Read on Twitter
Alright people, I had so much fun with the last one; let's do it again.
https://twitter.com/bobstevenson/status/1274859219997556737?s=20
As before, I would greatly appreciate feedback and critical engagement. In other words, PLEASE @ ME.
A thread on a perceived hole in anti-SJW* logic.
https://twitter.com/bobstevenson/status/1274859219997556737?s=20
As before, I would greatly appreciate feedback and critical engagement. In other words, PLEASE @ ME.
A thread on a perceived hole in anti-SJW* logic.
1a. I've been listening to recommendations by some of my evangelical counterparts on racism. Something I've heard is that Scripture doesn't talk about "race" as defined today, only ethnicity. This is, technically, lexically accurate.
1b. When scripture addresses human division, it does so along lines of class, social vulnerability, and religio-cultural lines. The Scriptures are abundantly clear that the gospel is the great equalizer, breaking down the walls of hostility between people and peoples.
1c. Fundamentally, of course, this hostility is rooted in sin. Ergo, the gospel solves the root problem (see Eph. 2:1-22). So in attacking the root problem, the work of Christ objectively creates a new unified community, brought together across *all* dividing lines.
2a. Here's where I see incongruity between their logic, and the inner logic of Scripture. Why are the categories I mentioned above addressed at all? Perhaps b/c they are the only "biblical" groups requiring social action? I don't think so. These categories are not immutable.
2b. Concern for the widow is commanded because widows were socially vulnerable. Had widows and orphans been prioritized + protected in broader society, the biblical authors wouldn't have connected "true and undefiled religion" to this social reality and need.
2b*. (And yes, I know they were typically addressing community life in the church. Stick with me. My argument applies to the church)
2c. To sum up thus far, the biblical authors apply God's righteousness to social realities in which vulnerable parties in the church are threatened and afflicted. Through the gospel, God calls His people to bring that reality to bear in the church (and to a degree, the world).
2d. So that begs the question: can we kick discussion of racism to the curb just because we don't find a semantic equivalent in the NT? Hardly. Modern racism is categorically similar to other oppressions/vulnerabilities in Scripture. But it's not the same. Which leads me to #3.
3a. Modern racism (and by this I mean racist thought developed over the past 500 or so years) emerged as a philosophical, theological and moral justification for economic institutions of exploitation. How so?
3b. Well, if you’re going to enslave fellow humans and trade them as commodities, you need a pretty good justification in order to sleep at night. Particularly in a western context deeply influenced by Christian thought. After all, Christianity points in the other direction.
3c. Racist justifications were clever, and they were heretical. And their very existence were a testament to the gross error of enslavement. If the de-imaging work of human enslavement was morally neutral, no justifications would be needed. But of course, it wasn't neutral.
3d. As such, justifications were needed. To accomplish their aim, they had to fundamentally distort biblical anthropology and create an alternate explanation—one that de-imaged the imago dei; a flagrant denial of God's creative design. They were, in short, heretical.
4a. Let's circle back to the point of all of this. Anti-SJW thinkers, especially those who argue that race doesn't exist in the Bible (and so we shouldn't talk about *racial* reconciliation), commit an exegetical fallacy.
4b. If I search for the semantic equivalence of some modern sin condition in Scripture and do not find it, what should I do? Dismiss or reduce the conversation within the church? I sure hope not.
4c. If this is my approach, we should kiss any productive discourse on gender dysphoria, abortion or transhumanism goodbye. The Bible has no direct reference to any of this. But I hardly imagine any of us actually want to chain ourselves to that post.
4d. But it's more than a fallacy. It fundamentally misunderstands the deeply-rooted heretical nature of racism. Racist thought was never simple bigotry or bad law. *It* facilitated, influenced and shaped action / law by creating a plausible explanation + purpose for these wrongs.
4e. The notion that we can ignore this persistently influential heresy as something "back then," is convenient, but ultimately naïve.
4f. Understanding that racist thinking shaped *so much of our historical culture*, we are impressed with the urgent task of critically and biblically analyzing the many ways in which this heresy infiltrated (and still influences!) our theology and practice.
4g. The heretical travesty of racist thought in the Western world demands we powerfully shine the light of the gospel into our darkness. It is the only thing that can reveal truth and offer hope.
4h. But it is my conviction that our capacity to apply the gospel reality to our world, and to experience true transformation in our churches will remain stunted as long as we refuse to see the depth and breath of the problem we are engaging.
As before, please @ me. I won't bite, and I appreciate any thoughtful conversation you bring to the table.
* I don't have a better label for the crowd I'm trying to describe. It's not a good one, but it's all I've got right now.
* I don't have a better label for the crowd I'm trying to describe. It's not a good one, but it's all I've got right now.
Also, I’m using “SJW” a bit ironically here.
