Here is an
issue that has permeated our society. Everyone has an opinion and most everyone
would freely admit that they are not racist. I am here to say that I may be
one. Already I have enflamed tensions inside you! Preconceived ideas about who
I am and what I believe are swirling in your head! Why is this word so divisive
and where did it come from? I have heard preachers in churches that I love and
respect talk about what the Bible has to say about racism usually involving the
Good Samaritan story and the overarching principle of the Lord’s grace and love
being available through the blood of the cross for all mankind. I will contend
that none of this has anything to do with the term racism. As a matter of fact the Bible says nothing at all
about racism nor does any other religion under the sun. Now I know you think I
am completely ignorant and crazy, but hang on and let me explain. Let’s unpack
the whole modern conception of the term by evaluating where the term came from.
It may surprise people to realize that the term does not exist in the English
language until 1936. The description of what was done by the Nazi Regime is
where it came from. It is important to remember what was the bedrock of
Hitler’s horrible regime? It was socialism (more on that later because this new
“ism” of racism is directly related to it). Hitler did not start off as a
tyrant, quite the contrary he was someone the German people thought would bring
hope. He built German infrastructure, created Volkswagen, paved roads, promised
free health care and a new economic recovery for an impoverished German people.
In order to have power he needed someone to blame for all of Germany’s problems
and that fell on the Jews (or the wealthy). Thus the term racist was born. Socialism
became a dictatorship and the worst mass killing of a single race of people in
modern history was about to unfold. Since part of Hitler’s devious nature was
to have a “master race” the term was easily coined.
Now that we
have a little background let’s dig further into this discussion by defining the
term with two modern definitions of the term. Here are two from Webster’s and
the World English dictionary.
|
—
n
|
|
|
1.
|
the
belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by
hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic
superiority over others
|
|
2.
|
abusive
or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such
a belief
|
|
racialism
or
racialism
|
|
Noun
1.
A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various
human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the
idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
3.
Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Let’s break
down the definition and see where we stand on this issue. Now let’s remember
that the term has not existed for most of human history and even a third of the
way through the 20th century. This is particularly relevant while we
are evaluating the terms perceived far- reaching moral implications. Both
definitions allude to a belief in differences culturally in different races.
Now this part of the definition is where people get tripped up that are
conservative. Now personally I do believe different people have different gifts
from the Lord and there are differences in what we desire to achieve and
culture and family play a role in that. No I do not believe that the desires
that some have are based upon societal expectations I do believe people are
different in certain areas. I believe
that we use the various gifts in different ways for the glory of our Lord and
savior Jesus Christ. I would like to use the Bible to discuss the topics of
talents, gifts, people groups, sin and its consequences, and relate these
things to the modern day term of racism. Let us start with talents and gifts. First off we have the parable of the talents
in the New Testament (Although a “talent” referred to a sum of money back then.),
however the scripture in Matthew chapter 25 gives us a picture of how the Lord
alone decides who gets what and how much. Here is Mathew 25: 24-28 saying…
Then the man
who had received one talent came ‘Master’ he said I knew you were a hard man
harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not gathered
seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here
is what belongs to you. His master replied “you wicked and lazy servant!” So
you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not
scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the
bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
Take the talent form him and give it to the one who has ten talents. For
everyone who has will be given more and he will have an abundance.
The end of
the parable states that he took from the one who had only one talent and gave
to the good and faithful servant who had ten. (Not exactly what socialists had
in mind?) Now this does not refer to races of people it does illustrate the
point that the Lord gives based upon abilities and gifts that the Lord has
ordained. The other important part of this parable is the statement that the
master harvests where he has not sown.
This illustrates the point that the Lord has reserved the right to
allocate resources as he sees fit even giving to those that are already in
abundance. Another point is that it clearly defines that even the fields that
you work are His before they are yours. Here
is a brief point about socialism there are two things that make the scripture
incompatible with socialists or progressives: First, is that the Lord reserves
the right to give abundantly to the wealthy if He sees fit. Second, the results
of your labor are the Lords before they are even ours. Therefore by taking
wealth or land from some, and keeping it, or giving to those socialists deem
worthy they are attempting to replace God’s will with their own. Progressives
always believe that they know better than anyone how to create a successful
society. This scripture also illustrates the principles of eternity and the
desire for the Lord to give HIS abundance to HIS children. (This parable refers
to the kingdom of heaven but clearly has some wisdom for how the Lord operates
here on earth.) Therefore we can
conclude that there are various degrees of material resources given by our Lord
based upon His will as well as the abilities He gave us. I am not making this
point to say that resources are based upon race. The point I am trying to make
is that regardless of how unfair it appears on the surface the Bible is clear
that He is in charge and sovereign over everything and therefore it is not the
job of man to decide who gets what and the recognition of that fact does not
make you a bigot. I want to go to I
Corinthians chapter 12: 18-23
But in
fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he
wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it
is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand,”I don’t
need you!” One the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker is
indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with
special honor.
This
scripture is referring to the total body of Christians and since it is my view
that the Lord wishes to save all mankind this is a proper illustration on how
He would will His people to act. Again this is not based upon race, but is an
illustration of how the Lord ordains the abilities that we can bring to the table
in regards to fellowship with all believers and therefore has a direct
correlation on what job or jobs we are to do for Him. The first scripture dealt
with resources that are monetary. This is dealing with ability such as
leadership, prophecy, teaching, and mercy; basically all of the gifts of the
spirit. I know this is referring to the church but, it is keeping with my point
that people are differing in abilities which will manifest itself in earthly
results. Remember the Lord does not differentiate between gifts; it is man and
his wickedness that deems leadership above service. Our lack of understanding
of the eternal does not make God somehow unfair. The second scripture deals
with people’s results or achievements here on earth and I am continuing to say
that race does not play a factor so it seems as if this is not relevant to our
discussion but it is. I would like to briefly go back and break down the modern
definition of racism and its ramifications. You will find that if you
acknowledge differences in abilities from one person to another and assign
those differences as hereditary or spiritually originated you are branded a
racist. The reason for this is the second part of the above mentioned
definition which again states “Usually involving the idea that one’s race is
superior and has the right to rule over others.” Listen to what is being said
here. The first part is declaring that the belief in these cultural differences
can manifest themselves in results is racist because it USUALLY involves one’s
race believing they have the right to rule. Now to every fair minded person the
second part of the definition discussing one’s superiority over another is the
part that is morally offensive to our Lord. Notice how the first part of the
definition tries to prove the second part. As if the way of thinking that I
have displayed, is dangerous because it can lead to an attitude of superiority.
It would be great (for the progressive) if the definition could have said that
the first part always leads to the second part, but if does not always end in
oppression. It is clear that part one does not have a constant correlation to
the result alluded to; therefore the definition is theoretical at best and
irrational at worst if taken to the levels that we now see today. This is clearly
an attempt to state that what I think in regards to where resources and
abilities come from will result in my attempt to persecute others if I am able.
Clearly this has happened, but I will contend that sin and a life apart from
Jesus Christ opens the door for these sinful usurpations of people’s natural
rights not merely the acknowledgement that I believe my point to be true. More
on this later but I want to get back to the scripture. Paul, in the book of I Corinthians, has
eloquently stated that in the body of Christ the equality of ourselves in our
human condition of sin will keep us from exalting ourselves above another
brother because of earthly blessings. The least shall be first and exalted on
high. There is gratitude to be a part of the family of God no matter where you
are placed.
Let’s turn
to the issue of people groups and see whether abilities, sins, or blessings are
given or taken away in a generational or multi generational way. That’s a
different way of saying that the sins or blessings of the father will fall on
the son. We can know through the example of the Israelites in the book of Numbers
14:18-23
The Lord is slow to anger, abounding
in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty
unpunished: he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third
and fourth generation. In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of
these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt
until now. The Lord replied, “I have forgiven them, as you asked, Nevertheless,
as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth,
not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in
Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times not one of
them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers.
First of all, what a glorious picture of
salvation, grace, mercy and the consequences of sin. (I would love to unpack
all of that, but I can do that another time.) We do see that the people of the
Israelite race were dealt with collectively in regards to the promises of God
that dealt with the people of God. One whole generation including Moses was to
die off before that race could enter into the Promised Land given by God. Do
not misunderstand me here this has nothing to do with how many out of that
generation will see the kingdom of heaven that was and is an individual and
personal decision between the Lord and the individual. This passage clearly
indicates a multi-generational approach to the consequences of sin as well as
the blessings of God in regards to the things of God here on earth, again none
of this dictates whether an individual chooses to receive Jesus Christ as
his/her personal savior that is a personal matter. I want to pause right here
and dive into sin real quick. This is really where you can see the term racism
running afoul of the scripture. We all here statistics about crime in certain
neighborhoods that are predominantly a certain color. The progressive will
immediately talk about the reasons for this is social or socio-economic. They
will claim that the system of government we have has aided and abetted the
crime in an area. They will talk about more education and more access to
services that could help the poor and on and on. Now it is possible that some
of these things could be improved, but what if you believe that these areas are
not the root cause of the problems in that community. You might get away with
discussing the need for spiritual outlets or an increase in job training, but
what if your explanation went deeper then that. What if you began to discuss
the fatherlessness rate being exponentially higher in that community, and then
stated that generations of this epidemic have caused this and made it known
that this particular group of people had a larger problem in that area than
your particular group of people. You would immediately get called a racist or
being stereotypical, close minded or maybe even a hate monger. Even if your
information is accurate your hypothesis on what the problem is would be
invalid, why? Simply stated the word sin cannot exist in the discussion. This
is the real reason that the definition of the term is worded as it is. Because
any mention of particular sin that does in fact have very real multi-generational
consequences is viewed as a racist statement and therefore invalid. The reason
is that it violates their definition of the term, because it states that there
are sins that were brought in by previous generations and if unchecked will
have the exact same results in that family or community. Remember they don’t
believe in cultural distinctives, which do mirror sin. That is why you cannot
point out sin. I will attest that since we are sheep who have all gone astray
we will act exactly like we are shown to do unless the Lord teaches us another
way. This principle will manifest itself generation after generation in a
family, race of people or culture good or bad.
Based on
what we can gleam from the Bible we can deduce three important points relevant
to our discussion. Number one, contrary to modern progressive views there is an
almighty omnipotent creator and he does have something to say about the talents
and gifts that people have. Number two, we can see that the Lord takes sin very
seriously and punishes accordingly. Number three, consequences to sin can have
an effect that is directly linked to race and/or family lineage. My point is
that the Lord does not comment on “racism”, but he does comment on his sole
sovereignty in regards to wealth, spiritual gifts, sin, people groups and
consequences for sin. The point of all of these scripture references is to
point out that the modern day liberal will tell you that your belief in why and
how people receive gifts and talents is based upon an elitist and racist
position. What they are really saying is that if you believe that our creator
endows us with certain gifts and they are tied to ancestry in some ways or you
understand that sin does attack whole races of people then you are morally
wrong and a racist. They presuppose the assumption that since some have used
this attitude to oppress others therefore the belief in some hereditary links
to results means you do have an attitude of superiority. They will make you
believe that you cannot have one without the other. This is not only wrong but
not congruent with the scripture.
Another
reason the definition of “racism” is not compatible with scripture is it does
not deal with the issue of sin and people groups (which I alluded to in the
last paragraph). A lot of our modern definitions, especially this topic of racism,
completely ignore sin and its consequences. This is a major reason for why
liberals and socialists can justify their positions because they can ignore Biblical
truths. We have seen through scripture that sin is real and has far reaching
implications for whole groups of people. I could give more evidence
scripturally on this issue but you can do that on your own time suffice to say
there is insurmountable Biblical evidence to support the idea that the Lord
gives and takes away from families, races and nations based upon His will and
the sin or righteousness of that group of people.
So we have
established three things. One, that racism is a modern term. Two, what that
modern definition is. And three, what the Bible has to say about a portion of
the definition. So what does all this mean? In my view it is almost a self
evident truth that races and people groups are different from one another not
only in customs, but in abilities as well. We have been taught that this
viewpoint amounts to a morally flawed statement. I will contend that this is
morally offensive and wrong only to the progressive. There is no moral
statement of superiority or any hint of adding or subtracting from the equality
of man under heaven in relation to God in that statement. It is a statement
based upon simple observations of the people you meet and sizing that up with a
common sense approach to the history of that people group as well as your own.
Where did such a benign statement become something that is as morally wrong as
the violation of the Ten Commandments? The simple answer is that those who are
progressive have created the term, the definition for the term and how you are
to use it. Therefore they have created a new set of moral maxims in regards to
the topic of racism and have demanded that we tow the line. As usual people do
not want to discuss the topic of sin. Christians and conservatives alike know
that holding malice in your heart towards another human being for any reason at
all is SIN not “racism”. The
progressive has to create this new morality and dismantle the old one because
they cannot achieve power without racism. This goes back to the old Soviet
system and Karl Marx who used these same set of rules with different terms.
There was not the term racism, but classism was then created. People were
divided into two groups of haves and have-nots (proletariat and the
bourgeoisie). Just like today, the rules of what was acceptable to believe and
speak about were set in place. Not dissimilar to a new and twisted doctrine of
a new faith. Lastly, both movements must use the new morality that they have
created to replace the set of precepts that we have always held to such as the Constitution
and the Ten Commandments. Socialism, liberty and Christianity cannot coexist
because socialism in its infancy always imitates the other two before
eliminating them when it is all grown up until a totalitarian regime. This is
why it is so easy to find moral flaws in socialism because all of their morality
is in opposition to the Bible’s set of precepts. Once you realize the truth about the history
of progressives and the Bible and incorporate that into how you see the world
they cannot deceive you anymore. Moreover, you prove them wrong by not espousing
venomous hate towards people groups. Just the antithesis happens. Your wisdom
of others gifts and your joy in the Lord allows you to honor the “diversity”
and revel in it as Christ ordained. It amazes me that liberals have hi-jacked
the term “diversity” yet in there very definition of racism they concede that
there is not significant difference in abilities between people groups that we
can admire. Diversity cannot exist in order for socialism to progress anyway.
If people believe in the sovereign Lord and grow grateful for our gifts, we
then embrace our brothers in Christ that can do things that we can’t, and
rejoice for their abilities. Then the idea that we need a government to make
things equal is unnecessary. Equality of results becomes unwanted because we
know that these things do not square up with the character of our Lord.
Moreover we see that freedom from sin and tyranny may require risk (in regards
to monetary security) the reward is worth it. An example of this principle in
scripture comes from Paul who in Philippians wrote;
“I know what it is to be in need, and I know
what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any
and every situation whether well fed or hungry whether living in plenty or in
want. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
Paul had a
peace that surpasses all understanding. Therefore, the idea of equality of
results and status would have robbed him of the tremendous journey that the
Lord brought him through. Do you really believe Paul would have traded his life
in the Lord for comfort from the Roman government? The answer is a resounding,
no! (Remember that was an option for Paul because he was a Roman citizen.) To
conclude let’s break this down into two categories the new morality and the
Christian morality. The new morality does not allow for differences in
abilities endowed by a creator. Christian morality does. The new morality
creates right and wrong based upon social morals and whether you adhere to
them. Christian morality bases moral maxims on the law of the Old Testament,
and the grace of the New Testament. (Actually the whole Bible is a picture of
grace, but that is another topic.) The new morality says that if we make sure
everyone from every ethnic group has exactly the same results then we will all
achieve peace and happiness. The Christian morality says that peace that
surpasses all understanding comes from the Lord (paraphrase from Philippians).To
sum up the new morality bases everything
on what we can create the Christian morality bases everything on what the Lord
can bestow upon us, beginning with the forgiveness of sins.
To conclude
this is not an anti-capitalist agenda either. To the contrary capitalism allows
for all of these things to be worked out by the Lord without the impediment of
government intrusion. Ultimately, the only way that we can have freedom from
sin including the sin of hatred and elitism towards others is through the
saving grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. This same freedom from sin can exist in
a nation in the form of freedom from tyranny, but we must throw off these “new”
moral precepts of socialism and cloth ourselves in the righteousness of the
living Word of God. The morality of a nation will not happen without a change
of the heart of each individual. I hope this has brought you closer to the Lord,
Jesus Christ and gave you a fresh perspective in the issues of the day. Read
your Bible people, it is relevant no matter what progressives say! I know this
may have been hard to follow and I am not sure I discussed it clearly enough. I
wanted you, the reader, to take time to think about some of these new “isms”
and decide for yourself if they make sense. The things I have written are not
set in stone fair minded men can disagree but let’s stop letting the left wing
progressives just scream expletives at us as citizens and we just except it.
Lastly, although the term racism was discussed in this writing I hope you the
reader understand that I was using that example, because it is the most
frequently used tool by progressives. It is imperative that you understand that
this is not about hatred or bigotry it is about progressives telling all of us
how we are supposed to think and that they know what is best for our lives even
as far as morality is concerned. Do not be fooled any longer especially if you
are a member of a minority group, because you are being used to achieve power
for those that wish to enslave us all under the auspices of a benevolent
fatherly government. Ultimately, my goal is to cause others to test all of
these new ideas and see if they pass the logic test. If you do, you will find
that these “new” ideas are not so new and although the terminology is different
we have seen this before. We have seen how it starts (healthcare, roads,
promises of economic recovery, etc.), and we see how it ends (Anyone remember
World War II?). Ecclesiastes tells us that there is nothing new under the sun,
and yes the Bible is right about that too!
There, I read all the way to the end!
ReplyDelete