“So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
I Timothy 5:8
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
I Peter 2:9
Over at this link,
we learn that God’s command to be biblically prejudiced and rightly discriminatory is sinful. This is evidenced by a few quotes culled from the article. (There is also a interview that you can listen to linked in the article.)
“I think that kind of act of helping towards people with whom we have some shared group identity is really the modern way in which discrimination likely happens.”
“The insidious thing about favoritism is that it doesn’t feel icky in any way. We feel like a great friend when we give a buddy a foot in the door to a job interview at our workplace. We feel like good parents when we arrange a class trip for our daughter’s class to our place of work. We feel like generous people when we give our neighbors extra tickets to a sports game or a show.”
The article then provides this synopsis,
In each case, however, Banaji, Greenwald and DiTomaso might argue, we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children’s classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds. When we help someone from one of these in-groups, we don’t stop to ask: Whom are we not helping?”
This article then is teaching that prioritized support for fellow believes in Christ or as unto family and friends is a variant and milder form of discrimination that is associated with racism. These, heretofore, natural loyalties, when prioritized, are now seen as to be examples of violation of the unspoken insistence that we must equally favor all men. This is a derivation of the idea of the Brotherhood of all men concept that has done such damage to our social order and culture. It is also a tributary of Egalitarianism. How dare we prioritize our faith, and our people, over others when we know that all relations are equal.
I would also contend that the kind of thinking, as exhibited in the article, is an attempt to undergird the whole specious idea of “white privilege,” that is bandied about so mindlessly. “How dare white people support one another with their subconscious discrimination,” would be one easy conclusion stemming from the article. This is especially so when we read the final two sentences of the article.
After reading Kaplan’s story, Banaji says, the woman decided to keep giving money to her alma mater, but to split the donation in half. She now gives half to her alma mater and half to the United Negro College Fund.
Note that neither prejudice nor discrimination has been eliminated. It has merely changed visages. Now, at the insistence of this kind of thinking, people are discriminating against their own. Favoritism has not gone away. It has merely changed from a favoritism from ones own orbit to favoritism to that which is alien. This article proves my point that familialism is an inescapable category. What is happening in the article is that the stranger and the alien are to be now considered and given the status of “family.” While family are to be treated as alien. Consequently, Familialism has not gone away for these people, it has merely rearranged matters and inverted God’s reality.
Darrell Dow has it right when he notes,
“These secular forms of universal ethics make moral demands that violate the proper boundedness and rootedness of human moral obligation. Part of the aim of Cultural Marxism is to undermine loyalty and attachment. Loyalty to family, church, ethnic group, nation, etc. as well as attachment to place are all undermined as a means of leaving the individual naked and unprotected before the state–and the elite who manipulates it. Ultimately it is a sideways attack on the church, but the church fails to recognize the nature of the threat.”