“There is nothing bigoted in recognizing that certain cultures are superior to others… but they are superior only by grace & through grace.”
Doug Wilson
Pope of CREC
It’s hard to believe that this complete lack of intelligence passes for “deep thinking” by today’s clergy. Perhaps, equally as bad, is the fact that so few catch how thoroughly torpid this statement is.
First, that grace account for the superiority of one culture over another is banal because grace accounts for the superiority of anything over anything else. Whether we have been given ten talents, five talents, or two talents in any area is always only a matter of grace. God doesn’t owe any of us anything. So, Wilson’s statement is a NSS Captain Obvious statement that is right up there with the observation that “the Pope is Roman Catholic.”
Second, the person with a below average IQ would respond by noting that just as superiority of culture is all by grace so superiority of race is all by grace. As ICor. 4:7 explicitly teaches; “What do you have that you did not receive?” All blessings, talents, and abilities are gracious gifts from God. This is true of race and culture as well. Regardless of any superiorities we have — including our race and/or culture it is the truth that we are what we are by grace that keeps us from a selfish pride.
Third, to suggest (as Wilson is doing here) that one can have superiority of cultures by grace while still insisting that race has nothing to do with culture has to be the apex of Gnostic thinking. Culture doesn’t drop from the sky. According to God’s providence culture is the product of who a people are genetically as combined with what they believe about God. As peoples think in their heart so they are. Culture is driven by God’s grace in race and could not exist apart from race. To deny this is outright gnosticism.
Wilson’s attempt to divorce grace from race and race from culture are false dichotomies. If one culture can be, due to grace, superior over another culture than one race can also be, due to grace, superior to another. After all, reproduction does not exist outside of God’s divine sovereignty.
Keep in mind here that Gnosticism was the earliest and most effective heresy in Church history. It was so effective because it could often sound so much like Christianity and yet it was not Christianity.
I agree with what you are saying here and I see how Doug is wrong about what a culture is and how it does have to do with race as well.
But something that always confuses me very very often is when people use the word gnosticism about certain things that don’t fit the definition of gnosticism.
This is the definition of gnosticism:
Gnosticism is a collection of religious ideas and systems that emerged in the early Christian era, emphasizing personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over orthodox teachings. Gnostics believed that the material world was created by a lesser divinity and that true salvation comes from awakening to the divine knowledge within oneself.
How does what Doug said fit into the “gnostic” category? I must not understand what gnosticism is because when people use that word to categorize something or someone, it almost never has to do with this definition.
Hello Michael
Thank you for writing.
You asked;
“How does what Doug said fit into the “gnostic” category? I must not understand what gnosticism is because when people use that word to categorize something or someone, it almost never has to do with this definition.”
And then offered this definition of Gnosticism;
“Gnostics believed that the material world was created by a lesser divinity and that true salvation comes from awakening to the divine knowledge within oneself.”
BLMc replies;
Gnostics believed that the material world was created by a lesser divinity and that the material realm was therefore lesser than the spiritual realm. Because of this belief the Gnostics either were ascetics denying the body normal necessities (since the body was evil) or to the other extreme pursued all kinds of licentious behavior since the body was a material reality that didn’t matter at all. Doug demonstrates his Gnosticism by suggesting that the material reality of race is not real. This is a Gnostic move. Only a Gnostic who denies the goodness of materiality would deny the reality of race.
I hope that helps.
Bret
Perhaps it would be more strictly, technically correct to merely accuse Wilson of “semi-Gnostic tendencies.” Or being on a slippery slope towards Gnostic worldview. Because he is of course nowhere near a full Gnostic, thus leading to puzzled reactions from readers like Micah Lantz.
Perhaps Wilson could be lightheartedly called a “Gnostic Octaroon” or a “Gnostic Quarteroon” if he stubbornly sticks to this “race means nothing” position, which ironically is like “one drop” of Gnosticism in his spiritual blood. Or like a cancerous clump that may yet become much worse if left untreated.
When do “Gnostic like tendencies” become “Gnostic?”
It is true that he could become “More Gnostic” than he currently is just as a pregnant woman can look more pregnant with the passage of time.
But pregnant is pregnant.
Opposing Gnostic or Manichean tendencies in the modern church can be a very worthy cause, IF done right. But alas, even “anti-Gnosticism” can be done wrong in this fallen world, for the wretched 2nd council of Nicaea of 787 AD defended the cult of icons by sanctimoniously declaring the anti-iconists to be damnable “Manichaeans” because of their opposition to material images – the logic being that if you claimed that Jesus Christ could not be truly depicted through art, through pictures made of matter, this was implicit Docetism & Manichaeism and denial of His true Incarnation.
(And it might be that some carelessly zealous opponents of icons had indeed argued in such a matter – “Christ cannot be depicted by lowly material means” – providing a nice juicy target for the iconodule polemicists by which to slander their entire cause.)
And by similar logic, all the Papist superstitions could be defended under the cover of “anti-Manichaeism”, or by claiming that their opponents were unholy ascetics who abominated the material world; “What, you have a problem with our worship of saintly relics? Do you think these material remains of holy people are icky, and unworthy of veneration, do you heretic?”
Good point.
To such people I can only point to the 2nd commandment while drinking a few beers.
As to venerating the Saints and the usage of relics… I only ask for Scriptural warrant.
“Keep in mind here that Gnosticism was the earliest and most effective heresy in Church history. It was so effective because it could often sound so much like Christianity and yet it was not Christianity.”
The Papists were also aware of this principle (quoting them here in same spirit as the Bible quotes the false prophet Balaam) – the most efficient heresies are those that are able to disguise themselves well, like Arianism famously differed from the orthodox doctrine by only one fateful letter:
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html
“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
Do you have any thoughts about the James White-Cory M debate?
I’m glad they can talk with each other but the set up looks like a disaster. Seems like they are preparing to talk past one another. White will be trying to make fun of CM by focusing on the power of the Holy Spirit and saying CM thinks the Spirit is shackled. CM will be talking about history and general behavior patterns.
White had a tweet showing a CM tweet about blacks and White asked whether that means CM wouldn’t go/stay at a church with a black pastor. As if a no answer disqualifies CM from Christian community. I’ve not liked the two black pastors I’ve gone to. Seemed heavy on show/culture, light on thinking through complicated topics, even at a high school level. Doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy and get edifier from Vodie B, or by reading Thomas Sowell. Generalities vs individuals, and I see the debate having such a problem.
I think Mahler is stupid if he tries to defend the idea that on a case by case basis individual blacks can not be as sanctified as individual whites. However, as you hint at, if Mahler was to argue that “as it pertain to history we have yet to see blacks be sanctified on a civilizational basis as whites,” then there can be no doubt that Mahler would be correct.
I thought the statement by Mahler, in his debate with Sey, that blacks can’t be as sanctified as whites was the 2nd most stupid thing he said. The most stupid thing that Mahler said is that “culture is downstream of race.” That position is biological determinism and no Christian believes that. Instead what he should have said is that “culture is downstream of race as that race is beholden to a particular theology.” “As a people group thinketh in their hearts so they are,” one might say. Culture is the outward manifestation of a particular racial/ethnic people groups inward beliefs. Mahler needs to give these matters a wee bit more thought lest he actually guilty of Darwinian social-order evolutionary thought.
Now, having said the above, I still think Mahler wiped the floor with Samuel Sey. It wasn’t even close. The fact that James White very soon thereafter offered to debate Mahler (after refusing previously to share the same platform with Stephen Wolfe) is indicative that White understood that Mahler mauled Samuel Sey and so believes that he (White) has to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
And if Mahler continues to defend the idea that the Holy Spirit can’t, on an individual case by case basis, sanctify blacks more than whites I am going to be screaming that people disassociate themselves from Mahler. (I mean … I know my screaming won’t make any difference to people, but I’ll scream all the same.)
In terms of Voddie or Sowell… honestly… if they were white they’d had never been heard of. I mean, they have their points but there are tons of other white people who have offered what they offer and that done in a superior way. (And I say this as someone who has read several Sowell books.)
So, we shall see what the debate yields. I suspect I shall walk away not being satisfied with either one of them.
“The most stupid thing that Mahler said is that “culture is downstream of race.” That position is biological determinism and no Christian believes that.”
In other words, making flesh a greater thing than spirit (actually denying the existence of spirit altogether, if that kind of carnal logic were taken to its final monistic, anti-transcendental conclusion).
This is the threat of race idolatry I have mentioned – the sin of pride is ever ready, ever ready to jump upon us, even or especially when we are engaging in some righteous and agonizing struggle, which brings us to the temptation of thinking very highly of ourselves.
“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.” (2. Cor. 12:7)
“There is nothing bigoted in recognizing that certain cultures are superior to others… but they are superior only by grace & through grace.”
Doug Wilson
Pope of CREC
Well obviously, Doug, ALL human gifts and attainments are ultimately reducible to grace, including common grace, salvific grace, sanctifying grace, as the individual case may be. What matters here, and what you are either oblivious to or deliberately sliding over, is that God, by His Providential dispensing of grace, favors some individuals and groups over others.
The favor and disfavor, as, for example, with the elect and the reprobate, exists for His deep reasons.
Within His sovereign plan, in this best of all possible created world, He predestinates us to choose freely. In this earthly life, it behooves us to acknowledge this differential favor, as with the inequality in individuals and races, in the establishment and maintenance of our political institutions, including government.
So let us not blithely slide over the vital facts and implications of God’s favor, from, for example, fear of our fellow “egalitarian” man.
Winston McCuen
South Carolina
Hello Winston,
You likely know that I am a Reformed Pastor and as such I don’t agree with Molinism (best of all possible created worlds) or with libertarian free will (He predestinates us to choose freely). To say that God predestinates us to choose freely is to say that God is sovereign enough to not be sovereign. To make that move is to torture language. As Luther noted (and many since then) man’s will is in bondage and because of his sin nature all fallen man can do is sin all the time.
Further, I don’t think Leibniz’s theodicy here is helpful at all.
I suppose it is possible that I have misunderstood you here but I have heard this kind of language before and for the sake of those who might be reading I wanted to clarify the Biblical position on these matters.
Thanks again for your comments. They are always helpful.
“Culture is downstream of race as it is beholden to a particular theology.”
Yes, that is a revision that would make it a better debate. I agree with all that you wrote.
I don’t think CM will be a biological determinist. I think he sees it as a Genesis issue because he often refers to the curse of Ham. So instead of being a race idolater, I think it will turn into a myopic, or over reliance on the three sons of Noah being used as a predictive tool.
He looks back, and has said, the blacks act the way they do, with African chaos and high crime rates in America because of God’s judgement on Ham.
I don’t think White wants an honest debate, he has said as much. He wrote he wants to do this so others can see they should reject CM. So he’s acting a bit gatekeeper. His mind is made up, and that’s fine, but it’s a problem if it’s made up because of secular rules about race and talking about race. If he only wants to debate because CM makes White feel embarrassed then no bueno. In that case, if he has CM wrong, or more importantly, if White has worldly thinking about how to talk about race, then he isn’t in the position to have a productive conversation.
Hello Kurt,
CM may say he is NOT a biological determinist but if he genuinely believes that culture is downstream of race alone he is a biological determinist.
In the end I wonder if we really need to know why races act in their generalities the way they do. The fact that they do ought to be reason enough to speak in terms of racial behavior generalities. I do think the curse of Ham to be significant but I do not think it serves as a talisman that can explain everything.
Regarding White being a “Gatekeeper” … well, of that I have no doubt. There is a good deal of gatekeeping that all kinds of people are trying to enforce. However, I really don’t think that is going to work no matter how this debate turns out. That racial Genie is out of the bottle and there is going to be no putting it back in. I do think eventually there will be some major upheavals in these denominations as they try to squash the obviousness of the reality of the war against white people in this country.
I’m confident that White will crow like a rooster seeing his first sunrise following this “debate.” White has a ego the size of Texas and I’m sure we will never hear the end from White on how he single handedly conquered Hitler.
It won’t matter though. The lines are drawn. I don’t see anything changing that.
Thanks for writing Kurt,