Black Christian 'Racialism' Challenges Faith in America

panzerlehr »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I am so glad that this issue is being debated in the black community. I just wish that I was smart and dynamic enough to write such a book.

The time is coming when each one of us will have to give account to God of how we voted in the 2008 election. Are we going to support for President an individual who openly advocates abortion for any and reason and advocates same sex marriages? Both of these choice are absolutely opposed to Christian ethics. We as Christians must stand for the Word of God no matter what the cost.

braveheart »

Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show African American Women's Triumph Over Media Slander A Must See On Your Campus This Fall -- 2008 Brenda Verner's Exquisitely Beautiful, Innovative and Groundbreaking New Visual Production that -- Meticulously Analyzes and Refutes Slanderous Historical and Contemporary Images of Black Women in Both African American and American Popular Culture Includes The Current Media Image Assaults Upon Michelle Obama and Her Triumph Over Them 19th Century Degrading Images of Black Girls Labeled: The Ugly Black Girl/Woman Mammy: The Most Beloved Stereotype for Black Women Television Transforms the Image of Black Women The Black Girl Taboo for White Boys/Men Black Women - The World's Most Talented and Stylish Singers Black Women's Cultural Tradition of Accomplishment The Image of the Women of Hip Hop The Black Comedian - No Friend to the Image of Black Women The Dignified Cultural Image of the Everyday African American Woman Ongoing Insult and Injury Michelle Obama's Triumph Over Media Image Assaults And much more ... Brenda Verner Verner Communication author:"Why Black Men Should Protect Black Women" and producer of "Black Women's Triumph Over Media Slander" bjverner@aol.com (708) 355-1365 BRENDA J. VERNER, ED.M., Harvard University, president of VERNER COMMUNICATION, is a nationally known media analyst who specializes in stereotyping research, human resource development, and is a dynamic public speaker. Brenda Verner has extensive experience in the areas of Women's Studies, media arts, and Africana Studies and is noted for her riveting and incisive visual presentations. She hosted the radio talk show, Brenda Verner's Cutting Edge on the Salem Broadcasting network. She also, hosted the television shows Africana Thought & Africana Woman consecutively via Chicago Cable Access. Brenda Verner has designed and taught the course Black & White Women Since Slavery via the Cornell University Women's Studies Program. Her insightful article Africana Womanism: Why Black Women Have Rejected Feminism has been published in several of this nation's newspapers, and her essay, The Power & Glory of Africana Womanism appeared in the Chicago Tribune. Brenda Verner has made guest appearances on local and national television broadcasts, including ABC's Good Morning Show, Womankind (Boston), PBS's Tony Brown's Journal, BET's Our Voices, Chicago Tonight, and has been a guest on countless radio broadcasts across the nation. Ms. Verner has lectured at many of this nation's most respected universities and colleges: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Amherst College, MIT, Brown University, University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Sarah Lawrence, Notre Dame, Spelman, Northwestern University, Columbia University, among scores of other institutions. hide

braveheart »

Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show The problem is how whites view black people in America. From the very beginning we have been a color to whites. Black overwhelms white genetically, therefore we have always been a threat to whites, despite the fact that they brought Africans to these shores for their own economic benefit. African Americans are not a color - they/we are a culture. The color comes with the culture. Just as a Chinese's color comes with the culture. When John Kennedy ran for president, he got 80% of the Catholic vote, and an even higher percentage of the Irish/Catholic vote. Catholics were proud to have the opportunity to see a Catholic as president. They were not accused of racialism nor separatism. If both whites and black people would view African American through the prism of culture, rather than color; they would understand black cultural pride, just as they accepted the cultural pride the Irish and Catholics experienced when Kennedy won. hide

thisis »

Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

The author of this article only seeks to impress white people. I am the grandson of two Christian ministers yet there are churches in the south I cannot visit because of the color of my skin. Most churches in South Africa fought to maintain apartheid way after the secular white community had chosen to abandon it. Why not talk about the white images of Jesus that black people are forced to sing praises to? Why do most Africans consider names like Dennis and Hamilton Christian names? Generational sin was used to justify slavery, but what about the grandchildren of slave owners who whipped people into submission in the name of the very white God named Jesus? Who is making any effort to reach out to the millions of Africans who converted to Islam because they were tired of the racism of the Church and the images of Jesus that they are selling? Being a Christian never helped a single black person when they were facing the hatred of Christian societies. I am not the son of Ham and I swear that Christianity has no future in Africa. One day our children will ask us why we infected them with low self-esteem.

Winnie »

Wed May 07, 2008 6:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

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.

Daniel Paul »

Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

pastorgreg »

Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

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.

MissLady »

Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:10 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

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.

Cheala34life »

Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

jeremyemilio »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I heard that Huckabee has more support in the black community than any other Republican ever has.

pammie »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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

pammie »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

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

jeremyemilio »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

jeremyemilio »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

cont.

jeremyemilio »

Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

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.

Cheala34life »

Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

jeremyemilio »

Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

Cheala34life »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

Cheala34life »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

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 and 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 person especially if they let the social ills of this world dictate their faith.

Will 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, and 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 am pretty sure there was more than one person at the pool with an ailment or something wrong with them. Why does Jesus heal this 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 Jesus the savoir of the world overlook other people with who ill and cannot get well unless they make into this pool?

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 relate to that being today? We would call Jesus a racist. Socially, did he reject other sick people?

I'll let you decide.

pammie »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

How would Jesus vote?”
No one knows for sure, but we can discern from His own words that He was pro-family, pro-children, and pro-prayer. We can also be fairly certain that Jesus wouldn’t be bound to any one party because He was too focused on doing God’s will. He taught the truth, while both major parties have been known to stretch it. He scoffed at the haughty leaders, while parties create them. He challenged tradition, while the party system is the product of it. As far as government, He believed in abiding by the law, obeying authorities, and paying taxes. But He rebuffed suggestions that He become a political figure. So He probably wouldn’t join an established party. Perhaps He’d be an independent. If He were a voter, He would almost certainly choose candidates based on His statement, “Whoever does the will of my Father.”
Finding Soul Brothers - Page 125

Cheala34life »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Canceling debt does not cancel poverty. Furthermore God was *not* speaking of currency as we know it. The Israelites trades and barter with animals. Again the nation of Israel was *not* poor as you see it. They were going to rich and blessed regardless of a cancelled debt because God had Promised the Land. God promised them the land before the Law.

Cheala34life »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Did you read the chapter before this? God has just given them the Ten Commandments in chapter 20. While there are principles that can be gleaned from the laws, They are not speaking to our society today. The poor here are those who are not the children of Israel. As a whole the nation of Israel was not poor. Secondly, our government is not a theocracy as with the nation of Israel. We *not* are governed by a democratic republic. God himself handed down the laws and commanded the Israelites to obey. If they did not obey God would inflict certain punishments for their disobedience. We not governed by God a people.


I am not advocating injustice. As an African - American I understand injustice, but to apply this scripture to this is not accurate. You are not living under the covenant law. Christ's work finished at Calvary did away with the law.

Cheala34life »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Deuteronomy 15:1-4 - At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you.

Canceling debt does not cancel poverty. Furthermore God was speaking of currency debt. The trade and barter with animals. Again the nation of Israel was poor as you see it. They were going to rich and blessed regardless of a cancelled debt because God had Promised Land.

Matthew 19:21- Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Get the context correct. Jesus responded to the you rich ruler, based on the his question. The young rich ruler wanted to know how to have eternal life. If you read this correctly you will see that the young rich ruler had kept the law, basically he was saying I am good enough to get in. Jesus responds to him by saying sell all your possessions and give to the poor. The young rich ruler did not do that. In fact verse 22 states he left and went away sorrowful because he had so many possessions. Now what do you conclude? His possessions meant more to him than eternal life.

And that is the bigger point here eternal life. In the big scheme of things the eternal life factor is the key.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Cheala34life »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Exodus 23:6 - Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.

Did you read the chapter before this? God has just given them the Ten Commandments in chapter 20. These laws are not speaking to our society. God The poor here are those who are not the children of Israel. As a whole the nation of Israel was not poor. Secondly, our government is not a theocracy as with the nation of Israel. We are governed by a democratic republic. God himself handed down the laws and commanded the Israelites to obey. If they did not obey God would punish them. We governed by God a people

I am not advocating injustice. As an African - American I understand injustice, but to apply this scripture to this is not accurate. You are not living under the covenant law. Christ's work finished at Calvary did away with the law.

As evangelicals we are under new covenant.

Exodus 23:10-11 - For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

This is not applicable to you and I. Again this law is for the nation of Israel only. If this is case then if you are a believer, then you Jeremy have violated the law. Do you own a field? Do you let you land lay dormant for seven years?

Leviticus 23:22 - 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.'

Again, the question is, do you comply with this mandate in scripture? If not then in order to be forgiven of this sin you have offer a sacrifice. Paul the Hebrews by telling If you are offering sacrifices, then why did Christ die? Christ fulfilled the law.

jeremyemilio »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:27 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Cheala34life
“The point is don't let the social issue become the main issue. Scripture always has to have the last word.”
Actually, the point is that according to scripture “the social issue” IS the main issue. Of course, you won’t believe me, so in keeping with your own advice, I’ve decided to let scripture “have the last word.” Here is a VERY small sampling of what scripture says about social justice. (I’d love to see you match it with scriptural references to such issues as homosexuality, which you, Wilson, and the rest of the “Christian right” have deluded yourselves into believing are the primary tenets of Christianity.)
Exodus 23:6 - Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.
(Justice, eh?)
Exodus 23:10-11 - For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

(Hmmm… the land should be rested, the poor have a right to your fields, animals have a claim to your crop… environmental conscience, social conscience, and animal rights; never got that lesson in Sunday School!)

Leviticus 23:22 - 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.'

(Did that just say “alien”? Yup!)

Deuteronomy 15:1-4 - At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for cancelling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you

(Cancel debts every seven years! Eliminate poverty! Run away, run away, Stalin is coming!)

(I wonder what Jesus has to say?)

Matthew 19:21- Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

(Oh.)

(Last one… You’ll love this!)

James 2:12-13 - Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

intellectualcurrency »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

PART 3

7. Wilson’s solution to her “racialism” is very weak. I have consulted many majority white conservative organizations on their “diversity” initiatives. They pay good money for the sessions and the plans. However, their execution is null to void. We have concluded in our business that the majority of these ministries and faith leaders are not really interested in multi-racial worship. There are white pastors that still refer black visitors to Black churches when they attend their churches, even in the 21st century. And, what type of service projects would Wilson recommend to end “racialism”? What about a faith based course on assimilation of the races. What about a faith based course on restoration, reparations, and forgiveness? What about a faith based conference in which the descendents of former plantation owners can practice the biblical practices of seeking forgiveness from a wronged people? Forgiveness and restoration involves calculating today’s compounded value of all of the FREE labor that was achieved to build their family’s wealth. What about a conference where the descendents and current land owners of stolen Black land can be returned? Let’s bring in the top worship artists to open up; and then open up the floor for these great conservative evangelicals to practice their complete message of salvation, forgiveness, and moral world view. While these conferences are being planned, I will encourage the Black Christian community to focus on its future while simultaneously asking God to influence their white counterparts to cut back on some of the day to day “hate” that is still being perpetuated.

8. Moving forward involves gaining access through entrepreneurship and business to fund education of the Black community by the Black community in understanding its history and its contribution to building America; and leveraging that history to continuing building our communities and wealth for our children’s children.

Wilson gets a “thumbs down” on this project.

intellectualcurrency »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

PART 2

4. The timing of its release is seems to be very strategic or self-serving from a publishing perspective. Well, that’s the business of publishing and public speaking. At the end of the day, Wilson’s agenda is based on her hope that she will sell enough books to get a major conservative Christian publishing contract. I would hope that she would not do this at the expense of human progress, particularly in the community that she is apart of.

5. Blacks are forced to deal with “racism”, “racialism” and look at the world from a racial perspective each and every day. This is perpetuated in every area of society. I am a high-net worth individual that has influence in black, white, faith, and global communities and I still deal with obvious and deliberate racism in business world, social world and in the church world daily.

6. Has anyone considered that Black Americans don’t consider same sex marriage and abortion as primary considerations for electing a President because these are not primary issues of concern in our community? Our issues (which are not exclusive to Black America but are marketed by mainstream media as issues that we only contend with in an effort to shift the magnitude of these issues from white America) are (a) teenagers having babies out of wedlock, (b) young black men being disproportionately receiving higher prison sentences for the same crimes of their white counterparts, (c) over-consumerism, (d) poverty, (e) lack of access to capital to start, fund and grow our businesses, (f) the increased occurrences of hate crimes, and (g) and the continuing legacy of active racism and discrimination against the “have-nots” in America.

intellectualcurrency »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Here is my position on Pam Wilson's book and the comments made in the article above. They are from a Black Christian that lives in the South, holds multiple advanced degrees, is a successful business owner, faithfully married with children; and serves as a voice for hundreds of thousand of others just like me. I perpetuate a balanced Biblical world view from a US, EU and African perspective. It is in 2 parts.

PART 1

1. It is my opinion that this book has been released to serve a partisan Republican agenda as our nation heads towards the polls in 2008. This is a poor attempt to gain Black Christian votes on a very narrow moral agenda. Can Pamela and her supporters disclose every aspect of their political platform and the policies that they support? They can’t expect educated American Christians to only vote on 2 issues when both political platforms are very complex. Most Americans would be surprised to determine how much the current Republican platform doesn’t support a “true Biblical world view”. It was OK for conservatives to use the Bible to advance the President’s entry into Iraq, but it’s now OK for Blacks to look to the Bible in it’s pursuit of civil rights and liberties in every area of their live. Note: Blacks still have not achieved total civil respect in America. Not one Republican politician or white conservative evangelical leader said anything about the recent resurgence of hate crimes in America. Isn’t basic respect for human life included in Biblical world view? That might be a little difficult because the predecessors of conservative evangelical world view were the slave owners during their respective time period.

2. Blacks are inaccurately encouraged to turn their backs on secular beliefs and practices in Wilson’s book. Is working a secular practice? No, it is a Biblical practice. Well, the result and benefit of working consistently, ethically and morally is to generate income and revenue to support your church, family and community. So, the money connected with working can be argued as Biblical as well. The Bible clearly spends more time on issues such as redemption and salvation, love, and money rather than abortion and same sex marriage. With this, there are thousands of important issues surrounding this election and we can build a campaign around 2 or 3.

3. Ultimately, blacks are seeking “restoration for past racism and freedom from future racism”. This is totally Biblical. Wilson chooses to isolate family based issues from financial and freedom based issues. This is a major flaw in her work product.

Citizen »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Pamela Wilson did a great Job and was so brave to write her book and people should wake up and stop living in the past."

You owe me a new irony meter, because you just busted mine.

Cheala34life »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I also would like to address another issue. I don't see anything wrong with a certain minority group wanting to make sure their voice is heard and that they are not overlooked when social and economic reform take place. However, the word of God should not be used as a platoform to justify their right to social and economic reform.

Furthermore, if the outcome of that social and economic reform is not to their satisfcation, the word is not some book you turn to figure how to deal with it in the sense of gettigng "your way" The Word of God instructs on how to live in a society in such a way that as beleivers we influence by how we respond to injsutices done to us.

As a believr you and I are bought with a price. In spiritual terms we are no longer citizens in this worls although we live in it. Our true home is the city of heaven. The western mindset and culture has a hard time digesting this because our constitution tells us everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what do yo do when God restricts this liberty with his word?

For example Pauls asks belevers how come they are taking one another to court over civil matters? He tells they are discreting God because the believer all people should be able to reconcile their differences by wanting to teh outocme to Glorify God. How do you reconcile culture with God when God does not recongnize your culture in his word?

something to think about

Cheala34life »

Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jeremyemilio

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.


You might want to re -read my post. I staed I am 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. My point was that this particular sin was sometihng God hated as he does all sin.

Again - the authors argument is not whether or not it is ok to have a concern about social and economic issues in the African american community. Her posiiton is that these issues are placed in the forefront of scripture and become the guiding principle Rather than scipture.

For a believer Scripture should always be the guding principle behind our actions and how we relate to the social adn econominc needs. Jesus Jesus himself said you will have the poor with you always, but do you see him istructing the apostles on how to deal with them with regard to solving there social issue? No. Jesus understood as well as anybody. We will never be able to solve to social and economic problems of this world.

At the same time that does not mean an african american person cannot give to someone needy. The point is don't let the social issue become the main issue. Scripture always has to have the last word

jeremyemilio »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"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."

...Yeah, 'cause the Bible has nothing to say about any of these issues, does?

hmmmm, Cheala, why DIDN’T God spare Sodom and Gomorrah? Could it be that:

"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.

Kinda hurts to find out you've been lied to all these years, huh?

ForChristAlone »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Jesus Is God Himself in our image, He hates abormination. That is why God inited the mariage instituation between a woman and a man. Pamela Wilson did a great Job and was so brave to write her book and people should wake up and stop living in the past.

Guardian »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I have not read Pamela Wilson's book as of yet. However, I do share the premise presented in this article that Christians (of all races) need to act from their Biblical worldview. However, the problem encountered with the example of the presidental elections is that Conservative, White Republicans have not historically, provided significant support for the well-being of African-Americans (and any other ethnic group). There is a lot of 'lip service' but very low, genuine support.

The other example used about integrated worship is helpful, but not a full-proof way of bridging the gaps between different ethnic groups. I have worshiped extensively in both the Black Church tradition and in Non-denominational traditions. Both have their problems. And in Non-Denominational settings, I have still encountered some inherent racism. There have bee cases where I have not encountered any.

Ultimately, for Christians, a Biblical worldview is to take precedent. Even so, this does not deny the fact that God created humanity in different ethnic variations. So when a Christian who is Black and one who is White can agree on basic tenets of their faith (such as sin and Jesus as the Mode of humanity's salvation, the sanctity of life etc...), but the Caucasian has an issue with standing up for social justice where it pertains to the very real lives of African-Americans... what do we do? At the same time, if those of our own culture out right go against the teachings of the Bible, then a Christian should stand apart from that person. The question is, Is what we disagree upon, something that, according to Scripture warrents a seperation?

Pamela Wilson raises some very complex issues through her book and I am glad for her being able to do so. This opens the door of opportunity for honest dialogue. Hopefully we can work through surface opinions and get to the heart of the issues that face us.

Citizen »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Ms. Wilson suggests multi-racial worship as a way to overcome what she calls "racialism." One might wonder, if it were that simple to overcome the legacy of servitude, segregation, and general racism, why that hasn't been done already. Where one attends church is, in my opinion, determined by where one lives, and/or the resources one has to travel. If where one lives is determined by segregation and the attendant poverty, both historical and present, then church will also be segregated. Furthermore, African-Americans should not overlook that the religious right and Jerry Falwell were not first mobilized by the issue of abortion, but by the governments removal of charitable tax exemptions for private schools with policies of segregation. Christian private schools were a reaction to desegregation of the public schools. Its impossible to blithely wave away that history in the service of the Republican political agenda of pandering to prejudice.

pammie »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

to SportinLife:
The Bible tells us God values life at conception:

"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)

For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16)

Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2)

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)

vbrelisa »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:36 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

I really agree with the author Pamela G. Wilson in her book entitled, Finding Soul Brothers: Dismantling Black Christian Racialism in what she writes.

Regardless of one's particular physical race, 'there is no Greek or Jew, black or white, male or female" (Galatians 3:28). Certainly that means that where the God's Word (the Scripture) is clear, then all believers in Christ should be equally clear and united together under the authority of the Lord Jesus together.

Of course (and thankfully so), there are things we can learn from each other's unique background and family history than can enrich each other in our walk with the Lord. But, we are all one in Christ - and we have the opportunity to walk in the unity of God's Truth together.

SportinLife »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:27 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

The issue here isn't homosexuality, or it's rightness or wrongness, as I see it. What I object to in this article are the ideas (1) that only black people are concerned with social and economic justice, (2) that social and economic justice are not christian issues, (3) that it's somehow selfish and "racialist" for black people to be concerned about such issues, and (4) that black christians and all christians should be concerned about other things instead.

Cheala34life »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:15 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Scipturally the author of this article has a valid point. I would also like to add you are correct, Jesus did not speak specifically to a number of issues, but does that make the behaviour right? God himself spoke to these issues. I also realize there are a number of aurguments regarding the greek and hebrew usage of certain words and that they were not speaking to homesexaulity. The question I always want to know is if homesexuality is right, how come scriputure always has it in the negative context rather than the positve?

If it is correct why didn't God spare Soddom and Gomorrah? If it is right how come God specifically talked about that sin versus others that were going on in sodom and Gomorrah? I'm pretty sexual sin was not the only thing happening at the time.


Jesus did not speak to slavery either, but is human bondage right or wrong?

SportinLife »

Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 9

Ridiculous. Jesus NEVER said a thing about gay people or about abortion. NEVER. But he lived according to principles of social and economic justice, teaching us that we are all responsible for each other.