Originally posted by gb93433:
[snip]Segregation and slavery is wrong and unrighteous. It is the devaluing of human life and stealing people. So you call the devaluing of God’s creation (segregation) serving God. Not at all! It is serving Satan. Phil. 2 says that we are to count others as more important than ourselves. How did segregation serve that purpose. How did that law serve that purpose.
Better read in James when James talks about pure and undefiled religion. It is standing up and taking care of the downtrodden and those who cannot take care of themselves. So you say it is okay to stand with the unrighteous and go along with the law even when it violates scripture.
[snip]
This does not present the correct view of segregation as seen by Southern Christians during the early to mid twentieth century, especially BJU, Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. and Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. Also, it does not properly exegete Scriptural teaching.
First, the underlying presuppositions of the above post are predicated on the Supreme Court ruling in
Brown v. Board of Education that “separate are not equal.” I assert that rulings of the Supreme Court are no more the highest authority for rational argument, especially in a Christian context, than the Nazi Courts of WWII or the Soviet Peoples Courts of the Cold War. I cite a few well known cases such as
Row v. Wade, McCollum v. Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, Abington School District v. Schempp, and
Santa Fe v. Doe. where Christians are opposed to the Court’s rulings on Biblical grounds. We are faced with the apostolic impasse of whether it is right to obey God or obey God by obeying man. Obviously, it is better to explicitly obey God. Thus, we conclude that a Supreme Court doctrine is
not on par with Scripture.
Second, the implied premises of the above post are out of a Marxist-socialism paradigm of class-race exploitation and struggle. The basis is essentially humanistic although easily confused with some Biblical and theistic concepts. However, I assure you that the thinkers who formulated what is expressed in these arguments did not begin with man created in the image of God but they began with man as the highest order himself. The differences are subtle but crucial in arriving at a correct understanding and a Biblical view.
Third, the allusion to Scripture in James is inaccurate and misapplied. This is
not what the Scripture is teaching in the alluded passage. It is reading into
Scripture one’s own presuppositions and modern dogma, thus depriving the Scriptures of their own true teaching and application. It has a name—eisegesis. Whereas there was no exegesis, the eisegesis was apparent.
To claim that Scripture condemns segregation is the same folly as claiming that Scripture mandates it. To condemn segregation, its critics pull a slight of hand trick and equate it with racism. Segregation, of itself, is
not necessarily racism. Let me explain.
Dr. Bob, Sr. and Dr. Bob, Jr. viewed segregation from a conservative, freedom philosophy. One of the basic liberties is the freedom of association. It is the freedom to associate or not to associate with whomever. Even the classical liberals accepted this view. The Drs. Bob were not racists but they believed in freedom of association. Dr. Bob, Sr. said that a person could start a school for bowlegged men if he desired. This was an expression of the freedom of association rights. They did, however, believe that miscegenation was wrong because God had formed separate races after the Tower of Babel. Therefore, they exercised their freedom of association rights to keep the races separate. They had no ill feelings or animosity towards other races. They were very benign and loving. This is not racism.
Opposed to the freedom philosophy was the Marxist-socialism paradigm of racial and class struggle. If one accepts the Marxist-socialist paradigm, he presupposes segregation as racist and evil. It is the struggle of class against class and race against race. There can be no amiable segregation in his thinking. It is invariably the exploitation of one race by another. The goal is a classless, raceless society of universal beneficence, brotherhood, peace and prosperity in a global economy. This new humanism deifies humanity and exalts itself against God and individual freedom. This is not a Scriptural viewpoint but it is the new humanism, sometimes called secular humanism.
Furthermore, it doesn’t pan out in human experience and application in life. Traditionally and culturally aware Indians, Native Americans if you please, are opposed to marriage outside of their genotype. They see it as racial and cultural suicide and it is from a practical standpoint. I have no doubt in my mind that races arose after Babel due to the geographic segregation and pooling of genes within a breeding pool. If the races intermarry, then the differences are obliterated and racial characteristics cease.
IMHO, it is desirable to maintain racial identity by choice, not coercion. I see no inherent racism in Indians maintaining their culture and identity by choosing to marry and reproduce within their own racial grouping. Now, apply it to the white race and you get the same thing unless you hold the Marxist-socialist presuppositions on race. The Marxist reads race exploitation into white segregation simply because of his race theory.
The Jews are another example of segregation. They segregated themselves from Gentiles and have maintained an ethnic identity. It has not been all religion either because there are many religious divisions within Judaism. I say more power to them.
They have the right to practice segregation by attending their own Jewish schools, worshipping in their own synagogues (whatever flavor of Judaism they choose), and marrying only Jews. And they do think themselves superior as God’s chosen. Read their literature. However, I have no problem with any of this.
Then, what is wrong with a school in the South having a white only policy when it was an acceptable thing to do in the culture at that time?
Segregation is
not necessarily a devaluing of human life as was alleged in this post. The two aforementioned examples refute this idea. The only way one can say this is by stereotyping and applying the extreme forms to the whole spectrum. Such is specious and deceptive reasoning.
There are many misplaced values being emphasized under the guise of Biblical Christianity. Paul sent a slave home to his master. He further admonished slaves to remain in servitude even though they did not desire it. We see no crusader seeking to change society in either Paul or Jesus. The problems that Paul and Jesus addressed were the sin problems of the individual.
By directing Biblical rhetoric against the so-called social ills, one misses the target of the sinful human heart. It is society, an abstract concept that becomes the object of reformation rather than the regeneration of the human heart. Although society will benefit from the collective good of the individually regenerate hearts, this is not the focus of Scripture.
Pious Christians blubber, “I love everybody in the whole world just like the Bible says.” Lie! Where does the Bible say this? One cannot love everyone in the whole world because they don’t know everyone, haven’t seen everyone, and will never meet everyone. The Bible commands us to love our neighbors whom we have seen. We work and play along side them but we don’t love them in how we treat them. We, as humans, would rather salve our souls with the sentimental slop of loving everyone rather than facing our petty selfishness, our malice toward our neighbors and our sin by repentance and loving our neighbors practically.
Likewise, we see the same pattern in the flap over supposed racism. Racism has become the premier sin of our generation. Never mind the personal evil and wickedness we do toward members of all races but we are nice people if we love all the races. I would like for someone to explain exactly how we love a race rather than individuals? It’s the individuals who make up the race. I will argue there are no racial sins, only individual. Yet, this idea is ever present in the presupposition that whites owe blacks something to compensate for someone’s great-great-grandpa owning someone else’s great-great-grandpa.
Finally, I will argue that separation (i.e. segregation) without animosity along any lines—racial, ethnic, cultural, religious,
etc.—is not evil and is not necessarily un-Scriptural. In the religious milieu, I contend that it is good to have Baptists, Methodists,
etc. segregated so that they can practice their doctrine and worship God consistent with their beliefs. Inclusivism and ecumenicism are not my cups of tea. The melting pot theory of America is a lie. The theme of America is liberty where one may freely follow his own way of life as long as it does not violate the rights or liberties of others.
To pre-empt the pat little spiel about loving one’s neighbor, please note that I emphasized this already and pointed out that it is individual and concrete, not collective and abstract.
I will disregard with distain any post nit-picking at statements out-of-context and reading ideas into my thoughts. I have no desire for childish repartee. On the other hand, I welcome debate on the broad issues that I have outlined. Let’s hear another viewpoint as long as we stick with the broad issues. Thank you.
