Prevailing Winds "For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom . . ." 2 Cor. 3:17, TNIV

“If one is forever cautious, can one remain a human being?”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Once again, a reader has objected to my public question earlier about Doug Wilson and interracial marriage. It’s as if I’ve decided, says my correspondent, that he’s guilty as a racist, and that I’ve ambushed him to try to prove it. Well, no. There’s no ambush — public figure, public history, public ministry and all — and if I could take a guess at his answer, I would be one happy blogger chick to find out from him that I was wrong. And trust me: When I’m happy, I’ll let you all know.

It’s not up to me to determine if someone is a racist; I like to let their words speak for themselves, and those words usually lead to a conclusion that seems reasonable. However, identifying words that I think are racist is still a bit away from calling someone a racist, and so I won’t here. I think the non-lunatics among us could conclude that he is, and he seems more than a little comfortable with saying things that lead to that conclusion, but my intention is to analyze his words and not his heart. I will say that I think there’s something even worse than being a racist, and that is to care so little — so little about the sufferings of other people, the sins of one’s own people, or the effect of such nonchalance on the Gospel — that there’s no attempt at all to run from the appearance of evil. I do believe Wilson is guilty of that.

I’m always disturbed by assertions that people have heard Wilson speak of institutionalized racism as a sin of thinking oneself to be better than another solely on the basis of race, and so — they insist — he cannot be a racist. Context aside (slavery defense, paleo-Confederacy, R.L. Dabney, etc.), that tepid definition and subsequent condemnation of racism falls way short. “Thinking oneself to be better than . . . ” is a sin, a violation of the Spirit of the Gospel captured nicely in, say, Philippians. But to suggest that THAT’S racism is akin to suggesting that — and here I regretfully use an example of which we are all sadly familiar — serial pedophilia is simply a violation of the commandment against adultery. Well, it is that — but it’s so very much more, and narrowing and neutering the definition of sin misses the mark completely here.

Racism isn’t simply preferring one’s own kind, vaingloriously embracing one’s own culture, or even thinking those of another race/culture/ethnicity are “less than.” To be blunt, racism finds its expression in this country’s history of cutting off a Black man’s testicles and lynching him in a public ceremony (perhaps after Sunday service?), or in denying access to education to little Black children, or “hunting” undocumented Mexican “aliens” for sport, or barring Black people from voting, buying homes, or working. It’s preaching from the Southern pulpit the deficiencies of African-Americans while referring to those who work for equality as “godless atheists,” enacting harsher criminal penalties on Black drug users, beating Chinese railroad workers to death, and excusing Anglo crimes against racial minorities. Racism is far, far uglier than simply thinking of oneself as better than anyone else, and the stain of racism is deeply imbedded in the fabric of our country. “American racism” is the hideous legacy of those Christians who greedily presumed God’s blessings while pretending to comb over Scripture for ways to justify their engagement in obviously sinful behavior.

My outrage over Wilson’s booklet “Southern Slavery As It Was” was multi-faceted: It was bad history, poorly researched, culturally clueless in its simplistic analyses, and, under the guise of a defense of Scripture, an evil and dishonest way to bless manstealing, rape, destruction of cultures and families, economic exploitation, and pure, unadulterated hate. Southern Slavery was different from slavery in the Bible in virtually every way, and a sensible, redemptive, forward-looking theology in keeping with the Spirit’s movement from Old to New Testament and beyond would never suggest a parallel, nor attempt to sanitize one that doesn’t exist.

So there’s a more complete picture of what racism is. Now, do I think Wilson would string up a Black man and call it fun? No. No, and huh-uh. That he would joke about “lynching homos” is beyond disgraceful, but I have no evidence that he himself would tie the rope and neither does anyone else. But — within and apart from the context above — a man who would reduce racism to a sin of pride, arrogance, and selfishness is a man who doesn’t get it. Worse, Wilson is a man who doesn’t want to get it — he’s got his, and he knows his, and his own are just fine, thanks, without having to ever parse through the horror of what racism means and has done to this country. And so his fast-and-loose playing with the history of American slavery and its effect (“multi-cultural harmony” and a benign Christian patriarchy at its best), coupled with his embrace of the very defenders of America’s worst racialist heritage, strikes me as an indictment against any real concern for racial harmony, racial equality, repentance of racism, and its eradication, particularly among Christians.

Wilson has trumpeted his defense and reaffirmed his beliefs. That’s why I asked the question, directly and publicly. Now, I don’t expect Wilson to answer me. I doubt that Doug Wilson considers me worthy of interaction, and even if he did, I doubt that he would want to make public his answer. And, again, if I’m wrong on what I presume to be his answer, I would be thrilled, and I would gladly trumpet it in my blog, acknowledge that his answer surprises me, admit that I had used the evidence he himself has provided us all to come to a wrong conclusion, and thank him for taking the time to respond. Believe me, whatever other myriad disagreements I have with him, I’d love to see that we at least agree on this one — not to bolster my views, but because I’d rather see someone not in sin than in sin. And yeah — I think it would be a sin to oppose interracial marriage, and I unhesitatingly say so.

But doesn’t Christ Church have a number of families with Black children? It does, and he is undoubtedly genuine in his kindness toward them. And yet he continues to defend a system that would have allowed the enslavement of Black children in 18th- and 19th-century Southern States under circumstances that involve not their loving adoption, but their violent kidnapping or their introduction to “Christian” homes as mere property. He says he condemns “manstealing,” but holds that since slaveholders in the South weren’t themselves slave traders, they could guiltlessly benefit from the work of the slaves they purchased — a curious and frankly irrelevant distinction that conveniently overlooks the “brokering” of individual slaves on the auction block. He insists that episodes of slaveholder-slave sexual activity — and in what possible context would anyone be able to call that “consensual”? — were minimal, an astonishingly blind conclusion that I suppose he wishes were true, perhaps in defense of the seventh commandment under idealized Christian patriarchy. The history of slaveholder rape is there, and it’s irrefutable. He calls slavery “pro-family,” choosing, as he must, to ignore the buying and selling of children, mothers, and fathers the way a litter of Australian Shepherd puppies are sold to puppy-loving buyers today — as personal property with which he can do as he pleases, with no real moral concern about separating parents, children, and siblings.

Moreover, he seems unable to grasp that race-based slavery is an indefensible evil, period, and that any slavery after the coming of Christ, after the announcement of a Gospel of full equality for all in Christ (Gal. 3:28), was wrong. Even the Old Testament slavery in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was entirely unlike Southern Slavery, and the coming of Christ showed the world and especially the Church a more redemptive way to relate to the poor. As slavery in the OT represented a vast improvement over that of pagan nations, the Gospel provided a way to go yet further toward light, and the Church historically has represented greater movement toward the dignity of all persons, with a hermeneutic that demonstrates that. But Wilson is entirely sure of his own worldview, and I lament that he chose to weigh in on something whose analysis, using a redemptive Biblical hermeneutic, should never conclude with its defense. What possible benefit to the Gospel would there have been in defending the practice of owning another human being for a lifetime and on the basis of race, after the kidnapping of said human being? My God. What kind of Gospel presentation would Satan devise for a 21st-century audience in a college town? I’m certain that Screwtape would have applauded, but those of us who love Jesus wept.

So. Wilson may or may not answer my question, and I’ll even presume that he answers it in not answering it. Silence speaks volumes here, and I long for an honest answer from him. I know the answer I’d prefer, and I’d love to be surprised. Please, Lord, let him affirm that he could officiate at and rejoice in a marriage between a Black and an Anglo Christian, and let me be wrong. I don’t want him to be in sin this way, and I’d take no joy at all in being proved right.

“Freedom without an equal chance to enjoy it is no freedom at all. True patriots believe it is immoral when inequality of opportunity leads to and perpetuates inequality itself . . . True patriots believe that we should measure a citizen’s worth by contribution to country and community, not by wealth or power — that those whom America has benefited most should contribute in proportion to their good fortune — and that serving others should be esteemed more highly than serving self.” Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, The True Patriot, p. 20-21, Sasquatch Books 2007

I’ve just read “The True Patriot,” a manifesto for a progressive patriotism that reflects love of country and respect for its traditions through the lens of economic equality, societal tolerance, and community service. There’s much in it to recommend and very little I’d quibble with. The authors, Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, are two young men who have put together a manifesto for right communitarian living. The book features the Declaration of Independence, Dr. King’s address at the 1963 civil rights march on Washington, a pointed observation from Susan B. Anthony, and other examples of the very best the United States of America has to offer. It deserves to be as widely read and discussed as possible, and I’d encourage you to pick up a copy. Especially if, like me, you’re appalled at the idea that the problems of the poor have much to do with their sinful envy of the rich, not the injustices that often trap them. Perhaps I ought to send a copy to the hearty men of chest at Anselm House . . .

A reader takes exception to my asking Doug Wilson on this blog if he would perform a wedding ceremony between a Christian man and a Christian woman of different races. His objection is that I’ve presumed things about Wilson that I ought not to presume, and that in asking him publicly, I’ve hinted that he’s somehow guilty of not performing or allowing interracial marriages at the Kirk. I respond to this concern in the “Comments” section, but let me reiterate here that a man who is an unabashed paleo-Confederate, who’s written in defense of American slaveholding, who admires the racist theologian R.L. Dabney, and who has buddies in the League of the South is not deserving of a presumption of racial egalitarianism in marriage. However, I didn’t accuse him of anything; the presupposition of the answer he gives comes from his conduct and history, not my question.

Doug Wilson is a public figure with a very public ministry. Some questions are off-limits, whether asked publicly or privately, but a question about ministerial policy is absolutely appropriate. I asked it here so he could answer here — or not. That’s the point. If he answers, I’ll report it here, and I would be delighted — extraordinarily so — if he assures me that he has no problem with interracial marriages. Believe me, that’s a delight I won’t hesitate to share.

My Bibles are the most important things I own. Not everyone needs several different translations, type sizes, or bindings like I do, but everyone should have an Old and New Testament in a modern translation. If you don’t have a Bible and would like one, I’d be happy to get one for you, free. Just email me at kjajmix1@hotmail.com.

She even thinks that up in Heaven,
Her class lies late and snores
While poor Black cherubs rise at seven
To do celestial chores . . .
(American poet Countee Cullen)

For two millennia, the Christian Church has stood for and on the side of the poor in its midst. From its beginning as an expression of faith in and devotion to the One born in a manger, an outcast of dubious birth and no social standing in an occupied land, to thousands of missionary and benevolence movements across the globe, Christianity has chosen to identify with the poor — the poor in spirit as well as the poor in pocketbook. We worship the high and exalted One who Himself brings the Good News to the poor, desiring to bless them with the temporal and eternal riches of His heavenly treasury, and even when we have made a caricature of our faith and indulged in obscene excess, Christians nonetheless view care for the poor as one of the fruits of a life given over to God.

But it invariably takes a toll on the individual believer to live in a way that honors the poor and dishonors worldly institutions and habits that oppress them. By definition, giving is costly and self-giving especially so. Further, it’s easy to stand with the poor when we ourselves are comfortable, or when those outcasts we stand with are deserving of our kindness — but when times are tight, the needs of those less privileged than we are seep uncomfortably close to our homes, our budgets, and our hearts. We take comfort not only in what we have, but in the presumption of blessing that explains just as much why we have it as it does why others, don’t. How to respond, then, to an increasingly lost and needy world without appearing to abandon, or actually abandoning, a Biblical theology of giving to the poor?

It’s easy. Devise a “Biblical” theology of poverty that casts their plight in a different light — they suffer not from poverty or oppression or lack of power, but from ENVY. A determination that the poor are, in fact, engaged in un-Godly envy of those who aren’t, and therefore need regeneration, repentance, and reconditioning instead of resources, is a clever, high-minded way of addressing the root cause of poverty without risking actual involvement with people experiencing it. This new theology replaces indifference to the poor with contempt for them. Flush with Proverbs about laziness and admonitions to return to Old Testament economic law, mixed with condemnation of the State and sneering jabs at “effeminized liberals” who bleed dollars trying to help, it packages itself nicely as a good, hearty, Godly theology of economics. I don’t know the Latin for “Make ’em squirm, watch ’em suffer,” but should the purveyors of this new paradigm need a slogan, I can’t think of a better one.

There are many lazy people in the world. Many of them are poor; some would continue in poverty if given a fortune every year. Others have given up or given in; for others, life itself has pretty much given out, and they feel they have nothing left. Most people, though, are poor because this fallen world has devised ways to keep certain groups of people, who are almost always never “just like us,” down and out and away from the shining streets most of us walk. As the failure of the Church to provide light and love along with bread, water, and shelter has become more evident, the need for the State to take over has increased.

There once was a time when Christians paid their taxes and rejoiced in public schools, public libraries, public hospitals, and public programs that extended a hand to those who most needed one. That was, evidently, before the metastasizing sin of envy was diagnosed among the widows, orphans, addicted, sick, old, young, disenfranchised, foreign, and weak. Now, public efforts to aid the poor and strengthen society are seen as theft, and the beneficiaries of those efforts have been revealed to be conspirators, co-belligerants, and miscreants of the worst kind. This “Theology of the Contemptible Poor” is energized by those men — affluent, powerful, educated white men — who, like their first-century counterparts, the Zealots, want their Messiah to come conquering, sword drawn and victory assured. The weeping, tender, self-sacrificing One who told the rich young ruler to give away all of his possessions to the poor, the Messiah who regularly associated with the lost and oppressed — that, perhaps, was for the Church Suffering. Surely the Church Conquering can hope for something else, Someone who will convict the poor of their poverty and comfort those who benefit from their impoverishment.

Christian Libertarians, Reconstructionists, and some post-millennialists appeal to the Bible when writing their jeremiads against public aid for the poor. A return to Mosaic economic precepts devised in and for agrarian or nomadic communities is not likely to be God’s way of using His people today to aid the poor, but it has its appeal — it sounds holy, grounded in obedience and faithfulness to the Lord. But charging the poor with envy or laziness, cursing the State as it tries to help them, and mocking those Christians who stand with the most hurting, most hated among us cannot ever be excused by an appeal to the Law. Cutting and pasting together a theology of contempt for the poor from Scripture ought to terrify those who wait for the Conquering Messiah, before whom all who justify societal indifference by His Word will fall.

“He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you — live justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

“The idea that there is a once-given, unchangeable hierarchical social order established before the fall that permanently sets men over women is a figment of male imagination . . . There is profound teaching in the Bible that indicates that neither the subordination of women nor the institution of slavery is a timeless, transcultural social structuring or ordering that is pleasing to God. Christians have to choose between accepting that emancipation is true in both matters or not true in both matters.” Rev. Dr. Kevin Giles, former Vicar of St. Michaels, Diocese of Melbourne, Australia, writing in Priscilla Papers, Christians for Biblical Equality, vol. 22, No. 3, Summer 2008.

Here are two questions I have for Christ Church leadership:

1. Do you believe that the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, is eternally subordinate to the Father in role and function?

2. Would a Black Christian man or woman engaged to an Anglo Christian be able to marry at Christ Church?

The first involves a theological debate raging in evangelical circles and the second simply asks a hypothetical. Both are important, and knowing that at least a handful of Kirkers will be reading, I expect an answer soon and will discuss the response.