The Christian Right & Racism?

[RegularJoe]

What verses would back that up, the ones about men not being effeminate?

I do not possess the knowledge to properly reply to your above question.

 

[gordon 2]

Roles for individuals in a society-culture change according to the economic life of that community. Economic and political interests have always had religious and spiritual organizations serve them in the name of what's best for society. For example: Capitalists ( industrial revolution) had it in their interest to give time off to factory workers so they could go to church ( even as part of their employment contracts or as a requirement of employment; the capitalists' reward was an honest employee which honesty was a weakness to the entrepreneurial and political class. So it was a worse crime that employees stole from the employer's stock of goods, than for capitalists and politicians to steal the means of production from private individuals, Native Americans, Texans, Mexicans, etc... ( thou shall not steal commandment not standing equally for all).

The means of economic productions and who owns it go a long way in how we interpret scripture and practice faith socially. We use it ( scripture) to wash our hands... and sometimes on occasions our profound inner selves.

So property that goes towards putting bread ( bread alone) on the table often has to fit into what being Christian means and how to walk in faith so that the means is maintained for the greater economic benefit of society. Agrarian societies have it to keep the agrarian society going. Industrial societies have it to keep the industries going. Those who depend on diplomacy and corporate organization to earn their bread have it to keep the thing going and prospering. Whatever spiritual organizations, varied they are, which oils these societies capacity to maintain themselves and to prosper will more then not determine how the tenants of Christianity are interpreted--provided the said societies are christian.

Populations today are or society is secular today because the laws of the states and corporations are sufficient to make the workers productive and beneficial to society and to reward those who have portfolios invested into the means of production. Employees themselves become owners-investors through pension plans and insurances, private investments,... etc... The former motivations to act humbly as per the tubs of preachers is replaced by the wise and shrew lessons of corporate cultures and the motivations of politicians who press hands into their-our lobby. They are us; we are them. We are libertarians---with still a few lingering ideas of what Paul meant and depending on where you live and what you do.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

I don't think we need to keep apologizing for the sins of Christian institutions decades later. When a party repents, acknowledges their sin openly, and changes their actions, then other Christians are called to forgive and comfort the repentant sinner.

The emphasis of Scripture is always on getting the log our of our own eye before we try and help our brother get the speck out of their eye. There is also an absolute demand in Scripture to go to our brother in private about what we perceive as their sin, and then a second step or bringing along a second or third witness before bringing the matter before the church.

This business of "calling out" Christian ministries and institutions in public for purported sins in cases where one has not gone through the prior Biblical process of discussing it in private is nothing but judgmental gossip. This business of creating gossip regarding sins that were publicly repented of decades ago is even worse.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I'm not looking at the whole as being negative, just the one little part. I actually respect the Christian Right and evangelicals because they got so much right. They got so much right it made me wonder how they got this one part wrong.

I'm not "calling them out" on it or apologizing, just trying to learn how they missed it. Perhaps if I could see how they determined their justification, I may see that I'm doing the same thing.

Perhaps we all are. Maybe we are all using Scripture to justify things placed on us by society to ignore or change.

 

[strothershwacker]

All through the bible only 2 races are recognized by God. The Jews and everyone else. Paul wrote to Philemon bout a slave that he had named Onesimus who had ran off. (Not sure if he was Jew or gentile, makes no difference) but Paul told em to receive em back not as a slave but a brother in Christ. Our love, concern and mercy for other believers should always trump political and social topics. Love thy neighbor as yourself. Simple really. When we question stuff like this we're usually trying to justify our lack of love for others. Follow Christ, not Falwell, Strothershwacker or anyone else.

 

[Artfuldodger]

All through the bible only 2 races are recognized by God. The Jews and everyone else. Paul wrote to Philemon bout a slave that he had named Onesimus who had ran off. (Not sure if he was Jew or gentile, makes no difference) but Paul told em to receive em back not as a slave but a brother in Christ. Our love, concern and mercy for other believers should always trump political and social topics. Love thy neighbor as yourself. Simple really. When we question stuff like this we're usually trying to justify our lack of love for others. Follow Christ, not Falwell, Strothershwacker or anyone else.

If I did that, ie love others as myself, I'd have to disregard Paul's guides to the Churches concerning women and homosexuals.

I would personally allow women to preach and wear gold and pearls. I would not place any differences between myself and them.
Homosexuals or even metro-sexuals would not be seen as sinners. Drunkards would be seen as alcoholics with problems, not as sinners.

God would not have come as the God of the Jews. Jesus would not have been a Jew. There would not have been any race divisions, rules for women's dress. The head of every household, etc.
Homosexuality would not be a sin. Blacks would have never been discriminated against. Women would have always had equal rights.

Israel would not be waiting for the full number of Gentiles to come in. There would have never been a wall of separation. No need for a grafting in to the commonwealth of Israel.
Gentiles would have never been strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel.

If everyone is all the same, then it would be easy to love my neighbor as myself. Yet Paul tells us we aren't all the same.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Love others as given by Jesus is a very simple commandment given along with loving God as our New Commandments. That sounds easy until Paul comes along. Paul adds stipulations to this simple command. He spells it out more through lists. Exactly what it means to love God and your neighbor as yourself.

It's not like it's up to me to decide. I can't just let my wife be the head of the household. Because it is an exact mirror of God over Christ, Christ over the Church. Husband over wife.

The order is well defined by God himself.

 

[strothershwacker]

1 Corinthians 13.

 

[kmh1031]

The inspired Apostle Peter answers that question on race at Acts 10:34-35
34 At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial,+ 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.+

Also note the words of The Apostle Paul said at Acts 17;24-26 (Phillips Translation)

24 The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth,+ does not dwell in handmade temples;+ 25 nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything,+ because he himself gives to all people life and breath+ and all things.

26 And he made out of one man+ every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth,+ and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell,+

So when God looks on his creation, he does not see color or race, so to speak..

That so it seems is our issue

 

[Artfuldodger]

The inspired Apostle Peter answers that question on race at Acts 10:34-35
34 At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial,+ 35 but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.+

Also note the words of The Apostle Paul said at Acts 17;24-26 (Phillips Translation)

24 The God who made the world and all the things in it, being, as he is, Lord of heaven and earth,+ does not dwell in handmade temples;+ 25 nor is he served by human hands as if he needed anything,+ because he himself gives to all people life and breath+ and all things.

26 And he made out of one man+ every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth,+ and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell,+

So when God looks on his creation, he does not see color or race, so to speak..

That so it seems is our issue

Did God ever set a difference between the Jews and Gentiles?

Concerning male and female? Man was created first. Woman was created for man. When God looks at his creation does he see the sexes?

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

[strothershwacker]

What's male/female got to do with your original post? Reading between the lines what you are trying to say is homosexuality is condemned by God. YES IT IS.(both old & new testaments). Secondly your trying to say that the man is the head of the house and that his wife should be submissive to him as such. YES THAT TOO is biblically accurate (as well as is the husband should love his wife as Christ has loved the church and willing to lay down his life for.....) HOWEVER none of these passages you've used supports the idea that one race is superior to another one or that there should be some kind of segregation between races. Falwell, Ruckner and a long list of others have tried to stretch these scriptures to apply to racial matters but it's just not there. No matter how bad you want it to be. If your a Jew under the law of Moses then you should marry a Jew. If your anything on this side of the cross then your partner in marriage should be of the opposite sex and not required but preferably a believer unless your a widow then Paul says to marry "only in the Lord". (In either case race is not part of the equation) If you want book chapter and verse for all this I'll gladly post it. HOWEVER, after reading your original post then your following replies, I see that your not looking for insight on the subject but only trying to slip racist agenda under the door. By the way, I was a racist before I got saved.
2 Timothy 2:23-26.

 

[LittleDrummerBoy]

Lots of Christians in history have come up with legalisms not really supported in Scripture but popular with people they were trying to please. It is not so much an common error of hermaneutics, but a common fear of man which decides which legalisms will be popular with the desired audience. The legalism is them justified with convenient eisegesis.

The key is avoiding the fear of man and only trying to please God.

 

[Israel]

I think about that Cushite wife Moses had. And the judgment levied against Miriam.

 

[Artfuldodger]

What's male/female got to do with your original post? Reading between the lines what you are trying to say is homosexuality is condemned by God. YES IT IS.(both old & new testaments). Secondly your trying to say that the man is the head of the house and that his wife should be submissive to him as such. YES THAT TOO is biblically accurate (as well as is the husband should love his wife as Christ has loved the church and willing to lay down his life for.....) HOWEVER none of these passages you've used supports the idea that one race is superior to another one or that there should be some kind of segregation between races. Falwell, Ruckner and a long list of others have tried to stretch these scriptures to apply to racial matters but it's just not there. No matter how bad you want it to be. If your a Jew under the law of Moses then you should marry a Jew. If your anything on this side of the cross then your partner in marriage should be of the opposite sex and not required but preferably a believer unless your a widow then Paul says to marry "only in the Lord". (In either case race is not part of the equation) If you want book chapter and verse for all this I'll gladly post it. HOWEVER, after reading your original post then your following replies, I see that your not looking for insight on the subject but only trying to slip racist agenda under the door. By the way, I was a racist before I got saved.
2 Timothy 2:23-26.

I think you missed what I'm seeking. I'm not a racist and thus why I saw what I did in my OP. I guess what I'm seeking is, how did these God fearing, well educated preachers and teachers miss it. How did they miss what they did about racism? What scripture did they use to justify it?
Maybe as LittleDrummerBoy says, how does man justify the legalisms they justify through history?

I'm definitely not trying to use scripture to support racism, just see what "their" scriptural support was.

Now the tie in to males & females, and homosexuals were just some examples that I see within our society that have changed over time.
I would also add how we view alcoholism(drunkardness) as well.

Just examples I read from Paul and comparing that to race. How through scripture we've always had different races, male and females, slaves and free, etc.

Then after the Cross there was no longer Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, concerning salvation.

Yet for the most part, Paul comes along with his list of guidelines to the Churches. He makes distinguishing differences between males and females. He continues with differences between the Jews and Gentiles. Read Romans 11 as an example.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Again, I understand 1 Corinthians 13 and "love." The very next chapter says to pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts.

Paul did not say just follow "love" and leave it at that. He created list to be our guide in the pursuit of love.

This included the differences in males and females. Different roles, etc. based on Man being in made in God's glory and woman being made in man's glory. Differences spelled out by Paul.

Yet society comes along and reads all this differently than the way Paul wrote or justify it by saying Paul was not writing to us.

Now society is changing how we view sex equality, alcoholism and homosexuality.

It's like no matter that scripture never changes because man will change it anyway. That is the angle I was after, not racism.

Now back to love. Why can't I just follow 1 Corinthians 13? Wouldn't love let me see equality better? Regardless of whom. I could feel it in my heart that alcoholism is an addiction. I could see the love between two homosexuals. I could see a Jew with the same love of a brother Christian. I would respect the Native American more. I would let my wife be the head of me if she did a better job of it than me. I would let my wife preach over men.

I definitely agree that Love is the answer to everything. Even more so than faith and hope. I'm down with that aspect. So why do I need Paul's lists? Especially since I was washed in the blood of Christ.

You'd think that once Christ's glory and love entered me, I woudn't need the list any longer. Just 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[StriperAddict]

I definitely agree that Love is the answer to everything. Even more so than faith and hope. I'm down with that aspect. So why do I need Paul's lists? Especially since I was washed in the blood of Christ.

You'd think that once Christ's glory and love entered me, I woudn't need the list any longer. Just 1 Corinthians 13.

Here's a short clip with some good love stuff. Enjoy !

 

[Artfuldodger]

Here's a short clip with some good love stuff. Enjoy !

I like that Farley says "fruit of the Spirit" and not "fruit of the Law."

I get the Love commandment but is it really something new? So in Hebrews, Law is tweaked to laws? Thereby the laws have been etched on our hearts.
This new commandment of love isn't burdensome. This sure is the way that "I" see love but still, it appears Paul sees it differently. He has lists. List concerning women, drunkards, and homosexuals.

If Love is the answer, why can't I love a homosexual couple as Christian brothers? Why can't I accept an alcoholic brother as a Christian? Why can't I let my wife be the head of my household? Why can't she preach over men and wear pearls?

Love tells me I can and should. That's what I feel is right within my heart. Paul tells me I shouldn't.

Love tells me it's right, Paul tells me it's not.

 

[StriperAddict]

Art, I doubt you can put the apostle into a "thou shalt" box. Understanding his emphasis on grace and the fruit of the Spirit comes on the heels of our eternal Lover, whom Paul declared in truth. I'll bet if you dig deeper, check context, check the audience, etc., I'd say there's life in the behavioral teachings of Paul. But not as a means to personal perfection, but coming on the indwelling Christ and knowing our wholeness is from union and not a behavioral correction program.
I'd encourage you to have a look at The Rest of the Gospel by Dan Stone, or God w/o religion by Andrew Farley. Good stuff.
I read a great post from a friend on FB that I'll share soon.
Peace

 

[Israel]

I like that Farley says "fruit of the Spirit" and not "fruit of the Law."

I get the Love commandment but is it really something new? So in Hebrews, Law is tweaked to laws? Thereby the laws have been etched on our hearts.
This new commandment of love isn't burdensome. This sure is the way that "I" see love but still, it appears Paul sees it differently. He has lists.that List concerning women, drunkards, and homosexuals.

If Love is the answer, why can't I love a homosexual couple as Christian brothers? Why can't I accept an alcoholic brother as a Christian? Why can't I let my wife be the head of my household? Why can't she preach over men and wear pearls?

Love tells me I can and should. That's what I feel is right within my heart. Paul tells me I shouldn't.

Love tells me it's right, Paul tells me it's not.

If there is anything in Paul's instruction that is contrary to love, and you occupy the place of its observance, then you have a righteous place to see him in such opposition.

But, if Paul occupies to you (or any of us) calling as apostle of Christ, we are no more bound to his instruction than that calling (apostle) means to us. If we say "apostle" is given in all for the benefit and worthy hearing of those to whom he is sent (having that authority that compels a hearing, and a likewise authority to make fitting examples of what may refuse such hearing) then it behooves any who receive him as such (especially by acknowledgement to others, and recommendation for others) that he receive a full hearing. Consistency in all, is all.

Christ is, above all, consistent. If one thinks they may exceed Him to identify that place where He is not found (consistent), such lives in vanity of mind and is making of himself a candidate to manifest tearing down. Therefore we have two matters to consider if we confess Jesus as Lord of all:

1. What, if any, authority has Jesus given to such as He calls as apostle?
2. Who then, if any, do I acknowledge as apostle (to me)?

The above considerations do not exist apart from one another. For if we accept (and further promote) the acceptation of one as an apostle we are likewise accepting and promoting whatever authority Jesus has given such to our "building up". (and has Paul himself wrote, such if need be can be used for a tearing down)

Therefore (though this sounds odd to the believer, as though "but it cannot be any other way!") one says "Paul is an apostle, and Paul is an apostle to me" (and if, by further promotion, to us) then one has entered that place of requirement a hearing of all. A man binds himself to matters by his confessions.

Now, here's a kicker against mealy mouthed and double tongued religious hucksters. (Do I speak too plainly?) Any one of them is free to receive Paul as their apostle. Or one of some. But consistency will either be seen (or discerned lacking) in such confession. Is their a hearing of all? If there is a deliberate mishandling; will this be made open to show? Ignorance is in all forgiven, deviousness is not until, and unless confessed.

But here is something else if one continues in the "hearing of all". I (and any and all other) have no authority over one, or any of another except by recommendation. Even if I, or one receive Paul as an apostle "to them" the best one might say is "I have found a thing worth recommending in this brother's understanding", and there, leave it. BUT, if the hearer of such acknowledges Paul (or any) as one sent to them as apostle he has entered the incumbency of hearing of all.

For, in the hearing of all this is no less found:

if to others I am not an apostle -- yet doubtless to you I am; for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord.
YLT

If one "believes" Paul, or says they do, then believe him! If one says they receive Paul as an apostle "to them", then for the love of Christ, seek to establish full receptance. That...full hearing. Where one may draw back, if one does, is most foolhardy to imagine God does not see! And the very reasons...for such drawing back.

But, no where does he ever lay claim to be an apostle to all for all time in all circumstance. Indeed he himself confesses that otherwise may just as well be true!

I cannot, (nor any) seek to lasso you with Paul. If your love of Christ and His church may exceed his, to the showing of a better way than he has both attained to, and taught...help the Church. Paul did not, ever, in any way set himself to the very limit of experience in Christ. Contrariwise, I am convinced more that his heart was wholly true in that what he called "his children" would, in any way left possible, exceed him. But, what I see in Paul, I can make to no other an obligation, but this is simply one thing that endorses him as apostle...to me.

What wants to "bind" with Paul, set Paul up as THE "over all" by injunction, only shows me they neither hear much of him, nor care to. That's OK, God is well able to send to them what will pierce their ears.

I say an apostle wrote this:

Not that I did already obtain, or have been already perfected; but I pursue, if also I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by the Christ Jesus;
YLT

A full hearing, and consistency I hear...being called for.

All my writing above was so succinctly expressed by another several years ago on here.

"Then stay in your niche" he wrote.

Be true...to what you declare...as true.

I find this O! so relieving, as another thing that has demanded of me, a full hearing to the approach of consistency.

stedfast is the word, and of all acceptation worthy, that Christ Jesus came to the world to save sinners -- first of whom I am;
YLT

I can only recommend it to what is yet striving.

But, if any declare that writer as apostle to themselves, they have already entered obligation of hearing.

No doubt, and with no doubt at all, I hear murmurings that the above is a call to anarchy.

To the contrary and entirely so; unprove-able but demonstrable, it is a call to this thing written:

I know whom I have believed...