Category: Apologetics

What Can Educators do to End White Supremacy in the Classroom?

Interesting article Titled,

What Can Educators do to End White Supremacy in the Classroom?

You can find it here,

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2014/04/White-Privilege-Conf-Teacher/

Here are some choice quotes from one Kim Radersma who has written one article on a different subject for at least one denominational magazine. Radersma was quoted as saying,

“Teaching is a political act, and you can’t choose to be neutral. You are either a pawn used to perpetuate a system of oppression or you are fighting against it,” Radersma said during the session. “And if you think you are neutral, you are a pawn.”

She said educators need to challenge the system, otherwise they are giving in to white supremacy. Radersma also argued the first step is realizing that all white people are carrying the signs of oppression.

“Being a white person who does anti-racist work is like being an alcoholic. I will never be recovered by my alcoholism, to use the metaphor,” Radersma said. “I have to everyday wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply imbedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose everyday to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way.”

She argued that until white people admit they have a problem, they will not be able to fight against white privilege.

“We’ve been raised to be good. ‘I’m a good white person,’ and yet to realize I carry within me these dark, horrible thoughts and perceptions is hard to admit. And yet like the alcoholic, what’s the first step? Admitting you have a problem,” she told the session attendees.

Multiple educators attended the breakout session of about 50 people and seemed very interested in how to bring the ideals of social justice and white privilege into the classroom. One attendee, a teacher and the diversity director at his school, spoke about the activities he is implementing and said it is important for teachers and administrators to discuss social justice with their students. Radersma echoed his sentiment.

“If you don’t want to work for equity, get the fuck out of education,” Radersma said. “If you are not serious about being an agent of change that helps stifle the oppressive systems, go find another job. Because you are a political figure.”

Elsewhere the always demur Ms. Radersma offered,

“Who’s at fault? My white body is at fault. My racial identity, as a white person who believes that I am somehow better or more deserving, is the problem. The white supremacy, the structure is the problem.”

Another topic of discussion was how white people’s actions, like donating to charity or helping a family in need, are inherently racist. Here the gentle and soft-spoken Radersma offered,

“It’s that savior mentality, like ‘save them, because they are not like us,’ and that normalization of whiteness. Whiteness is best and those poor others aren’t as good as us,” she said. “So, we need to think of them and give them our sympathy and our charity and our generosity, which is so demeaning to the people on the receiving end. It’s so demoralizing and disempowering to be receiving it.”

1.) On the first quote I would prefer to say that Teaching is a Theological act though certainly all teaching has political implications. She really is on the right track here. There is no neutrality in teaching.

2.) On Radersma comment that “all White people are carrying the signs of oppression,” as combined with how being White is like being alcoholic is perfect. If white people don’t admit they have a problem as oppressor then it proves they have a problem. Meanwhile, if white people do admit they have a problem as oppressor it proves they have a problem. How convenient.

3.) I love it when a lady teacher swears. It is so feminine.

4.) Not only is being white itself racist but being white and helping people is even more racist. So, if you don’t help people, I’m pretty sure that is racist. However, if you do help people, that proves you’re racist also.

5.) Obviously Ms. Radersma has fallen prey to the self hatred and false guilt mongering that is so typical among whites who have fallen victim to Cultural Marxism.

6.) Keep in mind that 50 teachers attended Ms. Radersma session. How many of them will drink the kool-aid and take this poison back to their classrooms?

Apologetics Into The Void

What practical dilemmas do you encounter related to homosexuality or same-sex marriage? (for example, situations at church, in your family, at work, or at school).

The chief practical dilemma I face is having to choose between compromising on the truth or speaking the truth and living with the consequences. Of course, it would be easier to compromise and be toasted and haled by all and that is what the part of me wants which would think only of self. So, I frequently get in situations at Church, family, or in meetings where it is increasingly being assumed that sodomy is just another life-style choice, and I am faced with the dilemma of not speaking and so being accepted as opposed to speaking out and living with the contempt of the zeitgeist. In St. Paul’s words the dilemma is whether to be conformed to the world or to be transformed by the renewing of my mind.

So, to put it another way I have the dilemma of submitting to the clear teaching of Scripture or choosing to be a coward instead so I can be accepted by elite opinion makers.

The survey had this to say about language.

A Note on Language:

A variety of terms are currently used to describe sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of these terms carry different overtones for different people, making it hard to find any neutral yet respectful language. In this survey we will use the following terms, which are intended to be understood in a neutral way, as outlined below:

gay – attracted to the same sex, usually referring to males, though it may also be an umbrella term for same-sex attracted people. Here the word is intended to refer to orientation only; it does not say anything about a person’s sexual behavior
lesbian – attracted to the same sex, referring to females
bisexual – attracted to both male and female persons
same-sex attracted – attracted to the same sex
homosexual – attracted to the same sex
straight/heterosexual – attracted to the opposite sex
sexual minority – persons who do not identify as heterosexual*
queer – a formerly derogatory term that has been reclaimed as a a self-affirming umbrella term by sexual and gender minority persons

* Though the term sexual minority may include aspects of gender identity, this survey is mainly focused on matters relating to sexual orientation

1.) When Jesus called out the Pharisees as a brood of vipers and other strong language was he using sinful language that was not neutral or respectful? I have no problem with seeking to be sensitive to people’s feelings unless they are seeking to sell themselves as poor victims who’s abnormal behavior needs to be accepted by all in Society.

2.) There is no such thing as neutral language. One way the sodomite community has advanced its agenda is by stealing the language. “Sodomy,” as a word was seen as a descriptor that could never lead to the behavior being accepted was changed to “homosexual” and then to “gay,” and with each change the goal was to make the behavior seem more benign in keeping with the word used. Those in the Queer community understood that language is never neutral and so they advanced new words that served their cause of getting sodomy accepted.

3.) The idea of finding neutral words of course presupposes that the Queer issue is an open question as to its moral probity. This stance of neutrality already advances an agenda to remove the current language that explicitly speaks of it as wrong in its behavioral expression.

4.) If this survey is mainly focused on matters relating to sexual orientation then why does so much of it deal with attending Queer commitment or “wedding” ceremonies? Usually, commitment and ritual ceremonies called weddings implies consummation and so behavior and not merely orientation.

Please answer the following questions

Yes No

Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Please answer the following questions Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Do you have regular interactions with sexual minority persons in your workplace or non-Church community?

Have you ever been invited to a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

Have you ever been invited to a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

Have you ever attended a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

If invited, would you attend a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding (assuming you were able to go)?

With respect to same-sex commitment/marriage ceremonies, it is my opinion that:

Church members/attenders should be free to attend them
Church elders and deacons should be free to attend them
Pastors should be free to attend them
Pastors should be free to officiate at them

It is possible, though I can’t know for sure, that someone might read the result of this type of survey and conclude that the people who don’t know Queers aren’t really qualified to have opinions on the whole issue. Also, the survey could be easily used to show that people who do know Queers are much more accepting of Queer behavior and that the answer to rejecting Queer behavior is just getting to know a few more Queers.

Asking the questions about attending Ceremonies, once again, presupposes that the behavior of people is more important then the text of Scripture. Does it really matter how many respondents attended Ceremonies if the Scripture speak clearly against Queer Nation? Do we now come to truth by counting noses?

If we are going to have a conversation on sodomy and Queer marriage why doesn’t someone put forth the pro Queer argument from Scripture? How and where does Scripture teach God’s positive approval on Queer Nation? Where does Scripture give positive approbation to Queer marriage? Perhaps someone can show how the Church has been wrong for 2000 years in its interpretation of sodomy as being sin?

And just for the sake of clarity, I do understand there is a distinction between orientation and behavior. I quite agree that the Church should work with people with besetting sins as long as there is no disposition to claim that the problem of besetting sins is solved by no longer considering besetting sins as sins.

From The Lifting Of Taboo To The Compulsory Requirement That Previous Taboos Be Embraced

The social – sexual revolution of the 60’s promised liberation but has, instead, delivered chaos. The 60’s sexual revolution that taught us, through song, that “if you can’t be with the one you love, honey love the one your with” yielded sexual chaos.

In the multitude of Rock -n- Roll songs, we were promised the liberated Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by bedding his wife)

Over the course of time sexual chaos begat family chaos as all that free sex led to mass confusion for families. Family chaos in turn begat social chaos as nobody was quite sure just what address they were supposed to be sleeping at every night. Social chaos begat economic chaos as incomes were halved as the income providing for one home was now required to support two homes thanks to divorce and support payments. Economic chaos in turn begat political chaos, and the result of all this chaos has been dysfunctional families, murdered and bereft children, and a soaring STD rate. Wasn’t the Sexual Revolution Grand?

Now that the chickens are coming home to their roost, and so the consequences are now being seen of the havoc from all these policies over the course of years, the pagan left, which gave us these policies, doesn’t want to be held uniquely responsible for these policies. So, they have gone from the policy of lifting the Taboos to the policy of making the previous Taboos now compulsorily accepted behavior by the citizenry. And so, for example, what started as lifting Taboo laws so that sodomy was approved (Lawrence vs. Texas) we have now gone to implementing laws where the Florist, the Baker, and Photograph taker are being compulsorily required to approve of heretofore deviant behavior upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. Likewise we have gone from Connecticut vs. Griswold (1965) where the pagan left Supreme court lifted the taboos of birth control to the Hobby Lobby case where we are on the cusp of of the pagan left Supreme court compulsorily requiring companies to provide birth control abortifacients upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. The attitude seems to be, “you’re going to be liberated whether you want it or not Damn’it.”

Of course one advantage of this newly required compulsory behavior is that the Left won’t be blamed for any of the abysmal policy that led to chaos but can say instead, “well, that is just the way things are. Everybody wants it.” By making the acceptance of the behavior compulsory the pagan left implicates everyone and everyone is to blame and not just uniquely the left. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to force everyone to share in your guilt?

And so we have come to a place where the new sacred canopy of paganism is one where we are all being forced to take shelter under. Anybody opting out of our new pagan sacred canopy will not be tolerated. Such people will need to go to re-education camps or psychiatry wards in order to get their mind right.

From The Pastor’s Mailbag — Christian Economics?

Dear Pastor,

1.) ‘Why would you have a seminary teach macroeconomics?

2.) What makes Sowell’s theory reflective of a “Reformed Worldview” when he’s not even Reformed, as far as we know?

3.) Why do we even have to frame macroeconomics in those types of terms?

4.) What makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and who gets to decide that?’

Thanks,

Jillian

Dear Jillian,

Thank you for writing. Before turning to your questions, which we will take one at a time, let us consider some macro aspects to this.

First we need to understand that Economics is theology dependent. The ancients had a saying, that yet remains true, that “Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.” This truism teaches us that all other disciplines are derivative of some prior understanding of Theology. What that means is that Economics, History, Sociology, Psychology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Arts, Politics, Law etc. are all dependent on some Theology, and are what they are as they are informed by some theology. Theology is an inescapable category from which all the humanities are derivative. Because this is true Economics, like all those other disciplines listed, are but the incarnation and manifestation of some Theology into the various theories that comprise the discipline. Because this is true, it is never a case of whether or not we will have an Economics that is driven by theology, but it is only a question of which theology will drive our Economics. Since this is so, Christian have to think about what the implications of our Christian Theology have for Economics because if we don’t think in those terms what will happen is some pagan theology, representative of some false god or god concept, will be what drives our Economics. As such if we will not have Economics as derivative of explicitly Christian theology, we will have Economics as derivative of Humanist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Theology. Theologically speaking, there is no Economics from nowhere. Theologically speaking there is no Economics wherein Economics is not serving as a handmaiden for some God or god concept.

Having opened with that we turn to your questions.

1.) Seminaries might teach a macro Economics course because,

a.) Our abstract Theology also needs to be concrete. There is a necessity to reveal to seminarian students that as all Theology is totalistic in its claims, Christian theology needs to challenge the paradigms of false theologies as they incarnate and manifest themselves in the Public Square via Economic modalities and paradigms.

b.) The Scripture gives us themes for a Christian Economics. For example, Scripture forbids theft, therefore, a Christian Macro-Economics would require us to hold that the holding of property by individuals is a necessary aspect of a Christian Economics. This simple tenant immediately informs us that all Marxist type of Economic arrangements are unbiblical since Marxist theory denies the individual claim to property to the individual. We know that individual property claims are biblical by looking, as just one example, at the account of Naboth’s vineyard in the Scripture (I Kings 21). Other Biblical principles for Economics that we can derive from Scripture is the necessity of the keeping of contract (James 5), the idea of a just wage (Malachi 3:5), the prohibition against oppression of the worker by the Rich (Deut. 24:14-15), and that Government theft is a positive evil (I Samuel 8). Another key Economic theme of Scripture is the reality that God’s people are Stewards of all that God has given them and all that God has given them must be handled, not as absolute owners, but as stewards unto God. After all, I am in body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Any Christian Macro Economic theory must reflect these realities.

These themes alone go a long way towards informing a Christian Macro-economics.

Now, to be sure, the Marxists and the Progressives who call themselves “Christian” will come in and deny these aspects but at that point all we can do is to go to the Law and to the testimony to see if these things are so (Isaiah 8). Also, we need to realize that there are those who will claim that Economics, like all other disciplines are NOT theology dependent. As previously, all that can be done is to appeal to Scripture and trust that the Holy Spirit will open people’s eyes to see that there is no Neutrality, no not even in what is called the “common realm.”

c.) In the end Marco-economics is needed for those who would be ministers because they are to speak forth the whole counsel of God. Christianity does not end at the Church doors. Christianity is not merely about Jesus living in my heart. Christianity is not restricted to some zone beyond which it is forbidden to go. As Abraham Kuyper once said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’ That includes Economics Jillian.

2.) Dr. Thomas Sowell is not Reformed. Of that there can be little doubt. However, having said that, his theories, as existing in the context of a Reformed Christian worldview support many of the idea set forth immediately above. Sowell believes in individual property claims. He is against totalistic Economic claims of the God state. He supports individual right of contract. Sowell, of course, is not to be absolutized. Only the Scriptures are absolute. And of course there will be aspects of Sowell’s theory that need to be reinterpreted through a Biblical grid. For example, the Austrian school of Economics, that he is associated with, does have elements in it that are thoroughly unbiblical and would need to be purged from a Christian Economics.

3.) We have to frame Marco-Economics in these types of terms because these types of terms are inescapable concepts that can’t be escaped. Because all of reality is Theologically driven, all that composes reality will likewise be theologically driven. Further, without Macro-Economics being framed in such a way we lose the ability to distinguish some time of Economic activity as “wrong” as compared with other types of Economic activity we would say is “right.” If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say, “Marxist Economics is wrong,” because Marxist Economics presupposes an Economic determinism that doesn’t submit to the reality that God rules. If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say Wall Street Crony Capitalism is wrong because Wall Street Crony Capitalism (Corporatism) absolutizes wealthy in their oppression of the poor and the needy. If we fail to frame Macro-Economics in these type of terms then we are forced to live with whatever oppression the State, as God, determines as our lot.

4.) God and His Word makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and it is the Scriptures that get to decide that since all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I believe that Economics is a good work that the man of God can be equipped for by understanding Scripture.

In the end Jillian, I don’t want to be the one to tell God that Macro-Economics is none of his damn business and he should just butt out of the whole discipline.

Thank you for writing Jillian,

Moral Cowardice Under A Theological R2K Fig Leaf

“I think is is appropriate to distinguish Lutheran 2K from this recent R2K, but an important point is often missed, and that is that some influential R2K proponents really don’t seem to take natural law seriously. Natural law theory (as historically affirmed by RCs, Lutherans, and Reformed) unequivocally affirms that heterosexual marriage is a teaching of natural law. In fact, the Magdeburg Confession of 1550 that DGH (Darryl G. Hart) loves to cite says,

“But if a ruler is so demented as to attack God, then he is the very devil who employs mighty potentates in Church and State. When, for example, a prince or an emperor tampers with marriage against the dictates of natural law, then in the name of natural law and Scripture he may be resisted.”

So why is it that the big topic in R2K discussions right now is that the church has nothing to say in the public square about SSM (Sodomite Marriage)? I can only conclude that they really are not very serious about their affirmations of natural law, and that R2K is really, as I’ve said elsewhere, a “theological fig-leaf for culture war fatigue” and an excuse to remain silent.”

Dr. William B. Evans
Younts Professor of Bible and Religion, Erskine College
Chair, Dept. of Bible, Religion, and Philosophy
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

Natural law is a shield against getting involved in the public square until it might force us to take a concrete stand against wickedness in the public square. Then Natural law is up for debate, just like Scripture has been made to be up for debate.

The Church really is at a crossroads. We can either follow the equivalent of the WW II ghetto Judenrat and work with the enemy or we can draw a line, plant our banners, and unfurl our bold colors.