I'm Working on a Series Arguing that Racist Belief and Confession is Heresy
- Thread starter Brad Mason
- Start date
- Status
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I find it contradictory that a missionary would be against such a view. Human reasoning is strange after all.
I sincerely doubt he is trying to implicate those of us who are decidedly against identity politics. If I read him correctly he is against the notion of things like white supremacy, black supremacy, and the like that was prevalent a generation or two ago and still is around the world. So much insecurity on here, sheesh!
I think you are all talking past each other.
His piece was poorly written.
First, lots of folks are said to be racist who truly are not. Racism usually just means that you disagree with a liberal or a social justice warrior.
Second, even those who truly are racists cannot automatically be condemned as heretics. A great many men throughout church history thought of the sons of Ham, Shem, and Japheth as having different abilities and different traits. This blogger sounds like he is trying to condemn all of those as unsaved. In our generation racism has become the unpardonable sin.
Third, he never defines his terms.
Fourth, he gives in to the concept of race and speaks of the different "races" (instead of the one human race) which is precisely the presupposition needed to exercise racism in the first place.
Fifth, he never deals with Scripture, but only philosophy. He never even touches the Apostle Paul's charge about the Cretans.
Sixth, I know of nobody that says that the different races are of any substance other than human, nor is there any ontological difference between them, except maybe the conspiracy theorists who say that some of the human race are really reptilians from Niburu in skin suits.
And yes, instead of clacking away on a keyboard, I am living among a Melanesian tribe. So folks can call me racist if they will. I treat all people the same and I am a minority where I live.
A much better treatment of this subject is written by the blogger himself, on the same blog, the article, "Remember Calvinists, God Became Man for all Men." This is an excellent piece and really makes the same point and shows the unity of all mankind into the one human race, which seems to contradict the same author's use of the plural term "raceS".
Last edited:
Brad Mason
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, given the low level of comprehension displayed in the responses, I thought "misread" was being charitable. It was either that, or lack of understanding of traditional metaphysics as employed in the Creeds, or defensive reaction to taking this errant belief and confession as seriously as other errant beliefs. I had hoped to offer another piece that might clear up misunderstanding of what I actually said, rather than what was assumed that I said. But I suppose now that there was no point in posting it here. Maybe discussions like this are better off outside the Reformed world.
I guess, keep on keepin' on. The Reformed church will beat those evil Social Justice Warriors after all.
So...is it race...or races of mankind? You seem to write of both and assert one human race even as you speak of the races? A consistency in terms and a definition of how you define those terms would be a good starting point for profitable discussion.
Heresy is a very heavy charge. Before you condemn folks to hell, you'd better have very good reason.
And yes, I suppose we are all too dim to understand your erudite philosophy. Not only are many folks now heretics, but they are also stupid now, too.
“In short, it is impossible to simultaneously affirm that Christ bore the perfect and complete human nature (substance) of all men (“for us men and for our salvation”) and yet affirm that races can be superior or inferior; for there can be no inferiority or superiority without distinction of nature (substance).”
Yet as I see and as others have pointed out, Christ took on human male flesh. You are arguing against racism, but in so doing, you seem to be arguing in a way that offers no proof that females are not inferior.
What of gender? Are all misogynists also damned, too?
Yet as I see and as others have pointed out, Christ took on human male flesh. You are arguing against racism, but in so doing, you seem to be arguing in a way that offers no proof that females are not inferior.
What of gender? Are all misogynists also damned, too?
To quote several good comments:
"It seems by your definition (and please correct me if I am wrong) that one group can claim total and objective superiority (being faster, smarter, stronger, better looking, and better at governing) than another group while still coherently claiming to be of the same substance. Since these are only accidental qualities there can be nothing dehumanizing about saying a populace or race, as a whole, is stupid, weak, ugly, and incapable of governing themselves. This allows for even more strident racism than my definition allowed.
Thus racism, even if objectively wrong, isn’t heresy."
And also,
"One major problem with your argument is that no physical thing can perfectly instantiate its nature. It is part of human nature to be bipedal, yet there are people with one or fewer (or even more than two) legs. They are still human and human nature is still bipedal. They are just imperfectly instantiating humanity. We all (hopefully) consider them to be in an inferior state. That is why people invent medical devices to help them be able to act as though they had the proper number of legs. The idea of prosthetic legs would be insane if it was perfectly natural for a human to be legless.
Likewise there are certain heritable genetic traits that make one more qualified for certain jobs: steady hands for surgeons or musical ability for musicians. These traits tend to run in families. This in no way denies the imagio dei of people without these traits.
As such, one can assert that people with certain phenotypes fail to instantiate humanity in different way than people with other phenotypes and that these differences can qualify or disqualify one from certain positions in society, without being heretical.
This is exactly what non-malicious racism does. So, while it might be wrong from a scientific perspective, it isn’t heresy."
So, in summary, I think we can prove from Scripture that some "acted-upon racism" (unequal treatment of persons based merely on status or race, such as James speaks of when we give a rich person a better seat than the poor) is sinful, we cannot prove that it is heresy.
"It seems by your definition (and please correct me if I am wrong) that one group can claim total and objective superiority (being faster, smarter, stronger, better looking, and better at governing) than another group while still coherently claiming to be of the same substance. Since these are only accidental qualities there can be nothing dehumanizing about saying a populace or race, as a whole, is stupid, weak, ugly, and incapable of governing themselves. This allows for even more strident racism than my definition allowed.
Thus racism, even if objectively wrong, isn’t heresy."
And also,
"One major problem with your argument is that no physical thing can perfectly instantiate its nature. It is part of human nature to be bipedal, yet there are people with one or fewer (or even more than two) legs. They are still human and human nature is still bipedal. They are just imperfectly instantiating humanity. We all (hopefully) consider them to be in an inferior state. That is why people invent medical devices to help them be able to act as though they had the proper number of legs. The idea of prosthetic legs would be insane if it was perfectly natural for a human to be legless.
Likewise there are certain heritable genetic traits that make one more qualified for certain jobs: steady hands for surgeons or musical ability for musicians. These traits tend to run in families. This in no way denies the imagio dei of people without these traits.
As such, one can assert that people with certain phenotypes fail to instantiate humanity in different way than people with other phenotypes and that these differences can qualify or disqualify one from certain positions in society, without being heretical.
This is exactly what non-malicious racism does. So, while it might be wrong from a scientific perspective, it isn’t heresy."
So, in summary, I think we can prove from Scripture that some "acted-upon racism" (unequal treatment of persons based merely on status or race, such as James speaks of when we give a rich person a better seat than the poor) is sinful, we cannot prove that it is heresy.
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
Three points of the argument fall flat to me on a cursory read.
1) If "Human nature (substance) is alone universally propagated within the class", then what defines the class? The very definition of class is that it has a unifying characteristic that other classes do not share. If your argument is that races really don't exist as the only thing all members share is human nature--something that all other races share as well--then fine. But that doesn't seem to be the argument.
2) I don't see how a difference in quality requires a difference in nature. If I say that my wife or pastor is qualitatively better than I, does that imply that there is a distinction in nature and thus application of Christ's benefits? I realize you are making an argument about classes (thus Bell curves and all that), but it would seem that your ultimate argument, as summarized by Pergy above, would militate against any qualitative distinctions whatsoever. Can we make qualitative distinctions regarding any classes (apart from races)? About any persons?
3) Ultimately you are not arguing that racism is heresy. You are arguing that it is heresy by implication, and an implication that most racists would not agree with. That's dangerous territory. Before the judgment seat of Christ, all are held accountable for what they believe including inconsistencies. But we should be careful about charging someone with what we believe is an implication of their belief when they deny that implication. Should we really charge a Dabney, for instance, with Christological heresy, due to his racism?
1) If "Human nature (substance) is alone universally propagated within the class", then what defines the class? The very definition of class is that it has a unifying characteristic that other classes do not share. If your argument is that races really don't exist as the only thing all members share is human nature--something that all other races share as well--then fine. But that doesn't seem to be the argument.
2) I don't see how a difference in quality requires a difference in nature. If I say that my wife or pastor is qualitatively better than I, does that imply that there is a distinction in nature and thus application of Christ's benefits? I realize you are making an argument about classes (thus Bell curves and all that), but it would seem that your ultimate argument, as summarized by Pergy above, would militate against any qualitative distinctions whatsoever. Can we make qualitative distinctions regarding any classes (apart from races)? About any persons?
3) Ultimately you are not arguing that racism is heresy. You are arguing that it is heresy by implication, and an implication that most racists would not agree with. That's dangerous territory. Before the judgment seat of Christ, all are held accountable for what they believe including inconsistencies. But we should be careful about charging someone with what we believe is an implication of their belief when they deny that implication. Should we really charge a Dabney, for instance, with Christological heresy, due to his racism?
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And no one is really claiming that. The only people who get triggered (or get the vapors) when realists claim "distinctions" would be liberals, NPR, and the Gospel Coalition. They believe, like good Hellenists, that distinction = division, but that is a fatal Christological error.
Well Pergy, I note that Americans write 'color' rather than 'colour', 'honor' rather than 'honour', 'check' rather than 'cheque' etc. Are you part of that inferior American race that does not use the Queens English?
Seriously, I read two excellent biographies of Jonathan Edwards recently - by George Marsden and Iain Murray. Jonathan Edwards greatly loved the American Indians and ministered Christ to them. He saw the Indians as inferior in some respects but superior in their perception of reality etc. He sought to view the Indians through Biblical lens. Some races have certain genetic weaknesses and strengths - longevity, obesity etc. There are cultural factors as well. I found it refreshing reading this about Edwards as it was a welcome break from the political correctness of today, yet showed Edwards conviction that all races of men decend from the one man - Adam Acts 17:26.
I have found Peter Wood's book very insightful "Diversity: The Invention of a Concept".
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Moderator Note:
Brad,
Please update your signature per our requirements so that we may properly address you. See the link in my sig below.
I am disappointed to see you taking your response to issues raised to a blog rather that providing your responses in the thread you originally started. Your new thread has now been merged with the original thread...the one you are reading right now.
Your opening post and following responses from that other thread now begins here (Post #28):
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-and-confession-is-heresy.94958/#post-1159284
Lastly, please dial down the rhetoric:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...onfession-is-heresy.94958/page-2#post-1159299
- Status