What do White Evangelicals owe liberal blacks?

[Sparko]

First things first: I apologize for wrongly characterizing your posting of the article. I was a jerk to you and that was uncalled for. I spoke out of frustration at the repetitive stiff-necked quality of the posters in this thread who felt qualified to criticize the content of the article without having read it. I should not have impugned you that way, so if you can, please forgive me for it.

Second: I do not apologize for treating certain people in this thread the way they want to be treated. Don't get me wrong, I am a big boy, and I am not asking you to be the jerk-police of this, or any other, thread. I appreciate the rough and tumble, adult quality of the board. Iron sharpens iron. But when someone like Mountain Man acts like an idiot, I'm going to treat him like an idiot.

fwiw,
guacamole

apology accepted.

I think the problem here is that you are ignoring what the article was actually about and are arguing on generic principals that Christians should help our fellow man. everyone agrees with that! what we are complaining about is the fact that the article is 1. assuming that Trump being elected is something intrinsically evil and harming blacks, and 2. that white christians are responsible for this evil and owe something to blacks for electing him.

we will help blacks or anyone else who genuinely needs help, but not be blamed for some slight that doesn't actually exist, or because they are mad that Trump was elected.

[seanD]

Eh? Your statement doesn't seem to make any sense. If I were poor, the US is the developed country I would least want to live in, due to their lack of aid for the poor relative to civilized countries.

This is why I shouldn't have wasted time in a discussion with you. After everything we just discussed? You're mental.

[rogue06]

they also seem to forget it was white people who freed the slaves.

A point that cannot be overemphasized since slavery still takes place in Africa and the Middle East where governments tend turn a blind eye to it.

[Adrift]

The point is this, Mountain Man. Galatians 3:28 is not some enlightened modern post-racial kumbaya exhortation that Paul drops from nowhere into a technical passage on the means of justification. If there is a declaration of oneness, it is in that:

A. We are justified the same regardless of who we are.
B. We are accepted by God because of that justification.

If there is any element of "we are unified," it is for those reasons. This is not a passage where Paul is literally telling us that it is improper to draw racial distinctions in the church.

I'm not really paying attention to the debate between you and MM, but I can't help feel that whatever your point is, it's not entirely clear. While I agree that the main thrust of the Galatians passage is salvational, I think it's going too far to imply that Paul had nothing in mind about racial equality and egalitarianism in general. And, of course, maybe that's not what you meant to imply, but that's how you come off, at least to me. Paul certainly wasn't an egalitarian in the modern sense, but the passage in question does show some extremely forward thinking for the time, and a move towards social, along with, spiritual equality. The commentators that I've read on the subject seem to agree with that as well; That though the passage is mainly soteriological in nature, it's more than that. It has major ramifications on how we are to perceive ethnicity, and gender, and social stations. As Professor Ben Witherington puts it,

Source: Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians by Ben Witherington

Paul knew, perhaps more than most, what submission to the Mosaic Law meant. It required a disciplinary commitment like that of an Olympic athlete and more to the point, the way the Law was set up, it placed certain persons, especially healthy males, in privileged positions in Jewish community. Paul believed that this particular sort of patriarchal arrangement had had its day, and should not be imported into the new creation. He envisioned a community where Jew and Gentile, male and female, young and old, slave and free could all sit down together at table as equals, as brothers and sisters in Christ. It was this same vision that caused Martin Luther King Jr. to preach his famous 'I have a Dream' sermon in Washington D.C. some thirty years ago. It was this same vision that caused John Wesley in the eighteenth century to start orphanages, oppose slavery (calling it 'the most inexorable sum of all villainies'), and allow women exhorters and preachers in his movement. This vision of community is still compelling and it shows that the spiritual and social Gospel belong together. Paul believed there was no spiritual Gospel that did not have social implications, but equally that the social Gospel must be grounded in profound transforming experiences from God's Spirit.

© Copyright Original Source

I just get the feeling from reading your post that in your zeal to prove MM wrong somehow, that you're moving too far in the other direction. And, in a way, also cutting the branch from under yourself, especially as your point for posting in this thread seems to be along the lines of the social gospel.

[Mountain Man]

I have already demonstrated that you are wrong about point one with the citation of two separate instances in the New Testament, all of which are racially charged texts:

1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Christ both attacks the racist attitudes of some of his countrymen and establishes the central Christian ethic.

2. The vision of Peter, from Acts, of the clean and unclean. If it is so that we should not fixate on division, the Christ and Luke are wrong (absurd! I know.)

You're doing a mighty fine impersonation of a modern day pharisee, though it may not be an impersonation. The whole idea is that we SHOULD NOT fixate on racial and cultural division. The point of the Good Samaritan in particular is that everybody should have helped the injured man. It wasn't a special obligation placed exclusively on the Samaritan just because he was from Samaria and the injured man was a Jew, but by using this passage to defend this article, that's essentially how you're interpreting it, which is a blatantly incorrect interpretation even if you're too blinded by your own self-righteous light to see it.

As for Galatians 3, yes, Paul is talking about justification through faith (the way you piously pretend that I didn't already know this was a charming touch ), but to say that this is the only lesson we can draw from this passage is an unreasonably narrow reading to the point that you probably have KJV-onlyists nodding their heads in approval. Actually, it's the same point as Peter's vision, broadly speaking: don't think better of yourself than someone else because we're all under the same grace.

Look, if I ever refused aid to someone simply because they are a different race than me then by all means, throw the Good Samaritan parable in my face. If I ever made myself out to be better than someone else because I grew up in a Christian household and he didn't then feel free to lecture me on Galatians 3. Heck, shout it from the rooftops if you think it's warranted. But do not throw those passages in my face just because some black people have their nose out of joint because their preferred candidate lost the election.

[lilpixieofterror]

My personal view is that if no one living was harmed by past actions, then they are consigned to the dustbin of history and need not be 'atoned' for, beyond learning from the mistakes of the past and resolving not to make them again. So I don't think the logic behind concepts like "reparations for slavery" really works because the wrong is too far in the past.

This isn't anything to disagree with, but you pretty much destroy this with your next paragraph.

However, in the US, systemic racial discrimination has occurred in the lifetime of people currently living, and that makes it a different kettle of fish entirely. There are people alive now who lived through Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, housing discrimination, systemic police discrimination, KKK activities, laws designed to hurt their communities, systemic voting disenfranchisement, harsh prison sentencing laws targeting their communities, etc. These things and the effects of them have directly impacted the lives of many US blacks, and indirectly impacted the lives of nearly all of them in some way or another. These prejudicial actions taken with malice and aforethought against the black communities deserve apologies, atonement, and reparations.

Hummm interesting because I would have thought things like:

Fair Housing Act
The Civil Rights Act
Trillions spent on anti-poverty programs
Affirmative action
Etc

would be enough to atone and pay back for these sins long ago. Interesting how ultra progressives seem to ignore those kind of things and seem to think non whites still need whitey to take care of them to atone for sins that happened decades ago, to their parents and grandparents. You would think that trillions that have been flushed down on anti poverty programs, with little to show for it, would tell you that giving people money isn't the solution to lifting them out of their situations. It just waste money and gives you a class of dependent people. Perhaps instead of 'paying back' people for actions that happened to their parents and grandparents, perhaps another approach beyond spending trillions more, with little to show for it, might work better. Believe it or not, non whites don't need whitey to give them a helping hand and are perfectly capable of swimming too.

In addition, there exists a general moral obligation within any society to help the poor and disenfranchised and suffering. Black communities are disproportionately socio-economically badly off and have a higher rate of imprisonment, and in the Great Recession blacks lost 50% of their total wealth (as it was mostly tied up in their houses), so social programs and financial assistance ought to be disproportionately targeted at them anyway.

And yet, trillions of dollars has been spent and lo and behold, they are still poor with no real change in the poverty level. It's almost as if anti poverty programs do not work. Imagine that.

[lilpixieofterror]

they also seem to forget it was white people who freed the slaves.

And all the stuff that has happened since the end of Jim Crow laws.

[Leonhard]

It's not for me to talk about whether US poverty programs work. I simple don't know enough about them. However in some sense until blacks are statistically as well off as whites, then the effects of racism are still there whether or not racism is still in effect. They're still generationally suffering the consequences. I do believe we're obligated to help all poor people regardless of whether our ancestors were the cause of them being in that situation. However intuitively I do feel that if we put them in that spot unjustly, we do owe them some extra effort.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's not for me to talk about whether US poverty programs work. I simple don't know enough about them. However in some sense until blacks are statistically as well off as whites, then the effects of racism are still there whether or not racism is still in effect. They're still generationally suffering the consequences. I do believe we're obligated to help all poor people regardless of whether our ancestors were the cause of them being in that situation. However intuitively I do feel that if we put them in that spot unjustly, we do owe them some extra effort.

And yet, 50 years later and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, so obviously, all these 'payback' programs do not work.

[Leonhard]

And yet, 50 years later and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, so obviously, all these 'payback' programs do not work.

As I said I can't argue for US programs. I don't like speaking about things I don't know anything about, as I usually end up stepping in mud and saying things I regret based on ignorance. However, there's still the principle at play. But its also a hard curdle to figure out, as for what should be done. The history of the Earth is long, and if you go back far enough almost all parts of the world were taking unjustly. Denmark was ruled by tyrannical vikings. The US itself was pretty much taken by force with a near genocide of native americans.

Go back far enough and two naughty humans decided for themselves that they wanted to know the difference between Good and Evil, and ate of the fruit.

But still... enslavement of the blacks, and the heinous racist policies against them aren't a new thing. Two grandma's living an dying back to back, that's how long ago it was that you could purchase a negro slave.

[lilpixieofterror]

As I said I can't argue for US programs. I don't like speaking about things I don't know anything about, as I usually end up stepping in mud and saying things I regret based on ignorance. However, there's still the principle at play. But its also a hard curdle to figure out, as for what should be done. The history of the Earth is long, and if you go back far enough almost all parts of the world were taking unjustly. Denmark was ruled by tyrannical vikings. The US itself was pretty much taken by force with a near genocide of native americans.

Go back far enough and two naughty humans decided for themselves that they wanted to know the difference between Good and Evil, and ate of the fruit.

We can get into philosophy all we want, but the obvious problem here is that 'paying back' for actions that happened decades ago doesn't seem to be a very good solution. Many of these payback programs date back to the mid 1960's and there has been no real change in the poverty rate, despite 50 years and trillions spent. Simply put, they do not work.

But still... enslavement of the blacks, and the heinous racist policies against them aren't a new thing. Two grandma's living an dying back to back, that's how long ago it was that you could purchase a negro slave.

And those actions have long ago been paid for and all the people that happened to a long dead and have been dead for about a century or more now. For me, I have to go back 5 generations to find any of my ancestors that would remember slavery and the civil war. 5 generations, going on 6, and still whitey has to pay for sins that happened 150 years ago? How many more decades is this going to take or are we going to be still 'paying back' in the mid 2060's, on the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the 13th amendment?

[seanD]

It's not for me to talk about whether US poverty programs work. I simple don't know enough about them. However in some sense until blacks are statistically as well off as whites, then the effects of racism are still there whether or not racism is still in effect. They're still generationally suffering the consequences. I do believe we're obligated to help all poor people regardless of whether our ancestors were the cause of them being in that situation. However intuitively I do feel that if we put them in that spot unjustly, we do owe them some extra effort.

It depends on what type of wealth you're referring to. Minorities have the same opportunities today as middle class and upper class whites have, especially with today's technology. If you're talking about insane Soros or Buffet type of wealth, those people fall into a different breed of wealthy. Not only do you have to be extremely smart and lucky, but you have to have an amoral disposition. Very few people fall into that criteria, including most whites.

[Starlight]

And yet, 50 years later and what do we have to show for it? Nothing, so obviously, all these 'payback' programs do not work.

Anti-poverty programs have helped millions and millions of people in the US, as they have in other nations too. For the most part such programs are very successful and very effective. The US however, has not spent as much on such programs as the rest of the 'socialist' Western world, and as a result has not achieved as much with them.

[Sparko]

It's not for me to talk about whether US poverty programs work. I simple don't know enough about them. However in some sense until blacks are statistically as well off as whites, then the effects of racism are still there whether or not racism is still in effect. They're still generationally suffering the consequences. I do believe we're obligated to help all poor people regardless of whether our ancestors were the cause of them being in that situation. However intuitively I do feel that if we put them in that spot unjustly, we do owe them some extra effort.

no they are suffering from the effects of the "help" - the very social programs that are supposed to make things better keep them in chains.

[Sparko]

Anti-poverty programs have helped millions and millions of people in the US, as they have in other nations too. For the most part such programs are very successful and very effective. The US however, has not spent as much on such programs as the rest of the 'socialist' Western world, and as a result has not achieved as much with them.

the problem with liberals is that in order to try to fix the problem of blacks being treated as inferior, they institute problems that treat blacks as inferior. they say that blacks are not good enough to get equal pay, or even jobs, so they treat them as inferiors that need the government to "help" them, by keeping them in poverty with free slum housing and welfare.