One Race

The Bible’s teaching on “race” is simple. Someone has said three fundamental truths about it are that we are (1) one in creation; (2) one in the church; and (3) one in eternity. Notice the following biblical texts.

One in creation

• Genesis 1:26-27. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
• Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
• Acts 17:26-28. and hath 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; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
• Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?

One in the church

• John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
• Galatians 3:28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
• Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
• Colossians 3:11. where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

One in eternity

• Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
• Revelation 7:9. After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
• Revelation 21:22-26 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Hiding warts?

I posted here and elsewhere about some of the problems of the Black Lives Matter organization. It is an organization rather than a statement. Not all black lives matter to them, apparently. An interesting development is that they have recently removed the What We Believe page. When I searched for it last night, I got the following message. 

404 Not Found. We can not find the page you are looking for. 

Other browsers may have:

Page Not Found. Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist. 

There is an “About” section on the site. It relates vague things about what the group believes, without going into detail. “What We Believe” was much more detailed, revealing, for example, that Black Lives Matter is a queer‐affirming transgender network that wants to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Maybe they have deemed that clarity with this kind of information generally harmful to their cause. For now, what they used to freely admit is now scrubbed or hidden. Nevertheless, it can still be found on a cached version of the website HERE.

A matter of black lives that matter

Terrence Floyd, younger brother of George Floyd, said, “I know my brother would not want violence. Let’s do this peacefully, please.”

In protests of the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minnesota police, highlighting the fact that the lives of black persons are important was intended to be front and center. Nevertheless, even more black lives did not seem to matter in the wake of the protests, which disproportionately took the lives of blacks – most at the hands of protesters. Up until today (June 8), I have found records of up to thirteen dead. The following persons are identified as black except Italia Kelly (identified as biracial) and the three that remain unnamed/unidentified. It appears that all, with the possible exception of one, died in incidents related one way or another to the George Floyd protests. It is alleged that much of the violence is perpetrated by “outside agitators” – folks with Left-wing or Right-wing agendas, or both – rather than the initial protesters, who did so peacefully.

• May 27, 2020: Calvin L. Horton Jr., 43, Minneapolis, Minnesota was shot by a pawnshop owner during protests.
• May 29, 2020: 53-year-old Dave Patrick Underwood, 53, on-duty federal security officer, was shot and killed during riots in Oakland, California.
• May 29, 2020: Javar Harrell, 21, during protests in Detroit, Michigan, was shot and killed – apparently specifically targeted, and it is not clear whether his death is directly related to the protests. (But his life still matters.)
• May 30, 2020: Barry Perkins, 29, in St. Louis, Missouri was caught by the truck’s tire, pulled under and ran over. Guns were pointed at the driver, he sounded his horn and drove off, catching Perkins and running over him with his trailer. Attorney for the Perkins family and witnesses say that Barry Perkins was not involved in looting the truck and was an accidental victim.
• May 30, 2020: James Scurlock, 22, in Omaha, Nebraska during protests was shot as a result of a violent encounter with a bar owner. It is at least tentatively determined that the bar owner acted in self-defense.
• May 30, 2020: Chris Beaty, 38, real estate broker and former Indiana University football player, was shot and killed in Indianapolis, Indiana, by rioters on a robbing spree.
• May 31, 2020: Dorian Murrell, 18, Indianapolis, Indiana was fatally shot by 29-year-old Tyler Newby. Newby claims there was an altercation before the shooting and a friend of Murrell claims there was not one.
• May 31, 2020: Italia Marie Kelly, 22, a protest attendee in Davenport, Iowa was shot by a “protester” when she was leaving the protest. Another person was also shot and killed, but was not named last I saw.
• June 1, 2020: David McAtee, 53, shot and killed in Louisville, Kentucky during riots. Law enforcement heard gunshots and returned fire. McAtee was hit by one of the bullets and died.
• June 1, 2020: Two unnamed people killed in Cicero, Illinois (a Chicago suburb).  Their race or the circumstances of their death has not been reported, so far as I have seen – other than that “outside agitators” shot into a crowd.
• June 2, 2020: David Dorn, 77, retired St. Louis City police captain, was shot and killed by looters at a pawnshop in St. Louis, Missouri.

[Note: this information was collected a few weeks ago, and more names could be added to this list, but I will leave it as it is.]

Throwing the ball back and forth

Below is a link to a post by Dave Miller and a response by Edward Dingess:

Racial Reconciliation Dodgeball – Responsibility and Solutions -- "I have watched with dismay as many in our midst have played what seems to me to be a form of dodgeball with issues related to racial reconciliation."

Thoughts on Dave Miller’s Racial Reconciliation Dodgeball in the SBC -- "Dave Miller lists three responses to the racial issue that he calls dodgeball responses."

A Fourth of July speech

A little while back I noticed someone mention book I'd never heard of -- Nathan Bedford Forrest's Redemption. Sounded interesting. I ordered it. The following excerpt comes from “that (redeemed) devil Forrest” speaking in 1875 to a black group called the Pole-Bearers Association (according to the author, this was a forerunner of the NAACP) and others at a Fourth of July celebration.

Forrest: “I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none. I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going...I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.”

Nathan Bedford Forrest is known for many things, but very seldom for his late in life Christian conversion. The text of Forrest's speech was printed in the Memphis Daily Appeal, July 06, 1875, page 1.

The Free State of Jones

• Baptists and the American Civil War: March 31, 1864 -- " Newton Knight, Confederate deserter and Primitive Baptist...remains controversial almost a century after his death."
• Did Jones County Secede from the Confederacy? -- "Newt himself, as well as his 1st Sgt., Jasper J. Collins, and Jasper’s son, Loren, all denied the myth of secession during their lifetimes."
• Free State of Jones (2016) -- "We Stood firm to the union when secession swept as an avalanche over the state."
• Jasper Collins and the ‘Ellisville Patriot’ -- "For many Southern renegades, their actions during the Civil War marked a single instance in which they felt compelled to defy the expectations of the larger Southern community."
• Newt Knight vs. The U.S. Court of Claims -- "Newt Knight was relentless in his efforts to gain compensation for himself and his men from the U.S. Government for having served the Union."
• Newton Knight -- "Knight Cemetery, Jasper County, Mississippi"
• Newton Knight and the Legend of the Free State of Jones -- "Private Jasper Collins, was furious: “This law...makes it a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”"
• Rachel Knight and Her Descendants -- "There were but two options open to Rachel’s descendants,...remain in Mississippi...to suffer racial discrimination and prejudice...as blacks...The other option for Rachel’s descendants was to move to other states where they were not known and could passa blanca..."
• Rachel Knight and Her Descendants, Part 2 -- "Newt set Rachel and her children up in a house next door to his family and brought them up as white."
• Rachel Knight and Her Descendants, Part 3 -- "They were raised as white in an isolated environment and had difficulty being accepted by either whites or blacks."
• ‘The Free State of Jones’ Battles Civil War Cliches -- "...this will likely be the first exposure to the history of Reconstruction for many moviegoers."
• The True Story of the ‘Free State of Jones’ -- "He was a Primitive Baptist who didn’t drink, didn’t cuss, doted on children and could reload and fire a double-barreled, muzzle-loading shotgun faster than anyone else around."
• Who was Newt Knight of “Free State of Jones?” -- "A number of Knight family members served the Confederacy, including Newt who enlisted in the 8th Mississippi Infantry, Co. K, in August of 1861 for a one-year term."
• Why I wrote the Free State of Jones -- "...the American Revolution and the opening of the Southwestern frontier—shaped attitudes toward authority and government among these plain folks of the Old South."

This Flag

Americans seem to stand ever at the ready for a good controversy over "the" Confederate flag (and other Confederate memorabilia). Statues honoring Southern soldiers and statesmen have recently been on the chopping block.[1] Into this atmosphere steps Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas. He is proposing to the Southern Baptist Convention a Resolution on the Elimination of the Confederate Flag from Public Life. If it makes it out of committee the resolution will be presented for vote to the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in June in St. Louis, Missouri. The resolution calls the Confederate Battle Flag a "controversial and necessarily divisive symbol of racism conveyed by [its] ongoing public display" and asks "all persons, along with public, governmental, and religious institutions to discontinue the display of the Confederate Battle Flag and work diligently to remove vestigial symbols of racism..."

Tempers flared over the discussion of the resolution at SBC Voices, with one commenter suggesting that any discussion or questioning of the resolution should not be taking place. It is hard to progress along these lines when any "non-pc" comment will be labeled as racism (not that there never is racial reasoning, but that any perceived misstep is automatically so labeled). It is clear that some people do not want an honest and open discussion, but simple acquiesence to the obligatory socially acceptable groupthink. If history proves anything, it proves that the division of the Northern and Southern United States does not quite fit the simplistic framework imposed on it by revisionists. There is discussion to be had.

When speaking of offense by and/or banning the Confederate flag, the "Southern Cross" is usually what is meant -- seen in either the square Army of Northern Virginia or rectangular Army of Tennessee flags.[2]



Liberty for all
As an American citizen I hate to see "scorched-earth" campaigns driven by the perpetually offended.[3] They will be neither satisfied nor pacified, regardless of how many victories they win. No matter how many statues and flags come down, no matter how many graves are moved. Though some mistakenly think otherwise, in the United States you do not always have the right to not be offended! I stand for the liberty and rights of those Americans who wish to fly the Confederate flag. While some are doubtless relieved by the removal of certain symbols, it is questionable to what extent that combats real racism.

Give none offense
This flag does not offend me. It is part of my ancestral heritage. Both of these admissions will quickly get one labeled a racist if said in the wrong audience. I stand for the right of those who wish to fly the Confederate flag. But just because you have a right to fly it, does not mean you should. I will not dictate what others do; I do not want dictate what others do in this matter. As for me, I choose as both a Christian duty and courtesy to not display a flag that I know offends my Christian brothers and sisters.[4] Should it offend them? I don't know. Does it offend them? Yes. Why would I let a regional, political and cultural symbol take precedence my Christian responsibility to another? Aren’t all Christians brothers and sisters, and ultimately citizens of a more important spiritual and heavenly kingdom? Jesus said we should seek first the kingdom of God -- a kingdom not of this world. Surely for a Christian that should take precedence over an earthly kingdom that God has raised up and torn down. Paul wrote, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32)."

Pass over a transgression
Solomon advised, "The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression (Proverbs 19:11)." Commenting on that verse and another Tim Challies wrote, "We are not required by God to confront a person every time he or she offends us." It is a glory to pass over the perceived transgressions of others. We can choose to not count one offenses against them, turn the other cheek where seeking our rights are concerned, and as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Christians who see something wrong with the Confederate flag can offer grace towards those who display it.

Christians who see nothing wrong with the Confederate flag can offer kindness towards those who are offended by it. Christians who see something wrong with the Confederate flag can offer grace towards those who display it. In that atmosphere we can make both Christian and racial progress. IF brethren would do as the Lord says, the one offending and the one offended would meet in the way, each going to the other to do the right thing.

[1] A few Baptists have chafed that the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary gave Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Russell Moore a prized oil painting of John Broadus (a seminary founder and supporter of the Confederate cause) -- which now adorns Moore's office in Washington, D.C.
[2] Sometimes wrongly identified as the Stars and Bars.
[3] A general statement not directed at Pastor McKissick.
[4] I will display it for historical or educational purposes, such as posting it here to signify which flag is under discussion.

Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins. 
Acts 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men. 
Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 
1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. 
Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 
Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 
1 Thessalonians 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

When is change legit?

If a person can be transgender, can one also be "transracial"?

Last week a controversy swirled up around Rachel Dolezal -- NAACP chapter president in Spokane, Washington and teacher of Africana studies at Eastern Washington University. Rachel identifies herself as black. Her biological parents are of white European descent, mainly German and Czech (though they have four adopted black children). Her mother, Ruthanne Dolezal, said, “Rachel is trying to reject her own reality, her own identity, and by doing that she does not alter reality.” One of her brother’s her transformation from a blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl this way, “It started out with the hair and then she’d have probably a little darker tan and it was very progressive.” The controversy reached such proporation that Ms. Dolezal stepped down from her position as NAACP chapter president today.

This brings up a prickly question, coming on the heels of the reported changing of Bruce Jenner from a man to a woman -- who is even receiving ESPN's the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. If a man can change to a woman, be praised and even receive awards for it, why must a person be hounded out of her position for changing from white to black? What is the difference? Is race sacrosanct but gender is not? Where are those calling for Rachel's reward and tolerance of her transition? Is there a double standard here?

Meanwhile, in the Confederate States...

While police officers were no billed in border state Missouri and Union state New York, in the old Confederacy a white South Carolina police chief was indicted Wednesday,* charged with murder in the death of an unarmed black man in Eutawville, S.C. 

Yes, that title and byline is meant to be provocative and get your attention. It is meant to suggest (again) that all things are not as simple as they seem when it comes to discussions of police officers, racism and the world in which we live. Not as simple, geographically. Not as simple in how they are often reported. Not as simple, period. Interestingly the Journal article also reports:

Combs is the third officer in South Carolina to be charged this year for an on-duty shooting. A white police officer in North Augusta was charged with misconduct in office in August in the shooting death of a 68-year-old unarmed black man at his home after a chase. A state trooper was charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature in September when he shot an unarmed black man he had pulled over as the man reached in his car to get his wallet. That shooting was captured on the trooper’s dashboard camera and shown around the world. Both officers are awaiting trials.

* the same day a grand jury in New York decided against charging an officer in the choking death of Eric Garner

A little history

This morning I read Rejecting separate but equal again by David Prince and Rubén Cabrera. It is a very thoughtful article that passes along some good points. For examples:

The church of Jesus Christ is the community of Christ-redeemed image bearers from every tribe, tongue, and nation who will ultimately be gathered in the consummated kingdom of Christ. A local church is an already visible outpost of the kingdom of Christ. A local church provides a vertical display of gospel reconciliation (God-to-man) but also a display of horizontal gospel reconciliation (man-to-man).

Our ethnic and racial identity must be reshaped by the gospel and subordinate to our shared identity in Christ.

Unfortunately, it also passes along an historically uninformed assessment of the existence of segregated churches. They reference "the historically sinful refusal of white evangelicals in America to include African-Americans led to segregated white and black churches."

First, I believe it is historically inaccurate to reduce the existence of racially segregated churches to one cause or reason. These churches, in different times and eras, can be shown to have arisen for different reasons.

Second, the idea that the chief cause of segregated churches was whites not allowing blacks in the churches is incorrect. White attitudes toward blacks, and what might agree with what Prince and Cabrera call "paternalistic ethos" are an underlying cause. I haven't researched the Northern churches very much in this regard. But in the South, before the end of slavery whites and blacks attended the same churches together. It was the new found freedom and the exercise thereof that caused blacks to desire to have their own churches. The white push-back against this new feeling no doubt exacerbated the problem. This is what I have seen in most church and associational minutes that I have examined. The general mindset is that after emancipation the whites kicked their former slaves out of the churches. That is not a clear portrayal of what happened. In this short post I don't have time to look at all the ins and outs of the matter. But suffice it to say that this is a more complicated matter that many make overly simplistic.

Finally, I'm not sure why they injected the word "evangelical" into the statement describing the churches.

Fruit from Ferguson

I've read some news and several opinion pieces (from all sides) about the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, but haven't commented about it. From this vantage point, though, I have a thought about the name calling of racism. In his Is Truth Racist?, J. D. Hall makes a point that "accusations of racism are the very reason why people refuse to speak the painful truth on important issues." Hall may be more acerbic where we would prefer more irenic, but I think he got this right. I had previously been contemplating this point on accusations of racism and I agree with Hall. 

"Accusations of racism" are often too quickly trotted out, and often in a way that is both bullying and counterproductive. The accusation has the effect of stifling a conversation that needs to take place -- one in which both sides need to speak honestly and freely. A free and honest conversation will lead toward solutions, whereas bullying leads to clamming up, conformity and covering up the problem. In the American context, "racism" is most often leveled against whites. Most modern white Americans would rather be called anything than a racist. When the "R" word is leveled against them, they will likely back out of a conversation and/or pretend to agree. But there is talking and listening to be done on both sides. What is said may be tactful, but it must be honest. We should never act in such a way to shut down someone's honest assessment of race relations and its problems.

In the front of my Bible I have written a saying: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." If this is true (and it is) then we should never bully someone into agreeing with us, but try to bring them along to the right with truth and logic. There is an almost hidden principle within Paul's discussion of eating meat offered to idols. It is this: do not try to get someone to violate his or her conscience by submitting to your conscience. If this is true (and it is) then the solemn duty of the Christian is to convince, not to coerce. May it ever be so.