Finally Doug Jones also says that the family too must be colorblind. Jones asserts that interracial marriages are entirely permissible. He asks, “Do parents have a Biblical basis to prohibit such marriages due to race? Parents too must heed the sixth commandment, image of God in man, and consider others better than themselves. For parents to forbid such a marriage solely on the basis of race is sinful. The church would be in its proper jurisdiction if it counseled and ultimately disciplined the parents for their sinful attitudes.”
Really? This is perhaps the most tortured reasoning of the whole piece. Do we honestly think that we must hate everyone we wouldn’t want our daughter to marry? And where does Jones get the idea that the church has any authority to intervene? We read in Numbers 30 that a father has the right to refuse his daughter for any reason whatsoever. There are no qualifications listed for when she may go behind his back. Certainly Jones’ idea subverts the biblical authority of the father from some ill-conceived authority of the church. Would Jones discipline Isaac and Rebekah for not approving of Esau marrying Canaanites? (Gen. 26:34-35, 27:46)
Another problem is that Jones completely leaves out the fifth commandment that we are to “Honor thy father and thy mother.” The immediate application of the fifth commandment is that it would certainly be dishonoring to our parents to simply go against their wishes in marrying someone who they did not approve of. There are many times in the Bible when we are commanded to obey our parents. Christ rebuked the Pharisees by voiding the requirement of children to obey their parents through their own tradition (Matt. 15:3-6, Mk. 7:9-13). Paul commands children to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1-3, Col. 3:20) and lists those who are "disobedient to parents" with those who are unrighteous and unholy (Rom. 1:30, 2 Ti. 3:2). A broader application of the fifth commandment is that we ought to honor our fathers and mothers or our ancestors in general. This is why the fifth commandment ends with “that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” (Ex. 20:12) Not everyone who dishonors their parents dies young and not everyone who honors their parents lives long. This speaks of the collective prosperity of the people or nation. If the nation does not regard its ancestors, heritage, and birthright it is destined to forfeit them.
Bearing this in mind, it is important that people keep this in mind when selecting a mate. It is unbiblical to think that ones heritage does not matter. Interracial marriage often is the result from pride and disregard for one’s ancestors and heritage. A specific application of this is made in the apocryphal book of Tobit: “Beware of all whoredom, my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father's tribe: for we are the children of the prophets, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: remember, my son, that our fathers from the beginning, even that they all married wives of their own kindred, and were blessed in their children, and their seed shall inherit the land. Now therefore, my son, love thy brethren, and despise not in thy heart thy brethren, the sons and daughters of thy people, in not taking a wife of them: for in pride is destruction and much trouble, and in lewdness is decay and great want: for lewdness is the mother of famine.” (Tobit 4:12-13) Occasional intermarriage won’t kill a family or a nation, but a disregard for the heritage of one’s ancestors sure will.
A similar application could be made in adoption as well. The law stipulated that if adoption were necessary then it would be carried out by near relatives. An example of this is the law of levirate marriage that was designed to prevent familial property and inheritance from being removed from tribe to tribe. (Num. 36:1-13) Another example is Esther who was raised by her cousin Mordecai (Esther 2:7). When whites adopt colored children from the world over, they take them from their native people and heritage and try to change them into whites. Adoption is a necessary reality today, but for these reasons should probably be confined to one’s own ethnicity and people.
We ought to view race as simply an extension of the family. When faith and folk come together, it often leads to the best expression of both of them. How sad is it to see the modern church blur the lines of family, kinship, and race in order to keep up with the times. No matter how stubbornly people today try to deny the importance of race, it will continually dominate our lives. The best thing for Christians to do is to come to terms with the biblical view of race and kinship.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Race and the Church
Jones next asserts that the church must also be colorblind. The church should not restrict access to anyone from communion who can “partake worthily.” This is fine to an extent. I don’t have a problem with church congregations with multiple races receiving communion. I do believe that many of the same principles mentioned above would equally apply to the church. God gave hereditary requirements for the priesthood in the OT, and it is natural for parishioners to prefer leadership of their own race, ethnicity, and culture. This is why so many people attend churches in which one race is the dominant race.
In the antebellum south, southern whites took their Negro slaves to church with them. This was a fine arrangement since blacks did not serve as voting members of the congregation or serve in church government except in black churches. After the War Between the States, many white southerners became nervous that integration of the churches would harm unity among parishioners. Often the solution involved helping blacks establish their own churches. Ultimately southern whites and blacks achieved far friendlier relations when there was no delusion of equality in the south. Integration hurt that relationship more than anything else.
Another problem with Jones’ premise is that most conservative churches tend to be dominated by one race or another. Often churches that are multiracial tend also to be pluralistic in doctrine and practice. The megachurches are the ones who achieve the most racial diversity. It is these churches that set aside all doctrinal and theological differences in order to achieve a false sense of unity or togetherness. Incidentally, the church is still one of the most segregated institutions that we have in America. This only confirms the fact that this is the most natural arrangement.
I agree that churches should not restrict communion solely on the basis of race. However I think that it is natural and biblical for different races to worship separately. To forcibly integrate churches causes disunity and lack of trust. History shows that churches flourish best when they are dominated by one race or another.
In the antebellum south, southern whites took their Negro slaves to church with them. This was a fine arrangement since blacks did not serve as voting members of the congregation or serve in church government except in black churches. After the War Between the States, many white southerners became nervous that integration of the churches would harm unity among parishioners. Often the solution involved helping blacks establish their own churches. Ultimately southern whites and blacks achieved far friendlier relations when there was no delusion of equality in the south. Integration hurt that relationship more than anything else.
Another problem with Jones’ premise is that most conservative churches tend to be dominated by one race or another. Often churches that are multiracial tend also to be pluralistic in doctrine and practice. The megachurches are the ones who achieve the most racial diversity. It is these churches that set aside all doctrinal and theological differences in order to achieve a false sense of unity or togetherness. Incidentally, the church is still one of the most segregated institutions that we have in America. This only confirms the fact that this is the most natural arrangement.
I agree that churches should not restrict communion solely on the basis of race. However I think that it is natural and biblical for different races to worship separately. To forcibly integrate churches causes disunity and lack of trust. History shows that churches flourish best when they are dominated by one race or another.
Race and The State
Here Jones attempts to apply the principle that racism is wrong to social spheres. If Jones’ reasoning has been tenuous until this point it gets worse as he tries to apply it. His first institution that he looks at is the state. He says that “The Sixth commandment, in particular, applies to the state as well as to the individual. Hence, the state may not legislate in a way which deems one racial group inferior to another.” He also says that “the state is to be a color blind institution, not giving preference to one race over another.” He cites some scripture to back his claim. We read in Deuteronomy 1:16-17 “I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellowcountryman, or the alien who is with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God’s” and in Leviticus 24:22 “There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God.” Doug Jones interprets this to mean that all differentiation of the government by race is inherently wrong.
Is this what these passages mean? No, the fairness in judgment refers to penalties for committing crimes. Let’s use murder as an example since we’ve already discussed it regarding the sixth commandment. God’s word says that murder deserves the death penalty (Numbers 35:31). Suppose I am temporarily in Japan for whatever reason and I murder someone who is Japanese. Suppose in a different case I am in Japan and someone who is Japanese murders me. Both should receive equal punishment. Since everyone is equally human, each life should be regarded the same. It would be unbiblical for the government of Japan to legislate that a white person who killed a Japanese person would be executed, but a Japanese person who murders a white person would only receive five years imprisonment. I think that this concept is easy enough for everyone to grasp. This ties in well with the common descent of man and the sixth commandment.
But is this the same if a government would decide that voting and full citizenship privileges should be confined to a certain race or ethnicity? No, in fact this has been how governments have traditionally operated in all ages excepting our own. The very first law in independant America establishing citizenship was the Naturalization Act passed on March 26, 1790 which limited citizenship to "free white persons." This law reflects the attitudes of most every country in the history of the world by limiting citizenship to one racial/ethnic group. Those who believe that America was founded as a proposition nation have no basis in fact. Former President Theodore Roosevelt once said "We are a nation, and not a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities. We are a people, and not a polyglot boardinghouse...We are a new nation, by blood akin to but different from every one of the nations of Europe." Jones’ assertion that governments are required to be colorblind is completely unnatural, untenable, and unbiblical. Why should a government be required to admit citizenship to all within its borders indiscriminately?
Take for example the legendary king of England, King Arthur. A common title for King Arthur was “King of the Britons” not king of some island or place. The king’s subjects are his people, and he is required to serve their best interests. This was in the days before governments were defined in terms of latitudes and longitudes but rather by the people that were governed. Moreover this form of government is biblical. We read in Deuteronomy 17:15 “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” Those who govern us should be among our brethren and not a stranger or a foreigner. Somehow this was left out of the discussion regarding race and the state by Doug Jones. Was the government that Israel had racist in Jones’ opinion? Another problem is that long before man tried to set up a society and a government that was colorblind at the Tower of Babel, and God intentionally scattered these people (Gen. 11:6-8).
An application of kinship based government is that this fosters feelings of trust and respect among the governed. Early America was a semi-aristocratic society in which the most respectable American families held power. People could for the most part trust their governors and magistrates because they knew their families and their backgrounds were similar. Kinship based government is also the best way to guarantee that civil liberties and rights are preserved. The Magna Carta specifically enumerated the rights and freedoms of Englishmen of all classes based on their kinship. Conversely when the people under a government have nothing in common in terms of family, culture, ethnicity, and religion this gives the government occasion to act tyrannically for the “common good.” Clearly history and the Bible show that kinship based government is the most preferable and beneficial. Besides, if governments that discriminate on the basis of race are unrighteous, so too was Old Testament Israel. We ought to follow the example that God gives us in the Bible regarding human civil government. Colorblind governments always degenerate into humanism based upon the worship of man.
Is this what these passages mean? No, the fairness in judgment refers to penalties for committing crimes. Let’s use murder as an example since we’ve already discussed it regarding the sixth commandment. God’s word says that murder deserves the death penalty (Numbers 35:31). Suppose I am temporarily in Japan for whatever reason and I murder someone who is Japanese. Suppose in a different case I am in Japan and someone who is Japanese murders me. Both should receive equal punishment. Since everyone is equally human, each life should be regarded the same. It would be unbiblical for the government of Japan to legislate that a white person who killed a Japanese person would be executed, but a Japanese person who murders a white person would only receive five years imprisonment. I think that this concept is easy enough for everyone to grasp. This ties in well with the common descent of man and the sixth commandment.
But is this the same if a government would decide that voting and full citizenship privileges should be confined to a certain race or ethnicity? No, in fact this has been how governments have traditionally operated in all ages excepting our own. The very first law in independant America establishing citizenship was the Naturalization Act passed on March 26, 1790 which limited citizenship to "free white persons." This law reflects the attitudes of most every country in the history of the world by limiting citizenship to one racial/ethnic group. Those who believe that America was founded as a proposition nation have no basis in fact. Former President Theodore Roosevelt once said "We are a nation, and not a hodge-podge of foreign nationalities. We are a people, and not a polyglot boardinghouse...We are a new nation, by blood akin to but different from every one of the nations of Europe." Jones’ assertion that governments are required to be colorblind is completely unnatural, untenable, and unbiblical. Why should a government be required to admit citizenship to all within its borders indiscriminately?
Take for example the legendary king of England, King Arthur. A common title for King Arthur was “King of the Britons” not king of some island or place. The king’s subjects are his people, and he is required to serve their best interests. This was in the days before governments were defined in terms of latitudes and longitudes but rather by the people that were governed. Moreover this form of government is biblical. We read in Deuteronomy 17:15 “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” Those who govern us should be among our brethren and not a stranger or a foreigner. Somehow this was left out of the discussion regarding race and the state by Doug Jones. Was the government that Israel had racist in Jones’ opinion? Another problem is that long before man tried to set up a society and a government that was colorblind at the Tower of Babel, and God intentionally scattered these people (Gen. 11:6-8).
An application of kinship based government is that this fosters feelings of trust and respect among the governed. Early America was a semi-aristocratic society in which the most respectable American families held power. People could for the most part trust their governors and magistrates because they knew their families and their backgrounds were similar. Kinship based government is also the best way to guarantee that civil liberties and rights are preserved. The Magna Carta specifically enumerated the rights and freedoms of Englishmen of all classes based on their kinship. Conversely when the people under a government have nothing in common in terms of family, culture, ethnicity, and religion this gives the government occasion to act tyrannically for the “common good.” Clearly history and the Bible show that kinship based government is the most preferable and beneficial. Besides, if governments that discriminate on the basis of race are unrighteous, so too was Old Testament Israel. We ought to follow the example that God gives us in the Bible regarding human civil government. Colorblind governments always degenerate into humanism based upon the worship of man.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The Biblical Offense of Racism?
Doug Jones pretends to give a biblical answer to “racism” here, called The Biblical Offense of Racism. He states his major premise that although “non-Christians may condemn racism, they have no justifiable ethical basis on which to do so” and that “the word of God not only specifies our obligation to be color-blind, but it prescribes how this obligation applies to society.” As a kinist, I agree with Jones that nonbelievers have no basis to condemn anyone of racism. This is because the non-Christian worldview is inadequate to explain human existence and experience, and has no basis for morality. Correctly Jones looks to the word of God to answer moral questions that pertain to our society. Where Jones and I (as well as other kinists) diverge is when he asserts that Christians are obligated to be “color blind.” Jones claims that Christians should not discriminate on the basis of race under any circumstances, and that this has ramifications for the family, church, and state. I would also point out that Jones openly admits that "Neither collectivists nor traditionalists will be pleased." This means that Jones believes that the traditionalist view (the way America has operated for 350 years) is wrong and unbiblical. Let’s examine Jones’ argument as well as how he applies this to these institutions.
Before we actually look at what Jones says about “racism” I would criticize Jones for not defining racism. What exactly does racism mean? If Jones hasn’t defined exactly what he’s condemning does that mean that he lumps everyone who might be considered “racist” today into a single category? Are neo-Nazis or World War II era Japanese imperialists really indistinguishable from 19th century American Confederates? This question looms large throughout Jones’ exposition as he fails to account for divergent viewpoints. There are several complex viewpoints on race, many of which are unbiblical, however it seems as though Jones would have us believe that there are really only two viewpoints, racism and so-called colorblindness.
Jones begins by outlining several non-Christian arguments against racism. I’m not particularly interested in these arguments since we can simply agree that any non-Christian worldview from which they stem is inadequate. What is really important is a Christian perspective on race, kinship, and people and its application to our current situation here in America. Jones attempts to explain his biblical case against racism.
Jones is correct in stating that Christ redeems his Church out of “every tribe, tongue, and nation” (Rev. 5:9) and that God “rules over the nations” (Ps. 22:28). However I would dispute his claim that “The gospel makes race insignificant.” I believe that race or kinship is important in everyone’s life and is the primary way to define ourselves in terms of culture and heritage. Jones continues by stating his case for why the Bible makes race irrelevant by telling us that “ethical imperatives of scripture would prohibit racist practices and attitudes.”
Jones addresses the sixth commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as the first biblical argument against racism. It is true that the sixth commandment does not condemn only murder to also murderous attitudes and behaviors. It is Jones’ belief that racism falls into this category. He cites the Westminster Larger Catechism to explain further his reasoning. Question 136 explaining the sixth commandment says that this condemns “sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge...provoking words, oppression...striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.” I would qualify this by saying that the WLC is actually condemning is unrighteous anger and hatred, not anger and hatred indiscriminately. For more information on righteous anger and hatred, I would counsel readers to consult Rev. John Weaver’s sermon: The Biblical Doctrine of Hatred. Moreover the catechism exhorts us to “charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent” (Q. 135). It is certainly true that people can have attitudes that are genuinely hateful to others in an unbiblical manner, and that these attitudes can be leveled against an entire race of people. However I think that Jones’ appeal to the sixth commandment is misapplied in the situations he discusses as the article moves on. The sixth commandment condemns unbiblical, ungodly hatred, period. The attitudes that Jones defines as racist simply do not qualify, in spite of Jones’ boisterous claim “To be a racist is to be a killer.”
Next Jones makes his second case against racism from the Bible. He claims that racism is wrong because God made “of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26, cf. Gen. 3:20). Furthermore because everyone descends from Adam and Eve that means that everyone is created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26). Kinists do not dispute this and agree that everyone is fully human regardless of their race. But what has Jones really proved? After all, atheistic Darwinists believe in a monogenic descent for all humanity too. Atheists today believe that everybody is related to everybody, thus this is not a distinguishing facet of the Christian worldview. What sets humans apart from animals is that we are made in the image of God. This is why it is wrong to murder or to treat someone spitefully as stated in the sixth commandment.
Finally Jones claims that racism contradicts Paul when he says “let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). This is really just encouraging Christians not to be selfish or avaricious, we ought to put others above ourselves. Philippians chapter 2 is not addessing the question of race at all. Paul is simply encouraging Christians to be courteous and humble. Surely one can maintain a kind and Christian disposition toward other races without having to acknowledge universal equality.
In examining Doug Jones' proof texts it is clear that he has no basis for condemning what he calls "racism" on so little evidence. What motivates Jones anyway? The answer is obvious. Today one must give lip service to the notion of "colorblindness" in order to maintain credibility with the public at large. If one advocates that interracial marriage and transracial adoption are inadvisable and that America should be a white country, then this is grounds for becoming ostrocized as a terrible bigot. What a shame to see that the church is simply changing with the times on this issue rather than standing up for what is right.
Before we actually look at what Jones says about “racism” I would criticize Jones for not defining racism. What exactly does racism mean? If Jones hasn’t defined exactly what he’s condemning does that mean that he lumps everyone who might be considered “racist” today into a single category? Are neo-Nazis or World War II era Japanese imperialists really indistinguishable from 19th century American Confederates? This question looms large throughout Jones’ exposition as he fails to account for divergent viewpoints. There are several complex viewpoints on race, many of which are unbiblical, however it seems as though Jones would have us believe that there are really only two viewpoints, racism and so-called colorblindness.
Jones begins by outlining several non-Christian arguments against racism. I’m not particularly interested in these arguments since we can simply agree that any non-Christian worldview from which they stem is inadequate. What is really important is a Christian perspective on race, kinship, and people and its application to our current situation here in America. Jones attempts to explain his biblical case against racism.
Jones is correct in stating that Christ redeems his Church out of “every tribe, tongue, and nation” (Rev. 5:9) and that God “rules over the nations” (Ps. 22:28). However I would dispute his claim that “The gospel makes race insignificant.” I believe that race or kinship is important in everyone’s life and is the primary way to define ourselves in terms of culture and heritage. Jones continues by stating his case for why the Bible makes race irrelevant by telling us that “ethical imperatives of scripture would prohibit racist practices and attitudes.”
Jones addresses the sixth commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as the first biblical argument against racism. It is true that the sixth commandment does not condemn only murder to also murderous attitudes and behaviors. It is Jones’ belief that racism falls into this category. He cites the Westminster Larger Catechism to explain further his reasoning. Question 136 explaining the sixth commandment says that this condemns “sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge...provoking words, oppression...striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.” I would qualify this by saying that the WLC is actually condemning is unrighteous anger and hatred, not anger and hatred indiscriminately. For more information on righteous anger and hatred, I would counsel readers to consult Rev. John Weaver’s sermon: The Biblical Doctrine of Hatred. Moreover the catechism exhorts us to “charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent” (Q. 135). It is certainly true that people can have attitudes that are genuinely hateful to others in an unbiblical manner, and that these attitudes can be leveled against an entire race of people. However I think that Jones’ appeal to the sixth commandment is misapplied in the situations he discusses as the article moves on. The sixth commandment condemns unbiblical, ungodly hatred, period. The attitudes that Jones defines as racist simply do not qualify, in spite of Jones’ boisterous claim “To be a racist is to be a killer.”
Next Jones makes his second case against racism from the Bible. He claims that racism is wrong because God made “of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26, cf. Gen. 3:20). Furthermore because everyone descends from Adam and Eve that means that everyone is created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26). Kinists do not dispute this and agree that everyone is fully human regardless of their race. But what has Jones really proved? After all, atheistic Darwinists believe in a monogenic descent for all humanity too. Atheists today believe that everybody is related to everybody, thus this is not a distinguishing facet of the Christian worldview. What sets humans apart from animals is that we are made in the image of God. This is why it is wrong to murder or to treat someone spitefully as stated in the sixth commandment.
Finally Jones claims that racism contradicts Paul when he says “let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). This is really just encouraging Christians not to be selfish or avaricious, we ought to put others above ourselves. Philippians chapter 2 is not addessing the question of race at all. Paul is simply encouraging Christians to be courteous and humble. Surely one can maintain a kind and Christian disposition toward other races without having to acknowledge universal equality.
In examining Doug Jones' proof texts it is clear that he has no basis for condemning what he calls "racism" on so little evidence. What motivates Jones anyway? The answer is obvious. Today one must give lip service to the notion of "colorblindness" in order to maintain credibility with the public at large. If one advocates that interracial marriage and transracial adoption are inadvisable and that America should be a white country, then this is grounds for becoming ostrocized as a terrible bigot. What a shame to see that the church is simply changing with the times on this issue rather than standing up for what is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)