Real estate value increases are fueled by the influx of African Americans into an area, due to their caring and respectful nature, an example of all they have achieved through their enthusiasm for self-improvement by hard work and a self-reliant can-do attitude. Their abhorrence for crime and zeal to root out criminality within their own communities demonstrates a fierce desire to promote righteousness, one that should be revered by people of all races. Without their industrious and creative drive, we would be poorer as a nation.

  153. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:37 pm

    “You know very well that no one except racists of your stripe actually defines the word that way, and thus you seek to perpetuate your deception.”

    I know very well that the word racism is not valid at all, in terms of expressing anything that is sinful by a biblical definition.

  154. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    “Now you’re presenting a straw-man fallacy. I never said that God’s providence does not extend to genetics.”

    Don’t play games with me, Ron. You said: “What’s foolish is attributing whatever “superiority” one may posit to genetics rather than to the providence of God in terms of providing the circumstances of technical and cultural advancement to one group while denying them to others.”

    Notice the use of the comparative term “rather than” placed between “genetics” and “to the providence of God.” It’s clear that you were comparing one against the other, as if to say that they are opposing things. I was correcting you in pointing out that genetics is part of the providence of God.

  155. Tim Harris said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    Ron H 115 “And you have spoken as I thought only a hateful, spiteful, unregenerate child of Satan is capable of speaking.”

    A couple examples, please?

  156. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Stuart,

    I see that you have no real arguments, only sarcasm and denial of the truth. As for your assertion about my reference to God’s providence, it was a specific reference to God’s providence regarding circumstances, not a general reference to God’s entire providence. Thus I did not forget God’s providence with respect to genetics, you simply found it convenient to assume I did.

  157. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    Tim,

    Why should I feel obligated to provide you with “a couple of examples?” Your attempt to smear me with a combination straw man/ad hominem seems sufficient to me.

  158. Tim Harris said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    Ron H. Your heavy interlacing of your exposition with the omniscient imputation of “hatred” as the underlying motive is something I have never read in such intense form before, except in screeds from SPLC. (Though they always use the word “hate” as an adjective so your grammar is admittedly better than theirs.)

    Pointing that out is something “only a hateful, spiteful, unregenerate child of Satan is capable of speaking” ?

  159. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Tim,

    It does not require omniscience to see your comparison was intended as a slam. And it was a slam in lieu of a reasoned argument, and in defense of a Satanic thesis. Your most recent comment adds more lies. But I don’t expect the spiritually blind to see these things.

  160. Tim Harris said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    It was a one liner and it was true. You are way over the top buddy. Nor was it in “defense” of anything, let alone a Satanic thesis. “More lies”? “Spiritually blind”? Excuse me, I am a member in good standing in the OPC, and my testimony has been examined by OPC and PCA sessions every 3-5 years for the last 30 years. Yes, as a “child of Satan” I could have fooled them all I suppose. But is it likely that you, whom I have never met, based on making the comparison between something you wrote and the style in which SPLC writes, would be the one to discern this?

    Moderator, is this kind of ad hominem tolerated here?

  161. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    Tim,

    I’m one of the moderators. Are you repudiating kinism?

  162. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    Tim, I am shocked that you would equate no. 113 with an argument made by the SPLC.

  163. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    Remember, even Peter rightly heard, “Get behind me Satan.”

  164. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    “I see that you have no real arguments, only sarcasm and denial of the truth.”

    How can I give anything but non-arguments against non-sins like “racism,” sexism,” “homophobia,” “xenophobia,” etc. Those who mock God by accusing His people of mock sins only deserve mockery in return.

  165. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    “And you have spoken as I thought only a hateful, spiteful, unregenerate child of Satan is capable of speaking.”

    Can’t you see that Ron is overflowing with love, Tim?

  166. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    Tim,

    The Satanic thesis to which I was referring, which you have defended on this blog, is kinism. In comment 63 on the “General Assembly Roundup” thread, you wrote:

    Yes I agree with Enoch. Indeed, I would point out that everyone everywhere and at all times in history has been a kinist, except for Europeans and white Americans post-1950 or so. And in that sweeping generalization, I include the biblical writers.

    I do not know your standing before God, but I do know that this doctrine puts you in spiritual peril. You should confess it to your session immediately, making them fully aware of all that kinism entails including what its opponents say about it so they can make an informed judgment, and submit to that judgment.

  167. Ron Henzel said,

    June 20, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    Well, Stuart,

    You seem to have made it clear that you choose to be a mocker. So there’s nothing more to say.

  168. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Stuart, do you profess faith in Christ? If so, of what church are you a member.

    Not asking for any other reason that to know better someone who is making comments like yours.

    Thanks!

  169. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    I do profess faith in Christ, Reed, and you don’t need to know any more than that.

  170. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    Believing what every Christian always believed prior to the 1950’s now puts one in “spiritual peril.”

  171. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    Actually Stuart, since your espousal of kinism is contrary to the gospel, I kind of do. On the face of it, you are either a seriously weak Christian, or seriously dangerous imposter.

    No accusations, just observation. If you are a weaker brother I am o.k. bearing and helping as I can. If you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I kind want to keep my hands away.

  172. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 5:51 pm

    Your pre-1950’s comment is just another smokescreen, akin the propaganda techniques of the modern father, Goebbels. I.e., it is an evil opinion.

  173. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    And yes, if you affirm kinism, your soul is in jeopardy.It denies the love of Jesus via His own 2nd Great commandment.

    If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1Jo 4:20)

  174. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    So you live in/near Atlanta Stuart. If your kinism beliefs are gospel sound, why would you not be willing to identify your church affiliation?

  175. Reed Here said,

    June 20, 2015 at 6:32 pm

    So Stuart, what do you think about Jews?

  176. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    “So Stuart, what do you think about Jews?”

    Which Jews?

  177. Stuart DiNenno said,

    June 20, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    You guys ought to join the Calvinism Fellowship and Discussion group on Facebook. I could start a discussion there about these newly discovered sins that Christians never knew until recently. You know, like “racism,” “anti-semitism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “xenophobia.” Come on over. It’ll be fun!

  178. Reed Here said,

    June 21, 2015 at 12:10 am

    Same questions to you:

    Mickey Henry (Enoch Powell)
    Antony Scott Homer (Toeknee Belowknee)

    Do you profess Christ? What is your church affiliation?

  179. Reed Here said,

    June 21, 2015 at 12:12 am

    So, Stuart, evading questions, changing the subject. Telling behavior if kinism is consistent with the gospel. Of course, if it isn’t, makes sense.

  180. Tim Harris said,

    June 21, 2015 at 7:31 am

    Reed, if posting an opinion here makes one liable to being dragged before some new self-designated Inquisition, that should be disclosed up front, rather than blind-siding people. Moreover, the best you have been able to come up with is an occasional ominous hint that though nothing wrong can be found here, “the blogs out there prove that these men are full of hate.” In other words, you have no proof that their statements are false.

    I am not part of any party, but I don’t recall any statement any of them have made here that I wouldn’t be willing to defend. If you want an inquisition, start with me then. You know how to find me.

    Conversely please declare the church affiliation of this Ron Henzel, who, on the feeblest provocation, is willing to publicly call a 30-year naparc-member a child of Satan, spiritually blind, hateful, unregenerate, and a liar — the very worst calumnies imaginable. (And you, Bruto, have stood by quietly, contradicting not a word.)

  181. Alan D. Strange said,

    June 21, 2015 at 8:02 am

    Is this the Tim Harris in whose home I stayed twenty years ago in California, in the immediate aftermath of the death of Greg Bahnsen? I am dismayed by what I’ve read here: truly saddened and burdened.

    I don’t know most of the parties to this conversation, but I find it both lamentable and stunning that there would be those who would come on this blog and defend kinism. Absolutely breathtaking. I am thankful for those who’ve defended the faith against such teaching and pray that the Lord would grant us all repentance towards Him and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, even this very Lord’s Day.

  182. Reed Here said,

    June 21, 2015 at 8:03 am

    Tim, and a disappointing response. Ask your own pastor and elders to to sift throught the kinist websites and analyze the arguments with you. Look up the previous posts here where we did offer some substantive response. Your dismissive accusation is untrue.

    Labeling things an inquisition and an SPLC argument is a debate tactic, as you well know. It is intended to heighten the emotions of the opponent, with the intention of acheiving either their fearful retreat or their sinful over reaction. It is not intended to graciously and kindly advance the conversation. (And yes, I am not interested in advancing the conversation on heresy with those who affirm it. I believe that is offensive to God. But I am not using such a debate tactic.)

    As a moderator (which I no longer am) Ron’s full name and affiliation are well known, not hidden, and available for the asking. Unlike the cowardice of some kinists posting pseudonymously, against blog rules. If kinism is biblical I fail to see why there is not a willingness to be fully public about it. What is there to hide if kinism has God on its side?

    There is no inquisition and it is offensive to be accused of the same, particularly when I privately denied it. And Brutus here has not stood by quietly. I gave time to pleading with you privately. Only after seeing your public growing defense of this Satanic lie, ignoring my private pleas altogether, did I respond to you publicly. It is fairly obvious I agree with Ron that defense of something Satanic is to serve Satan’s interests, even if one is a 30 year “nap-arc” member. Did I not refer you to Jesus’ comment to Peter and Satan? Brutus is not Brutus (another unkindness Tim). Instead he is Jude plucking and burning his fingers while recoiling at the filth of kinism his friend is defending.

    Let me plead one more time, not just to you but to all kinists who call on Christ. Disagree and even take offense. But be humble enough to follow the biblical pattern and you may find this is the wound of a friend who has been warning you that you’re kissing on a prostitute whose door heads to hell.

    Kinism is evil. It is godliness to say that. There is no obligation on anyone’s part here to shepherd you. This is a blog for deep interaction within the Church. Kinism is not. I plead with you to read closer the arguments. It takes very little effort to find evidence of mocking and accusing evil to others simply on the basis of ethnicity. It takes very little effort to see select usage of Scripture to defend positions that deny the cross.

    Finally, I plead with to ask your own shepherds, the ones God has given you, to check it out with you. You’ve nothing to fear and only blessing to secure. If this morning you hide your kinist affirmation while you profess your faith I suggest you may want to refrain from the table until you’ve ask your shepherds to help you test yourself, to see if you are in the faith. By all means, don’t just dismiss my plea out of hand.

  183. Reed Here said,

    June 21, 2015 at 8:42 am

    One final thought friend. I know Tim you think kinism is sound and biblical. I know I am not the closest friend. But I am a friend, and a rightly called TE. Does not your convictions suggest the presence of the Spirit more than the theories on a kinist website, even if I am wrong?

    No more public arguing about this. Continue it privately as you need, but with those God has given you for this very purpose. Thanks for considering it. Brutus not carrying even a butter knife.

  184. Ron said,

    June 21, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    I wrote: It’s a common practice among deceivers to define their position by means of accentuating the most palatable precepts contained therein.

    Ron H wrote: You know very well that no one except racists of your stripe actually defines the word that way, and thus you seek to perpetuate your deception.

    Guys,

    One problem is, the professing Kinists here are defining their beliefs more selectively than Kinists at large, or so I’ve gleaned here. As the two Rons noted, that’s a practice of deceivers, which does not imply that one who does do so a deceiver ipso facto. My exhortation has been that if they aren’t deceivers and if they don’t share the views held by the websites some have mentioned, then they should strive to distance themselves from those who share the kinist label. For some reason they won’t. Again, this is at best unwise and at worst deception.

    I don’t know Stuart but have known Tim for years. Tim, in my opinion, addresses questions but he doesn’t always try, in my opinion, to clear up misunderstandings, even in order to clear his own name. When being accused he doesn’t always try help his accusers by disclosing more information than what’s being asked of him. It’s as if he won’t do another’s work, even if it will get him off the hot seat. I wish he’d be more accommodating.

    That said, affinity toward extended family and appreciation for ethnic distinction isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Recognizing peculiar gifts among specific races isn’t necessarily a bad thing either. What is a dreadful thing is for anyone with those convictions to align themselves with racist kinists more than with those who oppose the notion of ethnic affinity. That, I think, is what’s behind this heated discussion. It’s a peculiar thing indeed for any professing Christian to want to claim the label that is on par with racist – if their belief is truly limited to those convictions I’ve put forth in these brief words.

    Thinking that any group is intrinsically superior and worthy of privilege is an intolerable evil. I think Stuart and surely Tim agree, but then why don’t they seperate from kinists?

  185. Ron said,

    June 21, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    “Brutus not carrying even a butter knife.”

    Absolutely!

    I wish we all lived closer…this forum is inferior to my back porch.

    Was with several mutual friends of ours yesterday, Reed and Tim.

  186. Reed Here said,

    June 21, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    Ron, you said,

    “That said, affinity toward extended family and appreciation for ethnic distinction isn’t necessarily a bad thing.”

    That’s the thing. No one I know would affirm otherwise, especially my black brothers. But kinism puts forward this lie that those who disagree with it necessarily deny this, that they’re goal is nothing less than the forced amalgamation of the ethnicities to the intentional loss of any ethnic heritage.

    It is a bogus accusation against all but the relatively few, isolated whackey’s whom simply do not exist for practical purposes.

    No one who affirms the gospel is about eliminating ethnic differences. On the contrary, they are a part of the grandeur of God’s glory.

    Now kinism wants to say amen and then add: and this requires the necessary segregation of the ethnicities. It is as if they imagine that the scene in Rev 5 involes separate choirs for each ethnicity, rather than what is actually portrayed – a unity of the parts, with each bringing their own uniqueness to bear on the glory of the whole. Rather than a muddling of the voices so that the result is a flat monotone, Rev 5 envisions the glorious harmony of all, each piece unique and yet altogether unified.

    Kinism offers two choices, segregation in order to preserve ethnic heritage, or (forced) integration resulting in lose of ethnic heritage altogether. Either separate but equal or the loss of any unique beauty in the new Coffee Man race.

    The gospel offers neither of these visions. It offers the break down of ethnic barriers that separated, bringing into ONE new family, in which the unique gifts of each ethnicity are respected and admired because they are redeemed.

    Keep kinism away from that dream, as it will never achieve such glory.

  187. Reed Here said,

    June 21, 2015 at 7:36 pm

    As to your hope and expectation for Tim and Stuart, as I know Tim personally I’m inclined to agree with you. I too think he sometimes unwisely latches on to particular parts of a position, fighting for them without recognizing the necessary connections to other parts of the position that I think he would eschew. But unless he is willing to clarify, and not instead offering strong words defending kinism wholesale, there is not much more that I can say than I have. I fear for him, and I still have great hopes for him.

    As to Stuart, I do not know him to speak with such hope, but I still have it nevertheless. That is a primary reason for my requesting his church background. Knowing his background provides some hope for recovery and restoration from this insidious wickedness. Yet, for all I know Stuart could a La Santa Muerta worshiper pretending to be a Christian in order to deceive and destroy. Yet even if that were the case, I have hopes for him too, as the gospel is strong for all who will call on the Lord.

    Still, having given myself to some research of Stuart’s public expressions I can say with sad confidence that he does demonstrate the common kinist behavior: affirmations of well wishing for all ethnicities, just a desire to preserve one’s own heritage, while every now and then letting the hatred slip its leash.

    For each kinist I investigated I found that within no more than a dozen posts they made some comment that demonstrated some form a hatred against another based solely on ethnicity. Sadly, these usually involved the two ethnicities Anglos tend to hate the most: Africans and Jews. If it weren’t so evil if would be laughable that kinism so thoroughly repeats the same old cliches seen former generations’ expressions of racism.

    I expect that some will denounce such an accusation. I expect further that in a few days time, if I were to go back and re-check their posts, that they would have scrubbed and cleaned their sites, removing such obvious offences.

    That’s o.k.. I’m not pursuing an inquisition against them. I’ve taken no snip images of their sites. Let this debate here die down, and go visit their sites 6 months from now. There will be a crop of new posts demonstrating the same characteristics. It is as if they were buying into a lie of Satan, and so they can’t help at some point espousing hatred. Oh wait, that’s exactly what kinism is.

    So in both Tim’s case, my friend, and in Stuart’s, a stranger to me, I’ve written only with their best interests at heart. I plead with them to humble themselves, ask their pastors and elders to examine their convictions with them, and see where such a process ends. I expect they very well could find a better way of affirming the beauty and admirability of ethnic differences, and espouse a greater picture of those being present in the unity of faith in Christ. Kinism is not the answer to any valid problems they perceive.

    If kinism is not evil it should not be so hard to demonstrate its fruit of peacefulness and purity. That it can do nothing more than make lame exegetical arguments, and then offering mocking in response to the hardest challenges, demonstrates it is a noxious weed, not a branch on the vine of Christ.

  188. Ron said,

    June 21, 2015 at 8:59 pm

    “The gospel offers neither of these visions. It offers the break down of ethnic barriers that separated, bringing into ONE new family, in which the unique gifts of each ethnicity are respected and admired because they are redeemed.”

    Reed,

    Unless I misunderstood, I’m pretty sure Tim has articulated this in my own living room. I think we were watching the Phillies. In fact, the picture he painted was quite glorious. This was many years ago. I find your ideal no different than his if I’m understanding that quote of yours.

    As for the mixing of races, I’m fine with that I suspect much more than Tim. My only caution is that some naively enter into such unions without any thoughtful regard for any possible difficulties that might ensue as a result of living in a fallen world. Would I want it for my daughters? No, I don’t think so, all things being equal. I’d prefer they marry white godly men if possible. But that’s not because I feel that my race is superior to another. Far from it. And, I don’t think that makes me a bigot, or even narrow minded. I’m just inclined to say that cultural, sociopolitical, economic backgrounds and all the rest are relevant considerstions. Of course, Christ is the incomparable cornerstone of any marriage.

    I wouldn’t presume to object to the blending of race. Reason being, I’m not persuaded God would not have the races amalgamated. So, I’m not as inclined to try to uphold an “ideal”. My concern is the inherent difficulties and obstruction to Christian service that might ensue. In many ways, I’m grateful the world is becoming more color blind.

  189. Ron said,

    June 21, 2015 at 9:30 pm

    Reed,

    Regarding your second of the two most recent posts, I do have the same concerns, especially when it comes to Jews. I think the approach some take toward them is contrary to the gospel. That’s putting it mildly.

  190. Reed Here said,

    June 21, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    Ron, understand on the miscegenation position. I used to affirm that. I don’t any longer. Yet I won’t say that your position as expressed is sinful. I just disagree that such wisdom is actually called for.

    I long for my daughter these alone: a man who loves Jesus and will sacrifice himself for her. I know, trite. But I do think those are about the only biblical considerations I’m to keep in view. It is not that an interracial marriage won’t face the kinds of problems you are concerned wit. It is that I don’t see that being a standard for concern in Scripture. Any problems such a couple will face will come from evil that is opposed to the gospel. That’s to be expected as normal for the Christian. That it comes via racism is not a reason to plan to avoid it.

    Basically, I’m at the point where I don’t consider ethnicity, unless it is to celebrate the good things in a person’s heritage. The result is I get to eat a lot of different great food, learn things I never would have thought of, and learn even more that in the end, we’re not all that different after all.

    And yes, I’m not surprised to hear you say that about Tim’s past expression. Again, I’ve real reasons to hope his defense of kinism here is just a bit of painting with too wide a brush this time.

  191. Ron Henzel said,

    June 22, 2015 at 3:05 am

    Tim Harris,

    You wrote:

    Conversely please declare the church affiliation of this Ron Henzel, who, on the feeblest provocation, is willing to publicly call a 30-year naparc-member a child of Satan, spiritually blind, hateful, unregenerate, and a liar — the very worst calumnies imaginable.

    I am an ordained elder, currently serving on Session at Evangelical Presbyterian Church (PCA), in Cape Coral, FL, which is part of the Suncoast Florida Presbytery (SW FL).

  192. Ron said,

    June 22, 2015 at 8:23 am

    Ron, understand on the miscegenation position. I used to affirm that. I don’t any longer. Yet I won’t say that your position as expressed is sinful. I just disagree that such wisdom is actually called for.

    [struggles]…That’s to be expected as normal for the Christian. That it comes via racism is not a reason to plan to avoid it.

    Reed,

    Thanks for your thoughtful post. One small point of clarification…I’m not planning
    to avoid it. I’m merely saying, “all things being equal” (that’s key) I would hope for what would entail a more peaceable life, which is a something for which we may pray. Similarly, all things being equal, I’d prefer a comfortable living to poverty… though all these things seem less concerning as I grow older and hopefully wiser.

  193. Reed Here said,

    June 22, 2015 at 8:36 am

    Ah, helpful correction of my reading. Sorry and thx.

    So, while we want to spare our children any earthly suffering we can, we in no way want spare them the suffering God will use to fulfill His glory and perfect their joy. Sounds like the same wisdom applied.

  194. Ron said,

    June 22, 2015 at 9:18 am

    Amen :)

  195. Billy Boyce said,

    July 10, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Seems I’m late to the comments party, and so I’m not trying to stir anything up afresh. This is definitely an important topic for our denomination, and so I’m thankful that folks are discussing it.

    I also wanted thank Wayne, Reed, Ron, and others for your passionate rejection of kinism. Thank you, gentlemen for your thorough work; we need more of this in our neck of the ecclesial woods.

    If anyone is interested in some historical documents to this point, in 1966 the RPCES adopted a report analyzing several passages of Scripture used in support of segregation, finding those interpretations to be against proper use of Scripture, and encouraging churches to be more faithful in redemptive, repentant ministry to those of other races.

    Likewise, in 1973, the advisory committee to the PCA, when it was being formed, explicitly stated their intention to welcome all races into the denomination.

    Finally, in 1977, NAPARC released a statement on race relations that also explicitly encourages churches to seek racial integration, rather than separation, and to repent where these actions have not been pursued.

    These statements are taken by our denomination as containing “pious advice” that elders ought to at least consider with prayer and seriousness. My aim in posting them is to encourage anyone still questioning their positions to weigh with extra care those expressed by the church courts. Blessings to you all.

    RPCES: http://pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/docsynod/385.html
    PCA steering committee: http://pcahistory.org/ga/advisory_convention.pdf
    (Specifically see page 27, point 47)
    NAPARC Statement: http://www.pcahistory.org/topicalresources/race/NAPARC1977.html

  196. July 17, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    Dear Lane and other readers. I wanted to apologize for my comment above (all the way up at #2). It is snarky and rude and coming from a place of presumed theological superiority. It is a theological drive-by masquerading as a contribution to this thread. I hope you’ll forgive me.

    If any of you have follow-up comments or concerns, please contact me directly as I won’t be following this post.

    Much love and many apologies, Brian

  197. Frank Aderholdt said,

    July 19, 2015 at 9:45 am

    Well, Brian may no longer be following this post, but others are. Permit me to state the obvious: Brian Prentiss in #196 does not disavow what he said in #2. He only apologizes for the way he said it. The unbiblical and anti-confessional content in #2 remains. Filter out the snarky and rude dross, and what remains is dross still. This is not the end of the matter, but may be just the beginning.

  198. September 25, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    […] to ponder is a very important question: what constitutes racism? I have addressed this question briefly before. Having read a bit more, and done a bit more thinking, there are some things I might say […]

  199. October 3, 2015 at 12:02 am

    […] to ponder is a very important question: what constitutes racism? I have addressed this question briefly before. Having read a bit more, and done a bit more thinking, there are some things I might say […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: