The Christian Right & Racism?

Thread starter #1
I was reading about Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones University, in relation to their stance on race and segregation. What I'm wondering is what was it within Scripture were they using for a justification?
I can see them justifying abortion and anti-homosexuality with scripture but the Bible isn't very clear when it comes to segregation or interracial dating.

It was not until 2000 that Bob Jones University, in the midst of a great uproar, reversed its policy on interracial dating.

Not to just pick on Bob Jones University as it's views were a part of Christianity's views in America for as long time. Bob Jones Sr., the university’s founding president, had famously said, “White folks and colored folks, you listen to me. You cannot run over God’s plan and God’s established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race.”

So where, within scripture, were these Evangelical leaders gathering this message?

Now it's got me wondering that if Scripture never changes, how do we know, as individuals, what else we may have missed? What else has society forced on us to overlook?

I'm not talking about insight from some weirdos. These were God fearing, educated men. They knew the Word. They got so many other things right. How did they miss it on race?
 
they were products of the Jim Crow south and viewed scripture thru race colored glasses. I suppose they took 2Cor 6:14 about being unequally yoke to mean different races, but if you read it in context, Paul is talking about not marrying unbelievers.
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
they were products of the Jim Crow south and viewed scripture thru race colored glasses. I suppose they took 2Cor 6:14 about being unequally yoke to mean different races, but if you read it in context, Paul is talking about not marrying unbelievers.
I have also heard people say , be fruitful and multiply. Each after it's own kind. But that means, dogs are dog kinds, cats are cat kind and humans are human kind. There is no distinction with God, man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. There is only one kind, mankind, and only one race, the human race.
 
Thread starter #6
I have also heard people say , be fruitful and multiply. Each after it's own kind. But that means, dogs are dog kinds, cats are cat kind and humans are human kind. There is no distinction with God, man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart. There is only one kind, mankind, and only one race, the human race.
Yet somehow even within that Unity, isn't there still something that defines males and females? Doesn't God expect us to see those differences? Even using them to define God being the head of Christ?

Did the evangelicals of that era get that part right? We do have verses to back up those differences and God's role variations required by those sex defined roles.
Meaning who is in authority over the other, who can teach the other, how they both should dress, etc.
These are differences as stated by God through Paul. Not something left to interpretation as race and segregation was.

Yet man and society have redefined what Paul was telling us. So again my question is, what else have these evangelical leaders missed that may have been based on society of that time instead of Scripture?
 
Thread starter #7
They are men. We all fall. It's what comes next in our lives that determine who we are.
Meaning salvation trumps all of our man made errors? That we are all being lead by society forcing us to change so God knew this and thus provided a salvation from society trying to do this to us.

God provided a salvation from a forced society change. Knowing that that change would be our greatest weakness.
 
Thread starter #8
So even though society is saying there is no difference between the male and female, the Jew and Gentile, we know that this only concerns salvation.
We do see a difference in how God defines male and female as being different.
Therefore if we can show that God considers males and female to be different, then perhaps there is some difference between the Jew and Gentile.

We can't balk at a male for becoming a woman, if we are also saying that God sees no difference.
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
Yet somehow even within that Unity, isn't there still something that defines males and females? Doesn't God expect us to see those differences? Even using them to define God being the head of Christ?

Did the evangelicals of that era get that part right? We do have verses to back up those differences and God's role variations required by those sex defined roles.
Meaning who is in authority over the other, who can teach the other, how they both should dress, etc.
These are differences as stated by God through Paul. Not something left to interpretation as race and segregation was.

Yet man and society have redefined what Paul was telling us. So again my question is, what else have these evangelical leaders missed that may have been based on society of that time instead of Scripture?
Yes there are definite distinctions between role and function as far as male and female but not as to race. God absolutely set up rules for men and women. He created them male and female , and if you stay within the confines that He described it is an amazing thing. There are also differenced in men. There are inferiors, superiors and equals. So yes God did set up role and function for all of mankind!
 
We do see a difference in how God defines male and female as being different.
We can't balk at a male for becoming a woman, if we are also saying that God sees no difference.
Thinking thru & pondering your post, Artful, I was surprised to find that Webster actually defines two different "human-kind"s (see above earlier post)...
1. Mankind, &
2. Womankind.
Maybe we are supposed to stick with our "kinds," until we are on the other side?
 
Thread starter #11
Thinking thru & pondering your post, Artful, I was surprised to find that Webster actually defines two different "human-kind"s (see above earlier post)...
1. Mankind, &
2. Womankind.
Maybe we are supposed to stick with our "kinds," until we are on the other side?
What verses would back that up, the ones about men not being effeminate?
 
Thread starter #12
Doesn't Romans 11 show some type of separation of national Jews and Gentiles?

Has the Christian Right once again missed it or did they get the Zionism part right?
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #13
Yes there are definite distinctions between role and function as far as male and female but not as to race. God absolutely set up rules for men and women. He created them male and female , and if you stay within the confines that He described it is an amazing thing. There are also differenced in men. There are inferiors, superiors and equals. So yes God did set up role and function for all of mankind!
Why don't Christians follow those roles as taught by Paul? Why have we let society change those roles over time? How women dress, wear gold, braided hair, pearls, and expensive clothes? Women covering their head to pray?
Women teaching men, etc. Either Paul got it wrong or society has gotten it wrong.
 
Your observations and related posted questions ARTFULDODGER I find most worthy.
Yet ....
I am absent of meaningful answers, Brother.
My sorta related post today on BANDER's
'what Christians follow the teachings of the Torah'
is kinda my best M.O. on how I try to deal with these IMPORTANT matters.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #15
Your observations and related posted questions ARTFULDODGER I find most worthy.
Yet ....
I am absent of meaningful answers, Brother.
My sorta related post today on BLANDER's
'what Christians follow the teachings of the Torah'
is kinda my best M.O. on how I try to deal with these IMPORTANT matters.
Then perhaps keeping Torah is way more important than Paul's "guidelines" to the Churches many,many years ago.
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
Why don't Christians follow those roles as taught by Paul? Why have we let society change those roles over time? How women dress, wear gold, braided hair, pearls, and expensive clothes? Women covering their head to pray?
Women teaching men, etc. Either Paul got it wrong or society has gotten it wrong.
So what do you think, or better yet who do you think is in error? I will give you a hint. God's Word does not change, man does. The reason I believe is that we do not take God's Word seriously. We have watered down the Gospel to make it pallet able, we have added to and taken away from the right Worship of the Creator. We have become more like the world, than looking like Christ wanted us to look like. Just look at the church as a whole and what do you see. Do you see Jesus, or do you see the world. Jesus said you can't have it both ways. You will either be conformed to this world, or be transformed by His Word. So you tell me what you see? Here is the same formula that God gave to His Covenant people Israel, that we should also do the same.
Deuteronomy 6:1-7
6 “Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2 that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3 Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you—‘a land flowing with milk and honey.’

4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
That is basically the same commission as Jesus gave to us in the great commission. We have allowed teachers to come in with false Gospels and tickle our ears instead of pointing out our sin, calling us to repent, and leading us in the way everlasting. If you read the rest of the passage I didn't quote, it also gives the curses if you don't keep God's Covenant. It is even more so today because how much greater of a Covenant do we have with the Blood of Jesus. So what happens when we neglect so great of a salvation given to us in Christ?
 

j_seph

Senior Member
So even though society is saying there is no difference between the male and female, the Jew and Gentile, we know that this only concerns salvation.
We do see a difference in how God defines male and female as being different.
Therefore if we can show that God considers males and female to be different, then perhaps there is some difference between the Jew and Gentile.

We can't balk at a male for becoming a woman, if we are also saying that God sees no difference.
Society is not saying that in the first of your post the Bible says that
Romans 10:12
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
 

Spineyman

Senior Member
Society is not saying that in the first of your post the Bible says that
Romans 10:12
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Absolutely. It just means God is no respecter of persons, but pours out His Spirit on all flesh! But His word is also clear about role and function in the church, as to male and female, jew and greek (gentile), slave or free!
 
Thread starter #19
Society is not saying that in the first of your post the Bible says that
Romans 10:12
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Yet somehow these educated preachers were teaching that God had a different plan for Blacks than his plan for Whites, yet not concerning salvation.

If we look at Romans 11, do we see a different plan for Jews from that of Gentiles? Were Gentiles within time, ever separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world?

Was a remnant of Jews ever elected by grace and the rest hardened until the full number of Gentiles comes in?

How do we view this separation by God if there has never been a difference between the Jew and Gentile? If God is no respecter of man, why did he make a covenant with just one nation to show the rest of the nations, the Law could not be kept?

I'm just saying, maybe this is where these preachers may have gathered some type of difference in God having a different plan for one race over the other.
These same preachers are Zionist. They still have this belief, and I as well, that Romans 11 explains.
 
Thread starter #20
Absolutely. It just means God is no respecter of persons, but pours out His Spirit on all flesh! But His word is also clear about role and function in the church, as to male and female, jew and greek (gentile), slave or free!
Then there are different roles for those groups listed? Even after Christ died on the Cross for the sins of the whole world, we still have differences. Paul points out the differences in his letters. Rules for men, rules for women, especially.
Then Paul teaches some type of separation between the Jews and Gentiles in Romans 11.
Even then we still had slaves and free peoples. The Cross only gave them all salvation, it didn't end slavery.
 
Top