Below is a quotation from a Roman Catholic priest. Contrast it with the current “leading lights” of Protestantism.
“Consequently at the same time as acknowledging the diversity and singularity of races, the Church rejects, equally with the racist assertions of radical racial superiority and inferiority, the tendency towards a depreciation and leveling of races found at the opposite extreme. It does this in the confidence that Christianity, grounded in reality and truth, is able to harmonize the affirmation of the radical unity of mankind with the recognition of racial diversity…There can therefore be no better way of combatting racism and racial discrimination, than by a sane and realistic acknowledgement of the facts of race and of historical and cultural inequalities” –
Bonaventure Hinwood
Race, Reflections of a Theologian, p. 103
“There is only one race. The human race. And so I think races — the whole concept of races — is problematic. The one human race is divided by language. divided by culture, divided by tribes, divided by history.”
Doug Wilson
Pope– CREC
“I use ‘ethnicity’ because, as we shall see, ‘race’ is not actually a positive biblical reality, but a construct. On this point, ironically, I agree with CRT advocates, much as many of them state that race is a social construct, but then practically operate in many senses as if it is real.”
Owen Strachan
Baptist — Need I say more?
“Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision. Our identity is NOT determined by our ancestors—we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.”
Another Baptist
“‘Race’ is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority.”
“One of the sad realities of antiracism is that it is 100 percent correct about race being a construct.”
Voddie Baucham
Yet another Baptist
Even if we got the alienists to confess basic kinism ethics, it wouldn’t do much good.
Kinism ethics is just tip of the iceberg. The levels of syncretism is unreal. Every application of their religion is 100% aligned with the religion of tolerance (radical individualism).
Steven Anderson has actually broken with the syncretism with his detestation of homosexuality. Everyone else is merely a confessing hypocrite, trying to keep the syncretism together.
The syncretism needs to be broken. Believing that bad fruit can be born, is the starting place. You can tell the wheat from the chaff because instead of thinking in terms of
> What fruit will this bear for grandchildren
they think in the moralisms of a religion that didn’t exist before the twentieth century.
Joel Webbon says they refuse to apply Christianity to the real world. I say they already are liberally applying their real religion.
Precisely!
Good piece. I grinned at the “yet another Baptist” remark. At the last IFB church I was a member of, before I became Reformed, I heard the preacher (from the pulpit) proclaim that he believed in race, “the human race” and also (maybe somewhat jokingly?) apologize for being part German.
Germans all over my Mother’s side of the family.
“Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision.”
This is a half-truth. Which is often the most efficient lie of all. The male or female sex, too, are ultimately secondary things for Christians. And yet that does not make them meaningless.
Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are NOT destroyed by regeneration and justification. Upon regeneration and justification white people remain white and black people remain black and their genetic tendencies remain distinct w/ each experiencing the reality that grace restore nature.
I am not even sure this is a half truth.
A quarter-truth, then. It was with this sort of shady reasoning, with questionable inferences and rhetorical gymnastics, that Papists imposed their brazenly anti-Biblical dogma of clerical celibacy (“See how Apostle Paul praised celibates!” etc.)
The forced celibacy was an ideological predecessor of modern anti-racist preening, for it ultimately relied on the semi-Gnostic premise that priests (and monks) should not indulge in such lowly carnal activities like having families. (In the same way, it is beneath the spiritual dignity of Christians to have racial identities.)
In the Middle Ages, clannish sentiments were so strong that only the strongest medicines would be able to fight against them. And forced celibacy was that kind of medicine. As Charles Kingsley explained:
https://archive.org/details/romanandteutonas014333mbp/page/n237/mode/2up?view=theater
“But St. Alphege was an Englishman, and not a Roman. True in the letter: but not in the spirit. The priest or monk, by becoming such, more or less renounced his nationality. It was the object of the Church to make him renounce it utterly; to make him regard himself no longer as Englishman, Frank, Lombard, or Goth: but as the representatives by an hereditary descent, considered all the more real because it was spiritual and not carnal, of the Roman Church; to prevent his being entangled, whether by marriage or otherwise, in the business of this life; out of which would flow nepotism, Simony, and Erastian submission to those sovereigns who ought to be the servants, not the lords of the Church. For this end no means were too costly. St. Dunstan, in order to expel the married secular priests, and replace them by Benedictine monks of the Italian order of Monte Casino, convulsed England, drove her into civil war, paralysed her monarchs one after the other, and finally left her exhausted and imbecile, a prey to the invading Northmen: but he had at least done his best to make the royal House of Cerdic, and the nations which obeyed that House, understand that the Church derived its rights not from them, but from Rome.”
If the clerics would be allowed to have their own clan-ties, their own flesh-and-blood connections, they would not be so reliably tied to the international ecclesiastical system that Popery wanted:
https://archive.org/details/vicarsofchristda0000dero/page/588/mode/2up?view=theater
“The conservatives at Trent were quite frank about this. They actually said that without celibacy the pope would be nothing more than the Bishop of Rome. In brief, the papal system would collapse without the unqualified allegiance of the clergy; celibacy alone could guarantee that sort of allegiance. Celibacy, on Trent’s own admission, was not and never was primarily a matter of chastity but of control.”