Skip to content

Further thoughts on race issue and the Gospel in light of two books

August 9, 2011

These were the full range of thoughts I had jotted down for the Sword of the Lord review. I had to trim it down as it was, fearing I might be “preaching” or “ranting” too much (though the author liked it!)

So here are the rest of the thoughts on the subject:


[preached against every sin except racial hatred]

The classic example of this can be found in the statement by Rice in a 1940 Sword magazine (quoted by Himes, P.218)

Preach on booze. Preach on the scarlet sin, adultery.Some cheeks will turn red with shame, and some won’t like it, but it will bring people to repentance. Preach on the dance, tell people it is rotten as sin. Tell people they dance because of they enjoy the lust, the deliberate inflamement of passion of the dance! They do! Preach on the movies made by vile, lewd people, holding up rotten moral standards, breaking down respect for marriage, pure love, hard work, God and the Bible. Preach against the Masonic lodges. Preach against evolution and false cults. Preach on death, sin, Hell, judgment! such preaching with boldness, with love, with tears, with scripture, with faith, will bring great revivals, will save hardened sinners.

This is basically the message I heard from conservative Christianity when I became aware of it in the 80’s (and this, from the more popular segment of fundamentalism that had already began veering away from the fundamentalism of Rice).
Notice how nearly everything is wrapped up in an almost purely sexual concept of “morality”, with the prime exceptions being “booze”, and then other belief systems.
Those are the three main “sins” that nothing less than “divine judgment” has been called down on the nation over; compared to a righteous past (extolled in the virtues of “marriage, hard work, God and the Bible”), ending roughly in the 1960’s (particularly with the removal of prayer in schools decision and the sexual revolution, of course).

The race issue was seen as “unimportant” compared to the Gospel, except when favoring racial status-quo’s, which was important enough to be in fact equated with the Gospel!

And then of course, the antidote to all those vices being preaching, which would “save” people and lead to revival. Revival that has yet not occurred, yet this is then blamed on preachers supposedly not following this instruction. (For examples of this, you can read a 1980 BJU “Faith For the Family” article criticizing Jerry Falwell, or a 2001 Revival Fires magazine article blaming the 9-11 “judgment” on churches using rap and rock music, among other things! Both of those movements had gone beyond even the Sword in their radical “conservativism”!)

They had basically decided for themselves (and everyone else) what “biblical issues” were, yet they did not cover every biblical issue, and at the same time, often went beyond the Bible’s definition of sin (like the assumption that alcohol and dancing were always sinful, even though both were mentioned positively (as well as negatively) in scripture.
It was a purely political “gospel”, which was precisely the countercharge leveled at the Left!

Notice also how “salvation” then becomes basically a result of man’s efforts motivated by fear, (which was precisely the method of those “false cults” referenced, with the only difference that they did not pretend to believe in the “orthodoxy” of “faith alone”).

Racism was in contrast seen as “not important” enough, and thus not as synonymous with “soul-saving” as these other issues were. If they did preach on it, it was to condemn the Civil Rights advocates, for their “civil disobedience”, and other supposed vices.

From the quote, it sometimes looks almost as if those “sins” were being trumped up to compensate, or even cover up for all the other things being neglected.
James spoke exactly to this sort of selectivity; and not the selectivity of the “sinners” of the world (who acknowledge murder as wrong, but think sexual activity should be totally free), but to the “religious”, who thought the opposite:
“For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” (2:11. And the race issue certainly crossed the line into “murder”, both literally, as well as spiritually, as per Matt. 5).

Also striking, considering the subtitle “A Plea for Patience, for Moderation and for Less Agitation and Pressure While Good Men Work Out Problems” is how those other sins were held as the prime example of the scripture’s teaching that “none are good” (Rom. 3:10f), yet when it comes to race, all of a sudden, there are “good” men after all, who should be given time to “work things out” (apparently, at their own convenience, and because of others’ evil, “agitating” the situation, by trying to get a group of people to stop being oppressed. And this “good “men” statement referring to politics; not even specifying the church —which would still be inaccurate!)

Even today, you will have the same sort of people dismiss both racism and economic inequality, as “well, there’s sin in the world, and as long as you have sinful men, you will have these problems”.  “Saving souls” is a totally separate issue, that is much more important. However, when it comes to sexual sin and opposing religious/scientific/political beliefs, this and only this, they believe, can be preached away! Then, souls —and “the nation”— will be saved!

Where in any scripture is such a distinction between those particular sins made?

So sure enough, we see that the reason they didn’t preach on race ran deeper than it being merely “unimportant”, but rather because their philosophy did stem from from a belief that racism was Biblical! So the whole dismissal of the issue as “unimportant” compared to the Gospel was a lie, as it was important enough to defend the status-quo and oppose change, which was seen as defending the Gospel.
Though as time went on, it became a touchy subject, and we see here that people like Rice were sort of torn between their loyalty to what was seen as the pure Christianity (“faith of our fathers”), and realizing that perhaps the movement was a bit overboard in some respects.

[become touchy about the whole issue, unless it’s a fellow conservative highlighting blacks’ “problems” or blaming them for high taxes.]
Great boost to the conscience, and the oppression of these “problem people” must have been at least “understandable” if not justified, and thus not really that bad).

They often claim to be following Christ in “suffering persecution” for “taking the unpopular opinion” on moral or scientific issues; yet here was a perfect chance to stand up for the Bible against something much of the world was favoring. Instead, they compromised, and in fact, justified the institutions by proclaiming them God-ordained, thus bending God to fit their own idol.

Fundamentalists pretty much decided for themselves which commandments were important (as much as they criticized the world for that)

Using “fruits” and doctrine as tests of salvation leads to works’ righteousness. Conservatives don’t want to be judged for racism, and one of the accusations against the Social Gospel was “works-righteousness”. Salvation is “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”.
However, the JW’s, Mormons, Catholics, and modernists all “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ“. However, it is OTHER doctrines they believe, which they basically tack onto the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which (in the “orthodox” view) render their “gospel” FALSE, and the “Jesus” they believe in, false along with it, thus disqualifying them from “salvation”, even by “grace”, since a false Christ cannot save.

What they failed to realize, is that this same principle could be turned right back on them!
[Clearly, the racial ideology, wrapped up in fleshly human self-preservationism, was a false gospel…]
Exactly like the Israelites of Christ’s time, the entire plan of God for the world was assumed to be about the preservation and exaltation of a physical nation and its “culture”, and always at the expense of others.

If they thought slavery was so biblical, fine; but then why didn’t they offer to be the slaves, then? If they thought Jim Crow was biblical, why didn’t they give up the right to vote, or sit at the back of the bus? Wouldn’t that fit in with the ‘attitude’ scripture tells us to have? How did it end up always favoring their fleshy comfort?

Just like the Israelites, “Chosenness” by God meant special favors in this life in addition to Heaven in the next.
That is why Old Covenant Israel fell, and if we insist America is likewise falling, we cannot blame it only on the “ungodly”.

[If our own light was “darkness”, then how dark we were indeed…So they persecuted others at the same time as, and in fact under the premise of worrying that everyone was out to destroy or dominate them.]
(Classic “projection“, where you can clearly see (and rebuke) someone else doing the same thing you’re actually doing (Rom.2:1) but deny in yourself (or shift the attribution for it). One of the reasons they are so against all psychological concepts (one of their other pet peeves like music style) is because they expose things like this that they would have us believe are “standing up for God” at best, or a “sincere mistake” at worst. But if they really believed in human sin, then there should be no problem accepting this. Instead, it seems the concept of “regeneration” has been used to imply that they were totally acting under the control of the Spirit, so therefore, everything they did was presumed to be right, or at least not in conflict with the Word of God).

Instead of winning souls (which they claimed was so important there was no time for anything else), they were driving many away, including their own children, as we see with Himes and so many others.
When you look at movements that thrived off of this discord, such as the Black Muslims; why should they have believed in a God identified strictly with another group of people; who were also persecuting them?
If you try to appeal to the Israelites under Joshua and say “well, our God is just the true one and He sovereignly ‘chose’ us to rule”; why should they have believed that? You’re just another man, like they are. Even if you list all your cultural and spiritual accomplishments, you’re still fallible flesh and blood, and the Israelites actually did have God, supernaturally guiding them, not just claiming it by their good works. (And are we supposed to be holding up our works as justification?)

If they thought slavery was so biblical, why didn’t they offer to be the slaves, then? If they thought Jim Crow was biblical, why didn’t they give up the right to vote, or sit at the back of the bus?

John R. Rice harshly condemned people who opposed and/or dodged Vietnam, including “conscientious objectors”. But Muhammad Ali summed it up nicely when he asked why he should go and fight America’s enemies when America had made itself his enemy more than the Soviets ever did! (Rice himself had been drafted during WWI, but then was out in a year when the war ended, and entered the ministry).

[The ideology twisted scripture, and then presupposed itself as a given “truth” just like the doctrines of those other groups.]
And when confronted with it, they resort to the same excuses others use and they normally condemn, including “sincere belief“, and “offense”: (“changing it will offend others; we must take it slower”), relativizing truth just as much as modernists.
When modernists or any other “false” group appeal to “sincerity” (which is often the final authority in their views), the conservatives fire back that they are “sincerely wrong“. Why is “sincerity” only a valid excuse for them? If the people appeal to offense or personal preference, then the conservatives appeal to “the offense of the Cross/Gospel”. Why doesn’t this “offense” ever affect their wishes?

In this vein, they bestow so much grace to their own exposed humanity, while denying everyone else any “excuse”. Since they claim salvation is what separates them from “the unregenerate”, and that it is also by “grace”, then does grace give them the license to do the same things they preach against to others, (Rom. 2:1, 19-24; special note on last verse) and to place burdens on others they themselves will not even lift?

What remains is the appeal to good works compared to the sins of others. So this is just as much “works-righteousness” as what they accused others of.
At every turn they pat themselves on the back (“Protestant work ethic”, etc)

The only way to resolve the issue on their end is to call the sin what it was; a false gospel; and then dissociate themselves from it. (As it’s not even directly their own sin, as they often protest when under fire). Then, they won’t be so affected by what others say about racism, or playing a “card”. As long as they don’t; then all they will ever be able to do is make excuses for it and deflect criticism back to others (which always ends up becoming more racially charged or insensitive language): it wasn’t that bad, you race baiters are out to get us, look at those people and their problems; they’re just trying to get what’s ours through the government, etc. And the problem will go on.

Both books (Sword of the Lord, The New Jim Crow) show that Mammon was the idol behind the whole race issue (see outline of race history in New Jim Crow review).

We tend to assume every white family owned slaves. But a slave cost tens of thousands of dollars; which today would amount to tens of millions of dollars. Slaveowners were the wealthy of the day, and economically the counterparts to today’s big business executives and entrepreneurs —the same group continuing to be rigorously defended by conservatives (religious and political) who insist American history in the days of slavery and segregation was “good” and “Christian”.

It becomes obvious now what the whole game was about.

If others can be “sincerely wrong”, then why is “sincerity” only a valid excuse for those whom conservatives favor?

So while I had gone with the “new left” premise that economics was superseding race; it becomes clear now that it was really all about economics (wealth) the whole time, from slavery on! From colonialism and slavery to the present, it was all about the greed of corporatism (which today’s Conservatives see as our heroes and saviors). That’s really the common denominator in all the political strife in America, and much of the world.

The New Jim Crow points out how the tack was to turn the disenfranchised poor and middle class whites against the blacks, and this is precisely what has been going on to this day in conservative rhetoric that often suggests lazy blacks are causing high taxes, or are at least asking for some kind of “free ride” at everyone’s expense. Trillion dollar deficit, and a “grasshopper” analogy passed around by conservatives would suggest nonworking minorities are getting all of it.
That some people on assistance or otherwise labeled “poor” might have a color TV and other electronics; perhaps even a car, is cited. Right or wrong; that’s where trillions have gone! Not the corporations; they ‘deserve’ it, so their endless gravy train doesn’t count; their sitting on the money and not putting it back in the economy is the fault of all these other people, and them having even more would give us a “bigger pie”, unlike these “takers”.
They then turn to various statistics to try to prove blacks are “problematic”.

And by going along with this (whether “actively involved” in politics, or more “separatist”, yet still spewing the ideology), the conservative Church in the past was just as much fornicating with “the kings of the earth” as the Catholic Church they long tagged as “the Whore of Babylon”. It was the same cultural selling out of divine “blessing” in exchange for cultural power; “the very act that made a harlot of the mother” [Rev.17:5 harlot is a “mother” church] as one person put it. (Actually, the original “harlot” of the prophecy was really the institutionalized temple system in the NT, which similarly used its position with the Romans, whom they nevertheless resented ruling over them, to persecute Christians. So likewise, Christians today enjoy power in the midst of complaining how the “secular” society is against them)

So while they rebuff people focusing on “race” (which they long dismissed as not a biblical concern), when it becomes clear that the real sin involved was greed, then that sounds more like a [traditionally] “biblical” sin issue; doesn’t it, now?

What has been lacking the whole time is REPENTANCE. Both admitting it’s wrong in the first place, as well as turning from both beliefs and practices associated with it.
Like every other sinner hiding behind works-righteousness, they trumped up the other commands of God that they condemned others for violating, and hid the one they were trampling on.

Failure to confess and repent led successive generations to replace one institution with another one when the previous one was forced to end (as Alexander points out). They can’t admit the first one was wrong so they grudgingy let it go, but then try to justify its principle with something else, more and more disguised as not intentional.

Himes connects this to the mythos of “The Lost Cause“, where a Confederate general and his troops escaped to Mexico, and thus technically “never surrendered”, and leaving the struggle of the Confederacy open to “live on”.
Just look at the utter, fatuous, puffed up PRIDE in that. And pride is supposed to be a sin, especially when they are preaching to or about others on it! If Christ had taken that kind of stance, we’d all be doomed! And this is what we look up to as our “godly heritage”!
And what happened to “store not up treasures on earth…where thieves break in to steal…”, which they also preached to those they tried to subjugate?
(Himes also cites fundamentalist J. Frank Norris as connecting the battle against modernism with the Lost Cause! Another missed parallel (like the blacks with the Samaritans) was with the Zealot sect in AD70, who holed themselves up in the Masada fortress after the Temple was destroyed vowing never to surrender. Instead of fleeing, they committed suicide, and eerily foreshadowing “the South Shall Rise Again”, the cause lives on today through some Israel Defense Forces, who climb the mountain and declare “Masada Shall Not Fall Again”)

And that’s all we have seen from Conservativism ever since. The federal government is taking something from them and giving to those who don’t “deserve” it (one thing after another–first, “states rights”/slavery, then segregation, then “social programs”/taxes, finally, the moral and religious issues), and they want “their nation” back!

So it led Confederates to wage war and a perpetual Lost Cause when others tried to end slavery. It led to the Klan and later Jim Crow, after the Confederates lost, and yet people still had to try to hold on to as much of the system as they could. It then led to all the philosophy and political strategies constructed to paint blacks in the most negative ways; and the unrest of the Civil Rights era. It’s also believed to have led to a lopsided drug war coupled with a mass incarceration system, that presents lifetime Jim Crow-like restrictions for people with a drug record. So it’s no longer the whole race; just as many as we can get caught up in this system as possible.

And it continues to lead people to lash back, and blame blacks or liberals (and all these “social programs”; even though reformed) for all the economic problems today, while defending the big business leaders who are really the ones milking the country dry. (Again, as Alexander points out, the tactic from slavery onward was always for the elites to get the disenfranchised poor whites against the blacks. This is what we continue to see when they still blame welfare; and now, among some, it’s even “union government jobs”).

“Welfare Queen”

Hence, why race remains a touchy subject and people’s consciences imagine a million blacks asking to get their money and using the government giving it to them.

As an African American, not only are my ancestors commonly remembered as idol-worshipping, often “sensuous” pagans, but even my race today in America is commonly viewed as violent immoral criminals. Also, you have black “hate” groups, such as Black Muslims, and even a “Black Hebrew” movement I see preaching every weekend at a big subway terminal and a few other places in the city at times.

Now, I can’t justify any of that with scripture. All I can do is keep myself out of it, dissociate from the sins or the negative aspects of the subculture (not the people in themselves), and my worth as a person and standing before God is between me and Him.
I can understand why they believe or act the way they do. I can even explain it to those who just judge without trying to understand better. But that’s different from excusing it, by saying it is Biblical.

Unlike conservatives, who view their opponents as 100% wrong on everything, and having no sort of validity anywhere, I can get annoyed or touchy when I see people hyping up these things. It is an embarrassment. But I’m not operating off of any “our culture was good and godly, and others messed it up” (as much as conservatives like to accuse people of painting tribal society as faultless or “blaming whitey” for everything, and notice who uses the racially charged terms like that in the debate). So I can acknowledge the errors of those groups.

So the same with conservatives and historic racism. No one can legitimately hold them accountable for their ancestors, if they don’t somehow identify with it and keep trying to justify it (or maintaining the overall “righteousness” of the people in the past who were guilty of it, which requires minimizing the evil of their actions). And their guilt (which they have taken on from those things because of identifying with them) would be resolved as well.

But the whole problem here with certain groups is a refusal to admit that those in the past were sinful, wicked people, who even worse than the unbelieving “heathen”, misused God’s Word to support their greed-driven persecution of others.
(And we should know better than to think that their supposed moral or doctrinal purity makes up for other sins).

That is only a bitter pill to swallow if you stake your whole worth and standing before God on the “righteousness” of your ancestors, your nation’s history, and your “traditional culture”.

But are these what anyone is supposed to take as their refuge? If you’re hiding behind these things; you’re not trusting in Christ! It’s self righteousness, pure and simple; and precisely what the Christ-rejecting Israelites of the New Testament were guilty of.

So now, since America is the chosen “Christian” nation, then anything seen as its ‘original values’ must be right, and what everything else is to be judged by. Hence, both racism in the past, and the flaws of capitalism in the present being ignored, excused, or the resulting problems blamed on other people or trends.

The “Lost Cause” is a different gospel that stakes our collective standing before God on the supposed righteousness of our nation’s history and “traditional culture”. But if we’re hiding behind these things; we’re not trusting in Christ!

If a “conservative Christian” who upholds these things can’t renounce the sins of their fathers, you wonder how they themselves were ever able to take the very first step of “conversion to Christ”, and repent of their own sins.
With the remarkably young ages many ultra-conservative Christians (particularly those whose whole families were deeply Christian, such as those involved in ministry) testify to being “converted” at (which is usually defined in terms of an “altar call”, and then obediently following what they were taught afterward), you wonder if they have really ever felt the humbling sense that they are wicked sinners who have done wrong to both God AND fellow man. Was it real conviction, or just a doctrinal protocol?

It is so ironic; seeing how hard they are on the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants over “infant baptism”. Yet some of the ages I am seeing in “testimonies”, for which they converted is not all that far removed from infancy!
The whole reason infant baptism was wrong in the first place, is because you are doing this “deed” for this child to try to get them into Heaven, yet they themselves did not personally choose Christ. They could not possibly understand enough to do so. Yet you’re making think they have some merit before God.
But how much more does a five year old, or even a nine year old understand about sin and salvation? Again, it’s just a matter of following whatever they were taught.

They see the “changed life” as everything following the altar call. It did not need to be questioned or even examined, (and in fact, to question much of it was ‘infidelity’). No matter what it was. Including stuff like racism. As long as it had its proof-text; it must be right and from God. (You don’t even have to really study the text to see if it’s being interpreted properly. Not even a cursory reading of the immediate context. Genesis 9 and 2 Cor.6:14 are prime examples, in the race issue).

Another theologically conservative movement, known as “Lordship salvation” (basically associated with John MacArthur, and represented in the SBC by the “Grace To You” ministry, and whose most aggressive advocate is evangelist Paul Washer, whose preaching even some fundamentalists I have seen claim, “scares” them) goes as far as to declare up to 2/3rds of conservative Baptists or evangelicals as not really saved, falsely trusting in an “altar call” and/or “sinner’s prayer”.
They seem to hold a Calvinized version of perfectionism, that IMO compromises Grace every bit as much as Pelagianism, and ultimately leaves no kind of hope or assurance of salvation. Yet I can now see why they would question such a “conversion”, though while hypothetically posing the question myself, here, I would still insist Grace (not good works under the premise of “fruits”) is the hope. But then that will mean that perhaps some of these people the fundamentalists have been denouncing should be granted grace as well.

They may have had incredible guilt trips laid on them for little acts of mischief at young ages, as Himes testifies to being made to realize he “deserved to writhe in Hell for eternity” for stealing candy, lying, etc. by the time he was five years of age (p101). So yes, they might testify to “remorse” and “contrition” for those things during a childhood altar visit. But that’s quite a different thing than all the beloved ideologies and self-glorifying self-preservation taught by the culture, and never questioned; and then adopted by fully conscious choice in adulthood. That is a LOT harder to “repent” of, apparently, as many of these people had shown when confronted with the sin. They have likely ‘gotten by’ without ever repenting of that stuff, as again, it was not seen as sin.

We end up with the irony that a person is more likely to “repent” of it in rebelling against everything they were taught, including turning away from Christ! Isn’t this a colossal shame, and a travesty of scripture?! Repentance from a particular sin more likely to occur in conversion FROM Christianity, than in conversion TO Christianity! Paul speaks of the notion of the sins of Christians possibly being even greater than the unconverted! (1 Cor.5:1. And remember, the sin is not any ‘better’ just because it’s not sexual sin, as in that case!)
And this can be no one else’s fault than the “Christian” culture itself; not the liberals, or modernists, or socialists, nor the rebelling kids themselves!

So THIS is “Why No Revival?” as the popular Chick tract asks, and then suggests it’s only because of basically, the flaws of new-evangelicalism (including stuff like Christian rock and modern Bible versions). The tract suggests “broken Christians” as one of the solutions, but overall, in their very own camp, there is/was absolutely no brokenness. Less so than any other group, in fact! They were anything but broken and contrite. That state seemed to be relegated to a distant visit to the altar in childhood. From there afterward, it was all incredibly “puffed up” posturing, based on a notion of being God’s modern prophets.

So it’s easy to see why they go on the defensive and feel wrongfully maligned and robbed when people demand justice.
Many offer some sort of general cliché gesture, like “we should all welcome other races”, “colorblindness”, etc.  (and Sumner mentions a George Washington Carver celebration they substitute for an MLK celebration), but this does not really mean much if one still insists their “godly forefathers” or other predecessors were so right, and the society they maintained so unblemishedly good, and pointing at others or their “culture” today as so incorrigibly bad. That basically contradicts what you claim to be saying today (plus, the fact that your “fathers” would still denounce you as ‘infidels’ and traitors for opening up to blacks even that much!) Sitting on the fence like that gains favor from neither side.

Again, revival would be more likely to come if the purported leaders of it would set the example themselves and just really admit this stuff was wrong (and that means not just racism, but the whole “Lost Cause” they are still fighting! Let it stay “lost”. It’s totally earthly! It is not “The Lord’s battle”; but rather a false religion of their own fleshy self-preservation, with Christ’s name and various proof-texts pasted onto it (and rather sloppily, in places). It all boils down to the antibiblical notion of the “chosenness” and righteousness of one’s culture or past generations that it was justified by, and drives the hostility to both the world and rest of the church today), and also, break the pattern of reverse blaming of a race, and uncritical support of corporatism as innocent and benevolent as we see today.

Summary of The “Lost Cause” (in all of its manifestations):

  1. Our heritage is that of the “Chosen” people
  2. “Chosenness” is divinely ordained earthly privilege and political favor
  3. Chosenness is evidenced by good works; therefore  we are to follow “the faith of our fathers”, as everything they did was right
  4. This heritage has been wrongly taken from us and we want it back!

The flipside (whether explicit or not):

  1. people who are not chosen are condemned, according to the Gospel [though individuals from unchosen groups can be saved].
  2. The condemnation, in this life, is subjugation, and their desire for equality is an unearned “entitlement mentality”.
  3. Their sins are evidence of this, therefore everything they say or do is wrong
  4. They’re out to get us.

The true Biblical gospel:

  1. God created out of one blood the whole human race, in His image (Gen. 1:26, Acts 17:26)
  2. Man fell, and all are by nature, sinful (Gen. 3, Romans 3) including the causes of pain and suffering and the desire to dominate over others and live luxuriously
  3. It is by Grace alone that any are justified (Romans; Eph.2:8,9) and we are still sinful even after conversion
  4. The Old Covenant is the record of man’s need for redemption. Allowances like physical inheritance ended at the Cross and are not to be copied in the New Covenant (Gal 3:24, 1 Cor. 10:11, Matt.9:17)

Again, you cannot lead a revival centered on the Biblical gospel if you operate off of a notion of your own goodness, individual or collective (even if you try to attribute it to God) and misunderstand the nature of God’s plan, the nature of regeneration, and what people are “chosen” for; contradicting the Gospel at its very root.

See also: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/open-letter-to-fundamentalist-editor/

Advertisements

From → Politics

5 Comments
  1. More thoughts I had jotted down, in light of debates on the subject:

    Conservatives’ method of battling the issue is logical argumentation, while liberals’ method is emotional persuasion followed by forced implementation. This is what gives the illusion in the public forum that the conservatives have a monopoly on the truth.
    That the liberals appear to lose the ideological battles, yet still manage to win the overall cultural war is explained in the Christian view simply in terms of the “great apostasy”.


    If they admit that their fathers were wrong, then the whole premise (of the “Lost Cause” and the goodness of they and their fathers’ “values”, and all the sin being everyone else’s fault) comes down.
    Many will generally acknowledge “well, they made an honest mistake” with race relations, but overall, were still “good” and directed by God, evidenced by the “fruits” of this land of “freedom”. (Which ties into the whole “life-change” doctrine, which is in practice pushed to the point of virtually eliminating the sin nature in “true believers”).

    Of course, things don’t seem to be going so well in it now (morally or economically), but this has to be blamed on others, including sometimes, the racial groups, often indirectly, through politicians who supposedly “reversed” discrimination in their favor, or a pop culture influenced by them in ways.
    This basically short circuits whatever acknowledgmement of wrong regarding race, and puts the blame back on the descendents of the victims.
    So this is what we have been seeing in political rhetoric.

    Colonialism, slavery, and later racial oppression is a big ugly stain on the image of the “godly society” they portray, and their God-given human conscience knows it, despite trying to proof-text it or brush it off. And that proof-texting has also been shown to have been totally false. (So it’s like the movement leading the preservation of these institutions had to compensate for this with an emphasis on “correct doctrine”, which focused on others’ error and covered up their own).

    The problem here is putting so much stock in the righteousness of ancestors in the first place. Scripture teaches that physical and “heritage” is “the flesh”, and it only leads to death, while eternal life is a gift of God through justification.
    Even with trying to appeal to a “changed life”; not everyone who was born into that culture, and went through the motions of following the morality, attending Church, etc. was automatically regenerate. These are the things our Gospel tracts and preaching say do not save, and we identify people who do these things on the surface, but because they run afoul in some other area (such as doctrine), we say they’re false Christians; but when it comes to romanticizing past society, these outward works become the absolute proof of divine regeneration.

    They have to PROVE that the people who were oppressed are “problematic”, and then without saying it, it implies slavery and segregation weren’t so bad, or were even necessary for a godly nation, because look at the people and their problems today! They should be “thankful” that we improved their lot over tribal life. But they aren’t. They want more, and have an “entitlement mentality”! No matter what is done for them, they still wallow in sin and crime and are overall “unproductive”.
    So again, the past “godly” society must have had things right!

    So while racial “hatred” may not be the starting point of the ideology, it is promoted by the need to prove that the past “Christian America” (especially as embodied in the South) was good, and the model of society that we should return to today.

    If past society is good, and others (both other cultures, plus modern society) are bad (in comparison), and are what brought the “good” society down, then this completely changes the doctrine of sin. Sin is no longer a quality of all people, but only of a particular “curse” on certain people.
    Of course, at this point, the people who believe this have to get Christ back into it. So then then the real division is made “spiritual”, in terms of “true conversion”. This sets it in terms of the “chosen” and “unchosen”, which was the original terminology used in conquest. As we will see, it also becomes “sacred culture” vs “the world”, and “spiritual” vs “carnal” or “natural”.
    Yet this expands “chosen” beyond individuals having a personal commitment to Christ.

    Some will even look at people committing a sin and attribute it to a group they are in (whether religion, race, generation, culture or even political persuasion) rather than human sinfulness. They may say it is “human sin” and often tag it to a category such as “the world”. But they completely eliminate themselves from the equation.

    This comes out in the denunciation of contemporary music by many fundamentalists, with a sharp division between the “world” and the “sacred” in the rhetoric, er, teaching. When you break it all down, the division ends up as one between African beats with a focus on “rhythm” versus European “principles” such as a focus on “contemplation”.
    Taking the sin often involved in rhythmic expressions (by non-Christians), the assumption is maintained that the evil or sin lies in the rhythm itself, and by default, that contemplation (or other “controlled” forms of reaction such as marching) are generally good or “spiritual”.

    The division between “the holy and the profane” ends up completely cultural, and then when the same conservative ideology openly claims all cultures are not equal, it becomes clear that the division between the sacred and the “world” is not based on “personal sanctification in Christ” (as they officially claim), but rather on a collective righteousnesss by works.
    But by now, we have clearly violated the premise of the scriptures telling us that none are naturally good, all are concluded under sin, and that the “flesh” (physical inheritance) profits nothing.

    What results is that nonbelievers (such as secular classical artists, historical statesmen, even philosophers like Plato. etc) all have at least SOME sort of merit, since they followed the proper “principles” and observed or taught the proper “policies”. Even if they are infidels on their way to Hell, they at least gave us a good culture, that is now being ruined by the “ungodly”, as well as “compromisers” in the Church. (We can see this in the music issue, where Plato’s “gold standard” is upheld as a virtual divine authority, while modern Christian brethren are accused of opposing “God’s truth”).

    People actually post incidents involving black people (or the general “reputation” of crime and single mothers on assistance) and instead of it simply being taken as a part of scripture’s teaching on the sinfulness of ALL men, it is taken to imply that they are “bigger sinners” than others.
    They don’t exactly put it that way; I see them phrasing it as “more problems than others”. If all have sinned, then what causes others to differ? Their “culture” has “stayed grounded in God’s Word” or “followed the right principles”. The more monergistic will be sure to credit this to God’s “sovereign choice”. There are “vessels of wrath” and “vessels of mercy”, of course.

    This is still exactly the kind of thing the Israelites thought, (supposedly “confirmed” by the “fact” of something bad happening to the people in question).

    But what does Jesus say to this? Except YOU repent, YOU shall all likewise perish. Considering people are complaining that the nation is going down the drain, He doesn’t say “except THEY repent, you shall likewise perish with them —and because of them”. But that seems to be exactly what modern conservatives believe.

    It’s was an exact same scenario, where you had your impure “dog” race (the Samaritans), the morally lax (prostitutes, etc) and even the “compromisers” within (the Publicans, etc), and the “orthodox” (or “fundamentalist”) religion being allowed to exist and even bearing some power in society, yet being perpetually unhappy with their position and lack of overall respect under the “secular anti-God politicians” (The Roman rulers), and wishing the Messiah to come and smash the system and make them the true kings. And let’s not forget the sect (or “cult”) that did not follow the “faith handed down to our fathers” (Jesus and the Church).
    These are all the things conservatives have been complaining about.

    They believe “what causes them to differ” from others is a “choice” they have made (for many, by “free will”, for some, by “unconditional election”), followed by a “life change” that produces “fruits”. This is in practice construed as a kind of near perfection that gives them the supposed right to set themselves as the standard of moral righteousness (such as sex sin not being openly tolerated in past society, or a more rigid “separatism” among their ranks today), which also then justifies acts that are seen as questionable if not reprehensible by others.

    Like slavery, or mean spiritedness (especially when supplied with proof-texts). That stuff CAN’T be a product of sin or “the old man”, because their lives were “changed”.
    Or so assumed. Actually, they don’t speak that much of the the changed life directly, when speaking of past society. It is just ASSUMED, from them all being good “Christians”. (It would be hard to speak that specifically of people’s spiritual lives when it becomes known that many of our founders were deists or other similar beliefs).

    So while they may uphold the doctrine of the sinfulness of man in theory; in practice, it boils down to the “good” culture as the standard of man, and the “bad” as anyone who deviates from that. This is what we have seen in fundamentalist preaching and much of conservative politics.

    “chosen” mindset:
    US was right no matter what it did to people’s ancestors. We are just supposed to be “thankful” no matter what (for being “saved” from “the jungle”). Only our reaction is wrong today (including, among other things, what they’re calling an “entitlement” mentality).
    Only the people arguing this are allowed to complain about anything they feel is not right.
    (For anyone else, it’s “ungrateful” “entitlement” “whining”, with the aim to “take/get something from us for nothing”).

    Racist sentiment (e.g. general judgments on the sins of the race), are justified when supported by “THE FACTS”. They are touchy on the whole subject, and don’t want to hear about it, until the subject is what blacks are doing wrong, and especially crime and unwed pregnancy statistics that appear to support all their fears, and beliefs that there’s just something wrong with the people (which of course makes all the nation’s earlier treatment of them look justified; after all, what else could be done with such people).

    People ignore racial hierarchy, where European immigrants and even Jews could pass as “white” and thus succeed. None of them were brought over as slaves, with all the brutality and dehumanization that entailed.
    Yet now, people keep saying “these other groups all had it rough, and yet made it”. It just wasn’t the same thing.

    Overall, the whole aim is to maintain the position of America being “the greatest nation on earth”. The past race (and present economic) conditions are big spots on that record, but people just can’t admit it. They have to blame it all on others, whether outsiders (Marxists, etc) or even the victims themselves. (race, economics).

    These good Christian people raised this good nation, and everyone else keeps messing it up.
    If the nation is naturally good, but yet we have these problems (moral and fiscal), then we must isolate the source of the problems. So it must be “Those people” over there— whether racial, political, or lifestyle difference.

    For “conservative Christians” who know man is sinful and cannot create a perfect kingdom; how is this nationalism where they IDENTIFY with something seen as “righteous” and superior seen as compatible with the Gospel?
    They surmise that because God supposedly “blessed” the nation, evidenced by its Christian profession and supposed good works, that that is the proof that “America” issues are apart of the Biblical Gospel. But then rather than the evil works countering this; they are simply baptized under the premise of the inherent righteousness and divine leading of the nation. The result; this is just the chosen nation, and we are due getting it back!

    That is quite an attitude of “entitlement”. It’s amazing that people who believe like this can so easily point at others with the term “entitlement”, but that is classic projection for you.
    How dare you think you’re entitled; when WE really are“. Of course, they don’t put it that way; they make it sound like an entitlement mentality is wrong, but in their rhtoric, they just ARE entitled (by divine providence), and don’t have to put it that way.

    The notion of justifying the ridiculous wealth gap with the insistence that people “deserve” so much abundance, while everyone else suffers (under a paradigm of scarcity; e.g. cutbacks, etc, that is largely illusory); and that they must not be “working hard enough”, and desire for more equality is more wrongful “entitlement” is apart of the “superiority” mindset. It’s basically “might makes right”. Because one has a talent and personality others don’t have, they deserve to have everything, and everyone else is blamed, for not having the same talents, personality or opportunity. Again, the system is right, not matter what.
    It’s the same mindset of “we’re taking you and your land and wealth, and we’re right to do so because we’re stronger” (God has “blessed” us; you’re “lazy” or “cursed” because you’re weaker, etc). And most importantly, “you do not even have the right to complain, or move for solidarity” (pejorated as “whining” or “trying to take something from us”).

    So “work ethic” has becomes the biggest justification for inequity, and the notion of national superiority.
    (It ignores things, such as how capitalism lowers quality at the same time as raising prices. But this is probably just blamed on taxes in one way or another).

    “Work ethic” rhetoric tries to hold up stuff as drastic as a highly unhealthy 20 hour work day as justification for profligate material abundance (while everyone else suffers under a paradigm of scarcity) and then is made into the standard that the others are judged as “not working hard enough” by.

    It’s like we are still in the Ice Age. They used to tell blacks that they should be happy they were “rescued” from “the jungle”; but it seems they were simply brought to an icy version of the jungle. It’s still the same principle of “the survival of the fittest”, and the conservatives can’t admit that their system is just as animalistic.

    (They look at the worst examples of people misusing the assistance system, and largely, kids misbehaving, and pass judgments on the whole race or class; e.g. “they need a ‘work ethic'”).


    They make “Christianity” into a monolithic entity, that overall did good for the world, and the sins people point out are attributed to fallible individuals, but this doesn’t count because of the overall good.
    But there is no entity called “Christianity” in scripture. There’s the Gospel of Christ, and there are fallible humans (including “nations” and “cultures”) who either follow it, or distort and misuse it. They are not to be conflated. The nations and cultures actions are not to be excused under the moniker of “Christianity”.


    The whole thrust of “the lost cause” was the pride of refusing to admit defeat; not only militarily, but also being reproved for wrongdoing morally, regarding slavery. (whether that was even the “primary” issue or not!)
    The focus came to be clearly on the “rights” the opponents were trying to “take away” (and largely in favor of the “undeserving”); thus maintaining their “innocence” and “victimhood”, which led to denying or ignoring anyone else’s rights, especially those which they had been taking away. Therefore no wrong could be admitted on their part, which would be seen as capitulating to the “enemy”; and the tendency would be to demonize others (both their former victims, and their supposed oppressors).

    Again, it’s so ironic that conservatives today frequently condemn a supposed “entitlement mentality” in others! And going back and forth between complaining about taxes, and then telling the less fortunate to “stop whining”; and even having people like Dinesh D’Souza come over getting involved in US political debate, and talking about how blacks use “victim rhetoric” to gain something, but ignoring the tactic as used on the opposite side (and with much more voice and effectiveness).


    More on Collective Unconscious and racism (from http://www.erictb.info/conservativism.html)

    Minorities on welfare and now “illegal aliens from across the southern border” become blamed for all of the nation’s problems, while corporate greed is defended and also blamed on taxes supposedly going to public aid. Even though it can be argued (as Martin Luther King and others began noticing) that class is the successor to race as the means of oppressing the masses, I find that when you try to debate this stuff with conservatives, it always comes back to statistics on single mothers on welfare, and accusations that the person debating them or criticizing corporate greed is himself just lazy and wanting something he did not work for. When the numbers are produced, the denial subsides as “these are the facts” is confidently gloated.

    They call people who disagree with them “enemies of America” and accuse you of spewing “venom” at them, yet they are the ones constantly berating the government and its leaders (and then some groups such as the militias end up making actual physical attacks (Okl. City; or are getting geared up to), and also attacking the character of the person they’re debating.

    I had long noted that conservatives (Christian and otherwise) were guilty of the same things they condemned others over. This is done by an attribution shift. When we complain, it’s “the facts”; when you complain; it’s “whining”. It was so wrong when they thought that the Communists were going to take over the land, but it was OK when the colonizers did the same thing centuries earlier.

    So there is a lot of projection of suppressed consciousness going on. It seems most of these angry conservatives are STJ’s, the dominant type group in society. The most loud and outspoken ones would be ESTJ. Their world view led by a highly aggressive, impersonal extraverted Thinking, the opposite Extraverted Feeling is the perspective of a “Demonic Personality” complex, which is projected onto the “bleeding heart liberals” whose emotive stances (love, peace, unity, equality, etc) and claiming to consider the needs of the less fortunate, becomes seen as the ultimate evil. ISTJ’s (for whom the aforementioned function is connected with another complex, known as the Trickster) likely see them as very bad children, disrupting society with puerile “whining”, and trying to trick them into giving up their hard earned money for those who don’t deserve it. (There are probably a lof of INTJ’s and ENTJ’s, who have the same complex dynamic, in conservativism as well).
    Neither realizes that they are being evil and childish in the very act of pointing at the others.

    Trying to figure a comparable collective unconsciousness for blacks. While whites’ stereotypical “cultural sin” has been racism or superiority, blacks’ stereotypical “cultural sin” has been crime. But these are not quite the same as slavery and institutionalized racism. Those are not collective attacks against another group of people, where we all either commit or benefit from, and thus identify with an institution guilty of crime. Most black crime is against other blacks, and therefore most of us do not justify or uphold the black criminal. Their mothers, friends and some neighbors might coddle them when they get in trouble, but in the rest of the black community, they are looked down on as they would be in any other community.


    Himes points out that the “five fundamentals” were only those they felt were under attack by the “modernists” at the time, and did not include other key doctrines such as salvation by grace alone.
    This proves their whole cause was self-protectionism.

    If one views Christ as the suffering Son of God who came to give His life (though He were really Lord of all, and with the biggest true “entitlement”), then fundamentalism really was not focused on Him at all.
    If one views Him as simply a Lawgiver or war commander, who “calls” people to preach everyone else in line and rule over society, then, in THAT way they were very focused on Him. And this is exactly how the Israelites who rejected Him viewed the Messiah.


    Paul told Timothy to correct, reprove, rebuke, but [old-line fundamentalists] badger everyone [or at least used to; they’ve lost a lot of their voice in recent times, but it can still be heard directed at the modern church, now], and the scriptures never say to do that. If anything, if people are so refusing to listen to us, we’re supposed to shake the dust off our feet. But we stay and badger.
    And then the real motive comes out: we’re trying to “take back” OUR culture. So the real motive is political rather than spiritual.


    “the market”:
    while they claim too high prices that people can’t pay will hurt sales and drive the prices down, if there are certain things that people MUST have, and will have no recourse but to do anything they can to pay whatever it is, then you can charge whatever you want, and not only will people still have to pay; but then all your competitors can safely charge pretty much the same thing.
    (Funerals are one of the most extreme examples that come to mind).

    So while conservatives claim they believe in “standards”, when it comes to economics, the standard is “anything goes” if you have amassed the power in that area.

    The American economy was originally designed to consist of owners and slaves (with perhaps a small body of free workers inbetween). This can even be seen in the modern rhetoric of “lazy workers”, who should “pull their bootstraps” and become owners if they don’t like their economic status now.
    Everyone can’t be an owner. So what will happen in this ideal situation where everyone strives for the top, is that the strongest will make it, and everyone else will be trapped on the bottom, with no government assistance, and not even any unions. It will be like slavery, and then the preachers will come and say that the outcome was decreed by God. i.e. if everyone genuinely tried, but only few made it to the top, then this was God’s will, since He is ultimately “in control” of everything. (Of course, as things are now, where it’s not the ideal situation, and many are perceived as not really trying, they can just continue to blame “laziness”).

    So I see where an argument could be made, that the elimination of slavery is what destabilized the American economy, leading to the fiscal rollercoaster of depressions, recessions, inflation, higher taxes, bigger government, etc. (as well as crime and the erosion of cities).
    It was not designed to have these millions of new “free” men poured out into the system, needing paid jobs. That would strain both the money, as well as the jobs themselves (also leading to both crime and welfare assistance, of course).

    Hence, the apparent strategy of empowering the rich, and stripping down the middle class (and getting them to blame each other, or even the poor below them).

    I often wonder if some conservatives would try to reinstitute slavery.
    The starting point would be the War on Drugs.
    For everyone else without a criminal record, it would be stripping them of all the protection they have as workers, renters, etc. They would not be able to afford the cost of living, and perhaps then be forced into some sort of camps; perhaps emanating out of what are now public housing projects.


    Some pertinent scriptures:

    Acts 17:26 made of one blood men of all nations

    James 3:9 bless God, curse men made in the image of God

    Gal.3:22 Scripture has concluded all under sin

    Rom.3 Are we better than they? (v9) None are righteous (v10); all have sinned and fallen short (v23)

    Phil. 2:3, esteem others as better than ourselves

    1 Thess. 2:15 “contrary to all men ” (people believing themselves to be “chosen” and spending their time putting them down)

  2. Don’t know why I originally tacked this onto the New Jim Crow article. Probably to try to not overstuff this entry.


    Wealthy are never seen as greedy. They deserve everything they get, however they get it. It’s only the slaves, the poor and others on the low end who want to much.
    The outsourcing of jobs are all the unions’ fault for demanding too much; and poor minorities’ fault for demanding tax dollars for welfare.

    This is precisely the mindset of slave drivers. They’re entitled “just because”; everyone else is supposed to just take whatever they get, or they’re the ones to be accused of draining the system.

    A trillion dollar deficit now, and people refuse to believe it has anything to with global corporations and wealth, but instead still focus on “social programs”.

    Reagan in one speech adapted the “Chicken Little” story of a hard working “chicken” versus lazy “pigs and ducks”. A decade later, Limbaugh ally Jim Quinn adapted the “Ant and the Grasshopper” in a similar fashion, where these “grasshoppers”, aided by the “NAAGB”, Oprah and others singing “It isn’t Easy Being Green”, and even “We Shall Overcome” manage to drain the entire ant colony and take all their wealth, which they then allow to deteriorate, so that everyone is destitute.

    The story passed around through racist media in the 90’s, and then resurfaced in recent years cleaned up a bit (like “NAAGB” removed, though the “green bugs” part of it remains), and surfacing all over the conservative blogosphere, with a denial that it is racial, —until they begin citing statistics to support it.

    But if this were true, then what is this saying? That ALL the trillions of dollars are in the hands of these lazy welfare “slugs”. Or now, they add unions, who even though “working”, are apparently no better than the “nonworking”. The banks and auto giants need bailing out, while their officers continue with stuff like $89,000 pheasant hunts, and yet that is not where all the money is going. (More recently, I heard about a $30 million birthday bash!) Again, not where all the money is! They “earned” all of that, so it doesn’t count; and if we would only give them more, then suddenly, our “pie” would magically get bigger, they would reinvest back in the economy, new jobs would be created, the deficit would disappear from the “spending cuts”.

    Conservative Blame Game

    And it’s Obama’s fault for bailing them out (conservatives used to favor “corporate welfare” under the banner of “supply side economics”, now it’s that they should be “allowed to fail”); after all, he was only trying to save the unions, one person tells me, and with the banks; it’s probably just the government trying to take them over.

    I should also mention joke that made the rounds online: Big Business, a Tea Partier and Organized Labor are sitting around a table. A dozen cookies arrive on a plate. Big Business takes eleven of them and says to the Tea Partier, “Pssst! That union guy is trying to steal your cookie!”

    People have bought into all of this hands down; no questions asked, don’t dare dispute it;  as if God shouted it down from the heavens. And now, as things get tighter, every time blacks act up somewhere (as in the latest incident in Wisconsin), they fear some sort of racial attacks, with some instigating the idea.

    When Obama was elected, I though we had finally moved on past this stuff, but now, sometimes, it still looks like we are headed for a race war, as both side take out all their frustrations on each other, the country falling head first into the pit, and the rich elites ride off to somewhere else in the world, probably laughing. Those who go for this aren’t “hard working ants”, they’re blind sheep. And they aren’t industrious chickens; they’re first-rate pigeons!

    Hence, the prediction by Carl T. Rowan, who had hit the nail on the head in his book The Coming Race War, but has since passed on. (Sure wish he was around, and we could see how he would tackle the last few years!)

  3. 5 Things About Slavery You Probably Didn’t Learn In Social Studies: A Short Guide To ‘The Half Has Never Been Told’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/the-half-has-never-been-told_n_6036840.html

    1) Slavery was a key driver of the formation of American wealth.
    2) In its heyday, slavery was more efficient than free labor, contrary to the arguments made by some northerners at the time.
    3) Slavery didn’t just enrich the South, but also drove the industrial boom in the North.
    4) Slavery wasn’t showing any signs of slowing down economically by the time the Civil War came around.
    5) The South seceded to guarantee the expansion of slavery.

    Also, last night on the web; someone actually wants to secede several Southern states (but perhaps not Texas, where a lot of Mexicans are!) in a a new country named “Reagan”!

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/author-wants-southern-states-secede-over-gay-rights-name-new-country-reagan
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/douglas-mackinnon-south-secede-gay-rights-_n_6037274.html

    Ol’ “Lost Cause” continues; now with gay rights becoming the new platform.

    (And we see where even ebola is being blamed on “Ebola Barry” as they’re calling him. Articularly for not stopping all fiights from West Africa, as Trump and others are demanding.
    According to the secessionists in the audio clips, this is ultimately part of a plan to eliminate the dollar and replace it with a continental electronic currency, when all the paper bills become contaminated!)

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Master Directory of Articles « erictb
  2. Book Review: Wallis “Racism: America’s Original Sin” | "ERIPEDIA"

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: