WASHINGTON – African Americans are statistically likely to be religious, but their worldview is shaped by their race more than their faith, contends a born-again black author in her new book.
Long-standing social and political patterns in the African American community have molded black Christians to behave like secular black society, said former journalist Pamela G. Wilson in her book entitled, Finding Soul Brothers: Dismantling Black Christian Racialism.
Wilson defines the race-focused mindset, which is now expressed through political and social loyalties, as “racialism.”
On issues such as abortion and homosexuality, biblical principles are often sacrificed to support race agendas like social equality and economic justice, she contends.
“Most of the time, people (black Christians) are supporting a candidate for the sake of how they feel they will advance the race,” Wilson told The Christian Post.
“They want to put their support behind the candidates that will help the causes they’ve been fighting for over these last few decades – which there is nothing wrong with – but there is also a Christian standard and I don’t think you should support anything that makes you turn away from the Bible if you truly believe what the Bible says.”
Black Christians tend to be “stuck” in the civil rights mindset and not look beyond those issues even if they say they are a believer.
“People just jump on the black bandwagon at the expense of their faith,” Wilson said.
“There are examples after examples where Christians have chosen black unity over their Christian faith and I call that being unequally yoked.”
Wilson challenges fellow African-American Christians to stop focusing on their race and instead assume a faith-based agenda, which would more closely align with their spiritual beliefs. A faith-based agenda includes family values, morality, and spiritual authority – issues traditionally associated with conservative white Christians.
“It is very painful to say ‘if I let this go, what about my civil rights as a black person?’ But then you got to get to the point as a Christian to say ‘I can do all things through Christ and depend on God to be my deliverer and overcome injustice,’” advised the black born-again author.
Wilson’s book comes at a time when Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is vying to be the first black U.S. president. In December, his campaign unveiled a new committee of top African American religious leaders, which Wilson calls liberals and criticized for “turn[ing] their back” on biblical issues of abortion in exchange for a civil rights agenda.
“I believe as Christians, and definitely as leaders in the Christian community, they should be pointing people towards what the Bible says on these issues and then endorsing people who believe and want to support what the Bible says about that and other issues.”
She considers it problematic that Obama – who is ranked as the Democratic candidate that speaks the most about religion by Beliefnet.com – says he is a Bible-believing Christian but is pro-abortion and pro-gay “marriage.”
“Black Christians are more likely to focus on racial soul brothers than spiritual ones. This is a major hindrance to total unity within the Christian church,” Wilson said. “It has also forced black Christians to maintain loyalties based on racial tradition rather than the Bible.”
Wilson is among the growing number of black evangelicals joining the traditionally white social conservative movement. This group of black conservatives is led by their faith-agenda, often abortion and same-sex “marriage,” rather than by any political party.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., who heads the socially conservative black pastors group called High Impact Leadership Coalition, has worked closely with conservative white leaders like Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins to fight abortion and gay rights legislation.
A Washington Post-Kaiser Foundation-Harvard University poll this summer found that more than half of blacks said they oppose both same-sex “marriage” and legal recognition of same-sex civil unions. Yet only five percent of blacks in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll responded that abortion, moral or family values issues were their top concerns for the upcoming presidential election.
Instead, the largely religious African American population said its top concerns are social issues such as the war in Iraq, health care and the economy and jobs.
The former “racialist” called on black Christians to adopt a “true Biblical view” and remove “racialist badges of victimization, abandoning the race card, and discarding secular views and practices.”
Wilson suggests multi-racial worship and for blacks to do service projects with other races to overcome racialism.
Comments
I am Black and I am not surprise that a person who has not been a Christian very long is allowed a voice for an entire people. She does not speak of me and she does not know me. She is trying to sell a book by telling the masses what they want to hear or believe. No one person speaks for all and knows all. How do you become an authority so quickly, I guess next she will be preaching, by-pass divinity school she knows it all in a short time. Shame on you - who buy into this type of hype to keep kingdom building further apart.
Sounds like it boils down to if Christians (in this case African American) love the Lord with ALL their heart, soul and mind, and love their neighbors as themselves. How much more simple could it get?
I spend a bit of time as a lay advocate for special needs children and education. It isn't something you do. It's something you stand for and your actions are a result. Jesus was quite a social activist. Our government is a reflection of our people. If we don't like what we see in the mirror we need to change what's in front of it!
Poverty and social inequality is a result of the church not believing the gospel. It's that simple. This is where it gets fixed. It's a grassroots sort of thing.
The perspective of this article is being subjected to the mentality pointed out by the author. Subjective rationalism or moral relativism seeks to present acceptable alternatives to fundamental obedience to the Word of God.
Christ told us to to "seek the kingdom and God and His righteousness First", and "deny ourselves" and follow him. We have been warned about calling good evil and evil good. Paul warns about having a "form of godliness but denying the power thereof". I believe God is leading Christians to be willing to suffer for the sake of righteousness. This tends to trouble my mind, but I cannot avoid the similarities between how christians are being persecuted in the public square by being asked to denounce the faith in subtle ways and the persecution of the first christians subjected to persecution in the colluseum by gladiators and lions.
It is not hate to stand for righteousness. It is not bigotry to maintain the standards of the Bible. Peter told us that it is better to spoken of as being evil by the world when we stick to the righteousness of God than to compromise so the world will not condemn us. Hate wants to see other perish. Hate shows indifference to those living in sin separted from God. Love declares the Gospel in word and deed to shed the light and love of Christ on those in darkness.
John told us not the love the world or the things in the world because if we love the world then the love of the Father is not in us.
Finally, Paul told us that we will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. That statement alone should compel believers to purify ourself from the stain of the world and be clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
I agree with the author, that we as Christians should not abandon the Word of God when outside of church. However, as others have stated (jermyemilio etc), how do you choose a party when both are ignoring part of the Word? These are man made parties they will not cover everything. I choose normally to vote Democratically because;how can I speak of God when you can't hear me over your need of food?
Pammie you are right, but what do you do when you have received a business of econ B.S. degree, have work experience, but have not been hired in the year you have looked. Thank God he sent me a good provider for a husband who is also understanding.
48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Because the sodomites had plenty it caused them to oppose God. Pride was the root cause of the others sins being committed in Sodom. These Old Testament Scriptures you are using cannot apply to me today as New Testament Believer. In verse 49, if taken at face value, seems to say I am committing sin if I do not give to the poor and needy. This verse is basically saying they had a careless ease about them. They were secure in their abundance. In addition, their pride caused them to despise the poor not help them. God will never condone oppressing the poor or treating them inhumane because of their situation. Pride lead to many things and is cruel. This is what was going on in Sodom regarding the poor. Despising the poor for their condition and helping them are two different things. I will say this, as believers we should give to those who are less fortunate, but there is not scriptural mandate either way. I understand the humanity of a person will probably say because I am not sinning why give? I do not operate that way. What ever you give, give because of love for God's creation, whether or not they are rich or poor. Don’t give because you fear a punitive retribution from God.
Secondly, if this scripture is applied to me today, there will be a counter part for it in the New Testament. There isn't one. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself stated you will have the poor with you always.
Thirdly, regarding homosexuality,
Lets look at Jude 1:7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange F2 flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
The key words here are fornication and strange flesh. We all know fornication is the Unlawful sexual act outside of the confines of marriage right? Now, the strange flesh means to have a sexual relationship with men not women. It speaks to the order of nature. The order of nature in Gods eyesight is a man and women cohabitating together in a marriage relationship. This was not happening in Sodom. They were going contrary to the nature of God’s order .Men were having sexual relationships with other men. Jude is the New Testament counter part of Ezekiel 48-50. This gives a broader picture of what the pride and security in their abundance actually lead them to do as well as the other things mentioned.
Hey pammie, good post.
I actually agree with much of what you say. My only quibble is that you buy into the conservative myth that there are a bunch of lefties out there with signs and placards lobbying for increased welfare payments for the lazy.
Let me preface by saying I’m very familiar with both sides. I’m a PhD student in English Literature and I’m also a very active member of the very conservative Pentecostal Church in Canada. Here’s the disconnect as I see it:
Conservatives view poverty in terms of charity (i.e. giving to people who are in need). Liberals view poverty in terms of social justice (i.e. leveling the playing field so that everyone can succeed). Thus, when Liberals demand we address poverty, conservatives assume they are calling for an increase in the amount and/or scope of charitable giving. In reality, though, liberals want to empower the poor to escape their situation. It is the conservative approach that leads to institutionalized poverty.
Don’t buy it? Here are a couple of examples:
1. Wheelchair access: I’m not that old, but I remember when this was a controversy. The left came up with the idea that if we made buildings, businesses, and transportation accessible to the physically disabled they would be empowered to achieve their own success. The right, though, insisted this was unreasonable. Not everyone is able to do everything. Besides, if you’re disabled you have a good excuse so don’t worry; that’s what charity is for. It sounds far fetched in hindsight, but that’s how it went.
2. Subsidized childcare: This one is still playing out. The left believes if we provide free childcare, single mothers will be empowered to support their families, rather than being forced to stay home to care for their children and collect welfare. The right has a different solution: workfare. If you make single mothers work for their social assistance they'll be forced to find someone to care for their children (maybe a schizophrenic grandma, or a drug dealing brother… they’re not doing anything). It’s not our responsibility to pay for the care of your children (until they’re 18, when their upbringing catches up with them and we have to foot the $50,000 per year bill for keeping them in prison).
This isn’t an indictment of the right, though. The liberal approach has problems as well. Go to a liberal institution and tell them your family is homeless and they’ll lobby the government for low cost housing. Go into a church and they may well build you a house.
Christians need to apply both perspectives. We must work to relieve immediate hardship through charity (something the Church is good at), but we must also work to empower the poor through social justice (something the Church is just catching onto now).
I heard that Huckabee has more support in the black community than any other Republican ever has.
On Poverty - 2
While the church and the government should help the poor, that help should be tailored to specific situations. Some people require TEMPORARY financial help, some need help with budgeting, some need job-skills training, and some need drug treatment or psychological therapy. Still others need mentorship programs to keep them motivated. Researcher Randy Alcorn says: I know a man who (hasn't worked for 10 years)...He still lives off the misguided “help” of society. Meanwhile, he has lost both his self-respect and his family. A nation, church, or family that subsidizes the lazy spawns laziness. Since laziness (can lead) to poverty, supporting the lazy breeds poverty. from Finding Soul Brothers
On Poverty - 1
The much-quoted Matthew 25:35-40 speaks of serving “the least of these,” referring to society’s obligation to serve people who are hungry, imprisoned, and poor. The scripture describes one mission of the church. But it is often misused in the rhetoric of racialists, liberal politicians, and the Christian Left, who cite it as justification to help a broad range of people. But could they be misapplying this scripture? According to the Bible, our benevolence is necessary and appropriate for people who are unable to attain life’s necessities, such as food, clothing, and human interaction. These people are described as “the least of these” because they are least able to provide for themselves. Among them are children, people with mental or physical disabilities, and people with language barriers, those who have lost hope behind bars, and those who have been forgotten in hospitals and nursing homes. They are the least competent members of society, and because of that they need our help.However, the “least of these” does not include people who are able but unwilling to work, people suffering from their own financial mismanagement, or people who neglect common sense planning. These are choices that lead to poverty, as noted in scripture: “He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows frivolity will have poverty enough” (Prov. 28:19). The Bible has many admonishments about being lazy and slothful. While there may be some cases where poverty is an inescapable station of life, those cases are few, particularly in the United States of America. from Finding Soul Brothers
cont. (for real this time)
To clarify: you can’t begin with a premise (“scripture is important”) and then drop the premise when it works against you (“scripture is not so important”) and then expect folks to stand by complacently when you pick the premise back up again to reiterate your original argument (“as I’ve stated, scripture is important”). Such tactics lead to blatant logical fallacies.
The bottom line is that Wilson’s thesis is wrong in its implication that one side is in keeping with scripture and the other side is not. The truth is the right is in keeping with scripture on issues like homosexuality, but out of touch with scripture on issues like poverty. Likewise, the left is in keeping with scripture on issues like poverty, and out of touch on issues like homosexuality. Thus, who to vote for is not a toss up between parties, but a toss up between not voting at all (because each side is wrong on certain Biblical issues) or being free to vote for either (because each side is right on certain Biblical issue).
On your final point, I confess that I am not an African American and it would seem that you are, so I certainly won't argue with your idea that race should not come before faith. As a long time Christian and the son of an evangelical pastor (not to mention my having an evangelical pastor as a wife) I concur. What I’m tired of is the idea that Christians (of any race) who lean left politically are somehow denying their faith while those who lean right are defending theirs. Like many, I’m a liberal BECAUSE of my Christianity, not in spite of it. That’s not to say that I don’t believe that it’s possible to be a Conservative Christian for the same reasons; just that Christians are hemmed in on BOTH sides by movements that attempt to appease us on some issues just so they can get a free pass from us on others.
cont.
Cheala34life
We’re talking past one another here, so I’ll try one final response. You seem to want it both ways. With regard to homosexuality, you ask “How many scriptures does God have to give before something is considered wrong? Once.” With regard to scriptures concerning social justice, you make a direct about face and suggest “you cannot apply this scripture as a mandate from God.”
Moreover, you resist simply admitting your error in suggesting that scripture points directly to homosexuality as a key reason why Sodom was destroyed. If that were true, you’d be able to cite book and verse. (The key word in Ezekiel 16:50, by the way, is “Thus.” That’s a transitional word, you see; it points back to the previous sentence for clarification of the “abominations” addressed, and not off toward some vague sin that might be homosexuality.)
You say that scripture can’t contradict itself and I agree. You, however, (like many on the “Christian right”) have no problem whatsoever in contradicting yourself. The question wasn’t simply “Why should scriptures concerning homosexuality affect our vote?” but “Why should these scriptures affect our vote while scriptures concerning social justice should not?”
THIS is the contradiction at the heart of Wilson’s book, and at the heart of your argument. She implies Christians should be concerned about what the scriptures say and vote accordingly, rather than according to social justice. Then, when someone points out the many scriptures concerning social justice, you back-peddle and suggest that maybe scripture and politics don’t mix so well, then when homosexuality is brought into the mix you turn right back around and say that the Bible tells us it’s wrong and so we should vote accordingly. I’m getting dizzy.
So why should scriptures concerning homosexuality (as few of them as there are) affect our vote?
How many times does a stop sign say stop before you stop? Once…right? How many scriptures does God have to give before something is considered wrong? Once…
New American Standard
“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, R472 abundant R473 food and careless R474 ease, but she did not help F188 the poor R475 and needy. 50 "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations R476 before Me”
First of all you left out verse 50 which clarifies the entire verse. you need to put the whole thought together. Pride can show itself in many forms. Pride of what?
Pride from changing their ways maybe? Here God is speaking to the arrogance they displayed. They do not need God, they have all they need. This scripture does not dismiss or exclude the act of homosexuality. In other words this scripture does not define the entire picture of what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. Furthermore, Common sense should tell you that it would not be ok for the men to have raped women. The men mentioned in Sodom specifically states they asked lot to let hand them so they could know them. In this particular context the word know in Hebrew means to know in an intimate sexual way. It is the same word used in genesis when the word stated and adam knew his wife his and she bore him another son.
Secondly, I will give you one. God did not Destroy the city because of “homosexuality” If you read the dialogue between God and Abraham, God would have spared the city from destruction had there been ten righteous people there. Its clear the men of Sodom did not come for lots daughters, but for those sent to destroy the city. So, if what they were doing was so righteous, then how come God did not spare them? Homosexuality may not have been the sole reason for destroying Sodom, but it was among the sins being committed. Regardless if the city was not destroyed for the reason of homosexuality, it is still sin.
when I’ve just shown, through DIRECT REFERENCE to the text, that this common belief is a fallacy.
What common belief are speaking of? Be very careful with those references. Scripture cannot contradict itself.
Again – no one is saying do not be compassionate or give to the poor. I give to the poor all the time, but you cannot apply this scripture as a mandate from God. Of course God doesn’t have a problem with believer or anyone for that matter giving to the poor. That is not the argument here.
The original argument was should race come before faith? No..it should not.
Cheala34life
“We could go round and round here…”
We sure could, especially considering the fact that this whole discussion began with you suggesting that Christians should vote in accordance with scripture and then, when I provide some scripture that might justify liberal voting, you jump through hoops to explain how this is not a theocracy and to suggest that some scriptures just don’t matter very much.
So why should scriptures concerning homosexuality (as few of them as there are) affect our vote? This is an inconsistency that I’m having some difficulty fathoming. My difficulty is compounded by the fact that you actually make up scripture concerning Sodom and Gomorrah suggesting that the Bible specifically states that the cities were destroy because of homosexuality. It doesn’t, you know. That’s a myth. You might point to the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape the strangers (God’s messengers) who visited Lot. However, not only does this incident occurAFTER the city has already been marked for destruction, but to suggest that homosexuality is the problematic aspect of this incident is to imply that had the men wanted to gang rape females it would not have been an issue. The real reason I don’t buy into the myth, though, is that the Bible DOES tell us EXACTLY why Sodom was destroyed and homosexuality is not even hinted at. Sorry to repeat myself, but it seems you didn’t get it the first time:
“this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." - Ezekiel 16:48.
Then you have the nerve to dismiss this verse stating that you are “pretty sure there were other sins going on besides homesexuality, but in the text God points to the behavoir of the men in sodom and Gomorrah” when I’ve just shown, through DIRECT REFERENCE to the text, that this common belief is a fallacy.
It is also shocking that anyone could be so single minded as to think that a law telling the Israelites to leave the gleanings of their fields for the poor and the wild animals has no bearing on people who do not own fields! Such verses, like all scriptures, give us a glimpse into the heart of God. I wonder if you think we should be this quick to dismiss scriptures about sowing seeds or finding sheep. We walk this treacherous path at our own peril and at the peril of Christianity itself.
We could go round and round here, but the bottom line is Genesis 3:15. God said he would send someone who would crush the enemies head and they would bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15 is the theme of the entire bible. The entire bible is about redemption of fallen mankind back to right relationship with God.
While the bible may seemingly deal with others issues, the main theme is redemption. Ask yourselves will social injustice hinder you faith? Does it stop some from accepting Christ? No, is does not, but it can hinder a person. Especially if they let the social ills of this world dictate their faith.
Does voting for you choice candidate really matter? No one candidate can solve the social dilemma facing any race. Proverbs tells us that the king’s heart is in his hand, like a river he turns which ever way he wants. God controls all things. The word of God does not change. Our ever changing culture may attempt to change the meaning and application of God's word to the current plights of America, but the one true meaning remains the same.
Christ's sole purpose on earth was to reconcile man back to God. He lived for the father. Paul dealt with many different cultures during his time on earth, but one thing he taught and he stated very clearly. Be anxious for nothing.
Believer, this world is passing away. Yes, we have to live and abide the laws set forth by our society, but remember you are in the world, but not of it, if in fact you accepted Christ by faith. Unfortunately, we are going have injustices done to us, but the issue is not the injustice, racism, or poverty. Jesus himself stated the poor you will have with you always. (That blows ending poverty out of water) The human heart is perverted. As long as a person’s heart remains obstinate toward God, they are capable of all things. Additionally we are going to be wronged. Jesus told us that.
Let me challenge your theology and end with this. In the pool of Bethesda, Jesus heals one man. I ‘m pretty sure there was more than one person at the pool with an ailment or something wrong with them. Why does Jesus heal this one person? This pool was known for those who were sick. The man even says when he tries to get in someone else gets there before him. So, how could compassionate, kind and, loving Jesus… the savoir of the world… overlook other people who were ill and cannot get into the pool for better health? After all the people wanted was to be healthy. I mean every person is “entitled” to health right? Or at least an opportunity to get better? Right?.
The text does not even say that this man was a believer. I wonder how many people were upset with Christ on that day. Was that discrimination? How would a black person relate to that being today? We would call Jesus a racist. Socially, did he reject other sick people?
I'll let you decide.