What is a multi-ethnic life?

“To erase the stain of racism in the SBC requires all racial groups within the denomination to preach reconciliation, to live multiethnic lives, and to reject and fight against he enduring effects of white supremacy with the gospel of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus.” – Jarvis Williams, Removing the Stain of Racism
What does it mean to live a multi-ethnic life?
Is it by disallowing one single ethnicity exist? By blending them all? By not letting anyone marry a spouse of one’s own culture, ethnicity, or race? By preventing, morally or legally, one to have children that are not somehow of mixed ancestry, culture, color, etc? This appears the mirror opposite of Hitler’s experiment. The Nazis wanted a pure Aryan race. These people want a pure mixed race.
The great sin in the eyes of these racial grievance people is to be of one single ethnicity or race (re: white). Read what they’re saying through that lens and it will all make sense. The SBC will not be finished until all live multiethnic lives. “Multiethnic” means non-purely white lives. Pure white must go. It is wrong. Ergo, to be a pure white person is a sin. To have pure white kids is a sin. To have an all white home, church, business, school, neighborhood, community, city, nation, is sin. Ok, maybe not sin. But it’s not as “vibrant,” “radiant,” “Christ-like,” “developed,” “economical,”.
But, there is a sense in which to be white is to be diverse. We have Irish, Italian, Spanish, British, Scottish, Polish, German, Armenian, Russian, Swedish, American, New England American, Southern American, Appalachian, Sicilian, etc. The goal of these anti white critical race radicals is to reduce all whites into a reductionistic category and then condemn that monolithic category, which only shows they don’t understand white people in the slightest. They have invented a reductionist analytic hermeneutic that blinds them to the complexities of reality and of history. They know little of white history (see Anthony Bradley’s FB page on African Americans and the European Reformation), that for instance white people have a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities and histories, that white people have warred against each other, enslaved each other, plundered and oppressed each other, that in the twentieth century more white people died at the hands of other white people than all slaves brought from Africa abroad or all black people still alive on America today.
Much less do they know that they are awakening something in white people collectively which will not soon go back to sleep. They are reducing all white people to a monolithic category inside of which white people live and move and have their being and outside of which they claim white people cannot exist even at the minutest of levels? So be it. If they succeed in uniting all whites together against themselves, they will have created a monster as much worse than Hitler as the Western world is larger than Germany.

Everything Is Equal

In Desiring God’s, You Are Not Damaged Goods On Dating with a Sexual History, the author claims, “To seek the person with the “cleanest” [sexual hi]story is an attempt to control a future — it’s not a search for holiness, but a divine coup d’état, striving to micromanage our own safety and power.”

So basically, you’re in sin if you want a virgin. There’s nothing innately pure about virginity. The girl who has ridden the carousel doesn’t necessarily have any more baggage than a virgin.

Don’t come a crying when virginity is thrown to the wind.

Who Is My Neighbor?

P-Man says,

Note that (1) what he’s saying you can’t really disagree with, and (2) what side politically he expects you to likely come down on. Even the way he frames the answer betrays it. Glad TGC is tipping its hand politically more and more.
It is like he basically just said nothing
Confusing the Church’s role and the government’s is at the center of many contemporary evangelical problems. In the end Thabiti wants you to come down a certain place politically. It is inevitable.
Indeed, the OT examples Thabiti quotes applied to “God’s people” qua theocratic nation. They did not apply to other nations; nor do they apply to America today. Furthermore, Jesus’ commands to his disciples to care for the sick, etc., are not commands he gave to the State to enact as domestic or foreign policy. If Christians can help people, they should – personally, directly, effectively. When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbor,” he did not respond by saying, “The state through your lobbying and redistributed taxation.” He said, essentially, “You go and be a good neighbor.”
Thabiti also says we should not baptize our politics with the bible. Well, how else ought we to form a political vision – totally apart from Scripture? No Christian thinks his politics violates Scripture. It is only normal to see one’s political vision aligning with one’s view of the bible.
He says Americans have become isolationist. Was the invasion of the Middle East isolationist? Have our foreign policies which have sought regime-change been isolationist? Was FDR’s “making the world safe for democracy” foreign policy isolationist? Really.

A Connection of Similitude

In a puritanically long sermon title, The Table of the Nations, The Tower of Babel, and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb: Ethnic Diversity and the Radical Vision of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Al Mohler:

equates nationality and ethnicity with language and worldview (i.e., if you share a language you are part of a people, if you share a worldview you are part of people. See minute 22:30-23:30, etc.). There are implications to this thinking; if you begin to tamper with definitions of nationhood you will eventually also redefine the family because nations are merely extensions of familial groups. Moreover, we are not SOLELY what we believe, with our personhood defined exclusively by a set of propositions or, heaven forbid, what language we speak. That Southern Seminary pumps out grads who know some Hebrew and Greek does not make them Jewish nor the posterity of Alexander the Great.

A nation, properly defined, has a homogeneous population with a common identity; occupies a contiguous territory; speaks the same language; has a common religion, literature, manners, customs, literature, and mythology; is governed by the same principles and traditions; and is conscious of common destiny and solidarity. In short, it is an ethno-cultural entity.

At points, Mohler recognizes the goodness of diversity and even says specifically that ethnicity is glorified by the gospel. But he continually reduces nationality/ethnicity to language and worldview. I think the purpose of this evasiveness is the need in our day and age to deny that culture is clearly influenced IN PART by genetics. To state the obvious puts one in the position of being libeled as a racist or ethnocentrist, to use Piperian terminology. But the denial of what anyone with eyes can see has, frankly, gnostic overtones, represents a denial of our humanity, and allows the egalitarian nose into the tent.

— The Dow

Eventually, the divine mandate for multicultural diversity (which is really the new “desegregation”) will implicate the family and the marriage. It already is applied to towns, communities, neighborhoods, cities, schools, churches, and now even the nation. Soon, it will be that if you marry someone too much like yourself – and surely our moral betters will be the ones to determine that – this will be seen as making unnecessary barriers to the gospel or hindering the “church’s witness”, if not outright racial prejudice. As for the last characterization, I would agree that it is prejudice; one we see occurring in mass by people all over the world. People choose their spouse, and thus their families and posterity, and thus by extension their nation nearly uniformly after a similarity and connection with themselves.

Ordo Amoris

The Dow says,

This fellow is a Christian pastor but he is peddling the religion of humanism–the religion of Babel.

Rushdoony is ever relevant:

“The demand of humanism (and of its child, socialism) is for a universal ethics. In universal ethics we are told that, even as the family gave way to the tribe, and the tribe to the nation, so the nation must give way to a one-world order. All men must treat all other men equally. Partiality to our family, nation, or race, represents a lower morality, we are told, and must be replaced by a ‘higher’ morality of a universal ethics.” Roots Of Reconstruction — pg. 574

Humanism and socialism are universal and global ideological systems. The present push to individualize, equalize, and atomize all humans on an evenly spaced sterile plane, like billions of surgical steel BBs on a flat surface all equidistance from each other, places humans in an unnatural social order; one that is mathematical and perfect, but not organic and human.

De Tocqueville said,

Among democratic nations new families are constantly springing up, others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition; the woof of time is every instant broken and the track of generations effaced. Those who went before are soon forgotten; of those who will come after, no one has any idea: the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself. As each class gradually approaches others and mingles with them, its members become undifferentiated and lose their class identity for each other. Aristocracy had made a chain of all the members of the community, from the peasant to the king; democracy breaks that chain and severs every link of it…

Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever upon himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart.

Pavlovitz, which reminds me of Pavlov’s dogs oddly enough, is out of line with Church history and Scripture itself, which teaches us to care for the members of our own household primarily and then especially the Church. There is an order of associations, allegiances, loves, authorities, and so on. People are not organized as an atomized mass. God placed us from birth in families with hierarchies of affection and obedience, obligations and duties. I wonder if Pavlovitz would take his reasoning to how he views his wife. Does he love all women equally?

A Growth and A Movement

Matt Hall, Dean, Boyce College, is preparing to baptize Critical Race Theory. He may even ordain it afterward:

“If you’ve grown up in the United States, you have a racialized worldview. You may not be aware of it, and if you are in the white majority you probably aren’t aware. Your values have been formed by a racialized consciousness. If you are white, you have had a set of experiences that you have probably benefited from.”

The Dow responds,

Contemporary seminary life = White guys reading critical race theory in order to browbeat other white guys about being privileged white guys.

Not only is this false, it is boringly late. Critical Race Theory is decades old and decades exploded as verifiably false. But a large and prosperous grievance industry relies on its perpetuation. Enter: New Evangelicals to promote the idea in order to signal to a growing number within and without their ranks in order to be have been seen to be on the “right side of history.”

Southern also teaches a “Theology and Race” class where the required reading books include Critical Race Theory and The New Jim Crow, which has an accompanying “Call To Action Guide” for any who feel so moved to take the radical message to the street like Jesus or Paul would have. The professor, Jarvis Williams, writes frequently from a CRT perspective on the Reformed African-American Network.

This is a perfect example of the cancer that is Leftist radicalism. It builds nothing but infiltrates other established institutions and turns whatever was their original purpose toward social-justice ends. But once the institution no longer serves its original purpose, it also loses its reason to exist; its original patrons leave and the old edifice crumbles. Left radicalism – in all its various forms – is cancer.

This is precisely what happened to “mainline” denominations in the mid 1900s. They went liberal and then began declining in membership. Why does a church exist if it no longer believes in the virgin birth but does believe in planting flowers? It may be a fine organization but it is no longer offering salvation. And now today all those mainline liberal denominations are having cliff-diving competitions.

If Southern continues on this path, it will turn into something that is not a seminary. It may have a theology class or tow or three. But its funds and members will dry up – those looking for ministerial training will go elsewhere. If Southern continues on this path, it will look like that liberal Presbyterian seminary across the street: lifeless, sparse, and renting out its buildings as apartments to transgender “coexist” do-gooders.

Extreme Projection

The Gospel Industrial Complex is in the business of projecting its own moral foibles and psychological trappings upon the consciences and souls of its benighted following.

Thank God, rather, for discernment and a growing number of Christians who are not wallowing in repentance from assumed racialism:

The Coming Slide

Left-liberals and soft-liberals alike have been fawning over a nostalgic past eight years with the romantically lovely president Obama. Some in the evangelical spectrum also express their glowing admiration of the man who “modeled exquisitely” what a husband should look like.

I expect these people, however, over the coming years to begin shifting their positions. I also expect the same of the movement conservatives, neo-cons, and those who perceive themselves to be moderates. They will begin to transition in small degrees toward the right in their social, economical, cultural, and political ideas and strategies.

This second group of people are compromisers and peacemakers by default. But more importantly, they want influence and power through compromise. They leech onto whatever is the reigning orthodoxy and mimic it, hoping to gain influence or, in religious language, “witness”. So, as the winds change from left to right, they too will begin changing. As the fortunes of power shift over the next several years more toward the right, these groups will begin to sense that change in readjust their their political and cultural stances accordingly. It is not that they understand, much less foresee, that change is occurring; but that their moral compass and barometer of social acceptance will signal to them which direction they should be facing.

In the coming years, those who have hitherto genuflected and fawned obsequiously over leftist ideas will begin cautiously, then boldly, qualifying and parsing their positions in a more right oriented direction. I do not expect any of them to admit it; perhaps some of them will not even notice this is what they’re doing. Yet, already we see various conservative think tanks which championed the NeverTrump movement and which vigorously attacked the masses of their own constituents during the recent campaign – we see these groups of people promoting positive depictions, reports, studies and so forth of what may be called the new right, the new Republican, of Middle America. Whatever name should be applied to it is irrelevant; that they are signaling their moral virtue in ways that less and less degrade and more and more promote the welfare of their own fellow Americans is significant and to be expected as they seek to retain their jobs, relevance, voices, positions of intellectual and moral authority and credibility.

Trump recently blasted CNN for being “fake news.” These mild moderates think to themselves, “Who is next? It could be me!” They will deign not to ask such provocative questions before Trump and those whom he represents. They may be stripped of their august badges of privileged access to inside elite opinion tables. At least the Left has the gall and brazenness to beat its head against a growing iron wall. But even they will not long withstand being mocked and shamed and having their own rules of the game used against them.

A counter revolution has begun. The old rules are now the new penalties. Eventually, both Left and the soft-liberals will begin to sense this, if not intellectually then at least instinctively. Desiring to maintain their positions of power and “witness”, they will necessarily begin aligning their sails with the direction of the wind.