“Racial identity is incompatible w/ the Christian Gospel. The Gospel was created partly to overcome racial identity. The Gospel was created to forge religious identity.”
Really Bad “Theologian”
1.) The Gospel was created to partly overcome racial identity? So, as creator God created races and racial identity but in a move wherein grace destroys nature the Gospel is created to partly overcome racial identity? I mean, does this mean that the Gospel was not intended to completely overcome racial identity and if it means that how much of racial identity was the Gospel not supposed to overcome?
2.) Clearly Abraham, whom Scripture teaches was justified by faith alone, had no concept of the gospel when he sent his servant to find a wife of his own kindred for Isaac. Apparently good ole Doc Sandlin would have just recruited a local Canaanite girl who had recently attended a Billy Graham revival in order to get Isaac married off.
3.) Certainly that first sentence in Andy’s quote above explains why Jesus had to be descended from David. (Sarcasm off)
4.) Is Jesus, who is now at the Right hand of the Father, no longer to be referred to as “The Lion of the Tribe of JUDAH?,” or would that be a non Gospel sentiment Andy?
5.) The Gospel was created in order that the Ethiopian could no longer be used hypothetically as one who could not change his skin?
6.) How can it possibly be the case that given this view that Christianity is not pure on Gnosticism? Seems the Manicheans were correct after all.
7.) More of the modern Gospel that teaches that grace destroys nature. Once you love yourself some Jeebus you no longer are “Red or Yellow, Black or White, because after all you’re all the same in God’s sight.”
Honestly, I am left absolutely gob-smacked that this man could have his own wife listening to him, never mind having scads of people hang on his every word.
And he, as well as his opinion, are not that uncommon among those reputed to be pillars in the Church.
Brother, I support you against Sandlin, who is obviously in the business of giving his listeners a version of “baptized Liberalism,” or atomistic individualism, but please – refrain from using ugly, worldly parodies of Christ’s precious name like “Jeebus.” It frankly makes you sound like some mocker of Christianity.
I am mocking Sandlin’s Jesus not the Jesus of the Bible. Sandlin’s Jesus needs mocking.
Also, following Sandlin’s faulty logic, Christianity must have clearly been meant to overcome CLASS identity as well – does not Apostle James provide a perfect “prooftext” for such an attitude? (James 2:1-9)
Christian Communism is where this logic is heading to. If there is to be total racial integration among Christians, why not also total ECONOMIC integration, instead of keeping the old sinful system of masters and servants, or possessors and non-possessors?
Or does Mr. Sandlin love his own stock portfolio too much to adopt such a position? Surely we do not have here some typical “leaven of the Pharisees” – preaching up daring and demanding spiritual sacrifice in some area that suits his own taste, laying up heavy burdens on other people (forcing people to give up their ethnic identity), while ignoring such challenging spirituality in some other critical area, which is not so much according to his own taste (giving up his personal property)?
All of this maltreatment of Christianity by Sandlin and others is why Oswald Spengler could say long ago,
“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”
This is what I meant when I said that Sandlin preaches “baptized Liberalism.” The pioneers of Liberal ideology, or the rising Liberal bourgeoisie that supported the French Revolution and its sequels, touted the principle of “equality” to overthrow the old elite of Europe, the hereditary feudal aristocracies (for whom “race purity” was obviously an important concept), but not so much equality that they themselves, after becoming the new ruling elite, would have to accept the demands of rising Socialist movement, and part ways with the fortunes they had just made.