Savoring Lincoln, Savoring Christ

The Lincoln memorial in Washington D.C. is hallowed ground in my book. I stood at this sacred spot in 2005 and was deeply moved.

Lincoln’s memorial stands at the head of a cross-shaped layout of memorials on the Washington mall. Most guides will adamantly deny any intentional symbolism. My guide was willing not only to concede the obvious, but to reference primary source documents wherein the original designers of the mall detail plans to arrange the memorials in the shape of a cross so as to pay tribute to the profound influence of Jesus Christ upon this nation.

Possessed of this insight, I stood on the steps of the Lincoln memorial looking down the length of “the cross” toward the Washington monument (at the cross’ nexus). Owing my spiritual life and joy to Jesus (whom having never seen I mysteriously love, 1 Peter 1:8), my heart surged with thanksgiving and wonder to contemplate the hand of divine providence upon this nation and upon my own life.

My near ecstasy continued as I read Lincoln’s second inaugural address etched into the wall of the north enclave of the memorial. The third column in particular held my rapt attention. Herein Lincoln explicates the doctrine of divine providence. Only a dwindling minority of Americans could define the meaning of God’s providence today. This was not the case during the Civil War. Nor was it the case for Lincoln who found in the doctrine of divine providence—God’s preserving and governing power over nature and history—essential ballast to endure those tumultuous days with hope.

I read that text as one tapping the mind of a soul-mate—connecting across the centuries with one who understood a truth so precious to my own heart. Meditating on this rich text, I was deeply moved to consider the enormity of Lincoln’s influence upon African-Americans, the union of our nation, and ultimately upon world history. My spirit soared. I was very alive.

Standing there with a lump in my throat, nearly overwhelmed by the significance of what I was experiencing, the words of an adolescent boy reached my ears. Betraying an acute case of boredom, he asked a woman who was obviously his mother: “Is this all there is to see?”

The kid’s question broke the hushed reverence that prevails at the memorial with all the effect of fingernails scratching a chalkboard. His mother wisely ignored the question, perhaps silently praying it would dissipate into thin air before anyone took notice of it. But the boy repeated his query with heightened intensity: “Is this all there is to see?”

That poor mother had undoubtedly invested no small amount of time, effort and money to provide this experience for her unappreciative progeny. But realizing he would not take her silence as a cue to hold his tongue, she cast a knowing glance at others around her and answered simply: “I love you, Honey.”

The clueless boy responded with disgust: “I knew it! We walked all this way for nothing!” It is indeed a bit of a hike to the Lincoln memorial. But some of us would make the journey with glad heart through a howling blizzard. It’s all a matter of perspective—all a matter of what is in your mind and heart.

I believe this brief episode fairly illustrates the matter of spiritual perception. Some are enraptured with the contemplation of God; others are dead to it. Some lift songs of praise to Jesus; others are bored stiff by the very same exercise. Some delight to contemplate the truth of God’s words; others find the discipline terribly dull and pointless, if not offensive. Some thrill to know Jesus personally; others are content to follow religious ritual.

The difference is not ultimately one of physical maturity. It is one of experience. While the boy at the Lincoln memorial was dead to the significance of what he saw, maturation may someday open his eyes. But no one grows out of spiritual blindness. It is a state from which we must be rescued (Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19).

The good news is that such rescues are God’s delight. He rejoices to reveal to spiritually blind eyes the wonders of His glories and to soften hard hearts to His truth. “No one knows the Father,” declared Jesus, “except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27).

Please understand: If you are not captivated by the wonder of God, it is not because He is not wonderful. It is because you are spiritually blind. That is not something you can change on your own. Jesus must reveal the Father to you. But having claimed the sovereign right to reveal the Father to whom He chooses (Matt. 11:27), Jesus follows with this open-armed invitation: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

And He really will. He delights to replace anguished, spiritual blindness with the eternal rest of eyes wide open to his glories (Matt. 11:29-30). What merciful grace! What genuine delight!

Someday you will stand, not before the statue of a dead president, but before the throne of the living and reigning Christ (Phil. 2:9-11). On that day will you be filled with rapturous delight in God’s presence and feed on His every word, or will you be dead to the glories of Christ? Will you fall in adoration before the welcoming face of Jesus, or will you be anxious to leave His presence for a Christless eternity?

Finding delight in God is not a matter for this life alone. If that were the case, many would choose the delights of this world, gladly pass on the option of enjoying God, and that would be the end of the matter. But this is not how it works. If you do not find Jesus the joy of your soul in this life, you will endure the anguish of utter separation from Him in the next (Luke 16:19-31; 2 Thess. 1:5-10). In other words, your blindness to His glories will become permanent and you will realize that you walked this earth “for nothing.” And that would be the ultimate of tragedies.


Dan Miller has served as the Senior Pastor of Eden Baptist Church since 1989. He graduated from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College with a B.S. degree in 1984 and his graduate degrees include a M.A. in History from Minnesota State University, Mankato, and the M.Div. and Th.M. from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He is nearing completion of D.Min. studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dan is married to Beth and the Lord has blessed them with four children: Ethan, Levi, Reed and Whitney.

4579 reads

There are 16 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Not saying we shouldn't, but why does everybody believe Snopes?

Red Phillips's picture

Please pardon this Southern boy while I puke. Lincoln was not a Christian, and was notoriously irreverent. But he was very familiar with the Bible, and he incorporated Biblical rhetoric into his speeches to great effect. But this is simply more evidence that he was a duplicitous double talker, not that he actually believed the Bible. That the South at the time of the WBTS (and remaining to today) was the repository of Christian orthodoxy in this nation is hardly debatable. Compare the rocked-ribbed orthodoxy of R. L. Dabney and Stonewall Jackson to the lapsed Puritans of New England.

rogercarlson's picture

Red,

I thouhgt you would weigh in on this. I actually liked Lincoln (being an IL transplant) but not because he was a believer. The North and the South both had Godly and ungodly people on their side. Both had their blindspots. I know you have argued well that the South was slowly getting rid of slavery anyway (and I know the War was primarily a states rights issue). But the way believers in both the North and Sough have treated race has at times been bad. But having lived in both places, its has historically been worse in the South. I had a southern Fundy pastor tell me as late as the early 90's if a black family visited his church, it would split it. That is pretty pathetic. But I know that I have people in my church that still need to grow in this area as well.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

ChrisC's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Not saying we shouldn't, but why does everybody believe Snopes?
because they usually have a decent list of sources at the bottom of the articles, they seem to be well-researched and i haven't found one that later turned out to be wrong yet. but if you'd rather have a different site, there's also this one:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/w/washmonument.htm

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Our Lincoln-hater is back! Wink Missed you, Red.
I'm not in a position to judge whether Lincoln was or wasn't a Christian. What I do know is that he has a mixed record. His expressions of reverence for God were not exclusively public for effect. They can be found in his private correspondence as well.
See http://www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/memorial/features/33h010.html

D. James Kennedy has some thoughts here. Though not well documented. But DJK was not usually a slouch.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4627.htm

But more to the point, Miller's article does not claim Lincoln was a Christian but that he believed deeply in the providence of God. In some periods of his life, at least, this was clearly the case.
We don't have to despise the man or paint him as anti-Christian simply because he was probably not truly regenerate. I realize some believe the Civil War should never have been fought or that the south should have won, but that's also a separate question from whether he was a man of principles and God-fearing in the end.

About Snopes... my question was little more than curiosity. I've seen several cite the site recently as though "Snopes says" should end all discussion. But as with anyone else, you have to look at sources and evaluate. I don't personally believe a cross-shape was intended in the layout of the mall/memorial area.

... and about the South and religion I would argue that the South is a hotbed of both orthodoxy and Christian heterodoxy. You have some real stalwarts down there, but also lots of evangelical mush makers. It's definitely no longer "the repository" of anything.

Red Phillips's picture

I generally respect D. James Kennedy, but he was engaging in some serious wishful thinking and not a little Lincoln hagiography. There are two competing narratives among Reformed America as Christian Nation types. Kennedy was following the Peter Marshallesque school which ironically borrows heavily from Jaffa and the Straussians (mostly Jewish agnostics and secularists). They see America as unique in its conception and Lincoln as its “perfecter.” Of course Jaffaites see American as uniquely Enlightened and the Marshallites see it as uniquely Christian, but the Marshallites don’t seem to recognize the problem this incongruity causes.

Then you have the narrative of South as the “backwards” defenders of orthodoxy and history battling the forces of religious, social and political “progress.” This group would include Steve Wilkins, more or less Doug Wilson, to some degree Gary DeMar’s outfit, to some degree Doug Phillips, etc.

Partisans for any historical narrative that intends to paint a certain picture are necessarily going to emphasize some points and downplay others, so the question is which narrative is the closest to the truth. Which one requires the least amount of embellishment and suppression of inconvenient truths? To me the former seems like an embarrassing display of hindsight moralizing, projection and wishful thinking. The Founders were actually all Enlightened proto-egalitarians forced to accommodate the prejudices of the day like slavery, male suffrage, property ownership requirements, etc. All that was needed was for Lincoln, the primordial authentic egalitarian, to smite those backwards knuckle-draggers in the South and redeem the Union. Of course such Enlightened behavior on the part of the North was only possible after those reactionary Puritans gave up their silly orthodox beliefs and embraced the true gospel of liberal democracy uber alles.Yeah right. That’s a credible scenario.

I do think the South was and still is the repository of orthodoxy, although we have certainly given rise to our fair share of heterodoxy. (Although I don’t think we can compete with the “Burned Over Country” of Western New York.) We are definitely the repository of what remains of political conservatism. Read this and weep. (Or cheer as I did.)

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2010/03/31/its-true-what-the...

RPittman's picture

Although I have respect for Pastor Dan Miller, I believe that he has made a grave mistake in placing Lincoln and Christ juxtaposition in his article, Savoring Lincoln, Savoring Christ. I would seriously question comparing Christ and any man even as a vehicle of literary association. This would include figures that I personally admire such as George Washington, Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Jonathan Jackson. Christ, as the Son of God, holds a position beyond comparison. IMHO, we, as believers, ought to preserve his uniqueness by foregoing any comparison with men or their achievements.

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation compares in no way with Christ’s deliverance through His work on the cross. The Emancipation Proclamation was a politically motivated piece in hopes of fomenting slave rebellions in the South and of appeasing the abolitionists in the North. Note that the Proclamation only freed slaves in the states in rebellion but it left slavery perfectly legal and existing in the states remaining in the Union. Furthermore, Lincoln said that he would not free one slave to preserve the Union. Are these the words of conviction or pragmatism? He made contradictory statements on slavery in Illinois and in Charleston, SC. (see Richard Hofstadter’s The American Political Tradition)

Most people accept the Lincoln Myth as propagated by the Sandberg biography. Serious historians recognize that he was much less. Many folks are taken in by his rhetoric and pious language characteristic of the American civil religion. I seriously doubt that he sincerely believed in Divine Providence, although he spouted pious platitudes, because his philosophy was too pragmatic and self-sufficient. Even so, Adolph Hilter believed in what he called Divine Providence, although we would more likely call it Fate. Lincoln was neither Christian nor necessarily good. He was a consummate politician and a great orator who could persuade people. However, he was unscrupulous, pragmatic, ambitious, self-serving, and profane. He is not the type of historical figure whom Christians should claim as a hero because he does not represent our principles and beliefs.

Christians seem to have a built-in propensity toward gullibility. We believe the Curtis Engine Works story because it seems to refute evolution and we reverence Lincoln because it fits our ideal of Christian patriotism. Also, we promote the cross fiction because it appears to give us a Christian heritage and purpose. One can find the same urban legends with grand designs of the Masons or Illuminati. Why do we need these trappings? We have all that we need in the Word of God. Let's build our case on a solid foundation, not some imagined thing that strokes our emotions.

With the cross fiction and the choice of a despicable (well, at least controversial) figure as a literary vehicle, Pastor Miller’s theme of Savoring Christ is overshadowed by tawdriness of the temporal. I would challenge Pastor Miller to re-write his article with a focus on Christ.

RPittman's picture

rogercarlson wrote:
Red,

I thouhgt you would weigh in on this. I actually liked Lincoln (being an IL transplant) but not because he was a believer. The North and the South both had Godly and ungodly people on their side. Both had their blindspots. I know you have argued well that the South was slowly getting rid of slavery anyway (and I know the War was primarily a states rights issue). But the way believers in both the North and Sough have treated race has at times been bad. But having lived in both places, its has historically been worse in the South. I had a southern Fundy pastor tell me as late as the early 90's if a black family visited his church, it would split it. That is pretty pathetic. But I know that I have people in my church that still need to grow in this area as well.

You may have lived in the South but it is apparent that you have never been a part of the South. Do you know what it is like growing up believing that miscegenation is sin? Now, you may effectively argue that it is not sinful according to Scripture but it is sinful according to Scripture if you believe it to be sin and do it (Romans 14:19-23). Do you know that people believed that the only way to prevent miscegenation was segregation? It is true that a few had racial hatred but most were living out what they believed and had been taught. These may have been theological blind-spots according to your views but nonetheless the people were trying to live out their beliefs in practice.

BTW, did you know that your beloved Lincoln specifically and repeatedly stated that he did not think the Negro was equal to the white man and he did not desire to make him equal? In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln said: “If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that, whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think that I would not hold one in slavery at any rate, yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. Whether this feeling accords with sound judgment is not the sole judgment, if indeed it is any part of it. (quoted by Charles H. Wesley. “Lincoln’s Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes. Journal of Negro History 4 (January 1919): 7-21. [emphasis added ]” It appears that Lincoln was a segregationist. He was a child of his age just as Southerners are children of their heritage, culture, and upbringing.

Furthermore, one cannot categorically say that segregation was inherently hateful and sinful. It was a means of avoiding conflict. There were cases of violence, bloodshed, and hatred but it is a skewed view that makes these the overall characteristics of the segregated South. Now, my point is that it takes time for people, especially older folks, to change and adjust.

The problem is that Northerners are quick to judge, according to their own preconceived standards, the South on race and religion. It's pure corn-fed ignorance of those who have peered through the windows. Remember that all of us, including yourself, have our own blind-spots. I'm glad that God, not man, is our Judge who sees with understanding and mercy. Don't consider yourself an expert just because you have dwelt among us.

rogercarlson's picture

Roland,

I should have given more background. I have spent most of my life as a Northerner except for the 4 years at college and the 2 yrs on the IN/KY border. But many in my family have southern roots. My mom at her heart was southern. Many of my siblings have migrated to the South. I am quite familiar with your views. In fact, I used to hold that miscegenation was a sin (thank you for the new word). I no longer hold to that but I understand those who do very well.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

JobK's picture

Do you believe that miscegenation is sin?
Do you categorically state that segregation was neither sinful or hateful?

State your opinions and justify them using scripture, and do so without equivocation and qualification.

"The problem is that Northerners are quick to judge, according to their own preconceived standards, the South on race and religion."

And you don't do the same regarding the North? Especially with comments like "I do think the South was and still is the repository of orthodoxy"

And what does this orthodoxy of yours mean? Does it include Luke 10:27's
"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

Can you honestly claim that the segregationists were doing so with regard to black citizens? That they would have ever in a million years traded places in society with black citizens?

Also, a real problem is your mentioning Lincoln's own personal racism. That is very consistent with your position that Lincoln was not a Christian. Well, make the case that the south was this reservoir of orthodoxy while so many of its citizens either supported or participated in treating blacks - many of them also Christians I might add - in ways that they would have never accepted themselves? Orthodoxy is not just the creeds that you profess, it is also how you live. Matthew 23:1-3 says that the Pharisees were great at the former but horrible at the latter.

Now do not mistake me for a "social justice" theological liberal. Instead, I am speaking of the treatment of other human beings - again many of them Christians - by southerners who professed to be Christian. You speak of orthodoxy, this is James 2:18 and Matthew 25:31-46, and it touches the core of Christian living.

And finally, as dealing with the idea that the south was a repository of orthodoxy "Do you know what it is like growing up believing that miscegenation is sin?"
Well, since so much of the religious and social structure of the south was based on this belief - making it kind of important - in order for the south to be a repository of orthodoxy then, it had to be true. If it was false, and so many people in the south believed a lie and acted accordingly, then the south then was no repository of orthodoxy.

And now? The reverse applies. If miscegenation was sin in 1810, it is sin in 2010, which means that southern churches have departed from orthodoxy by now supporting miscegenation. It truly, honestly is a battle that cannot be won. Which is why it shouldn't be fought in the first place, and the same can be said of Christians everywhere from Brooklyn to Burma. No matter the time or place, the road to heaven is hard and the gate is strait, and most people are on the other path, which is the broad gate and the easy path that leads to destruction. If you want to claim that a particular nation or region has a large number of its churches or percentage of its residents who profess the orthodox creeds, that is fine. But claiming that a particular nation or region is one of born again Christians living out the faith ... that can't be supported by scripture. It would make the church "the world" and the world "the church", if even on a national, regional or local context. That wasn't the case in Jerusalem at the close of the book of Acts, and it certainly wasn't the case in the American south (or north, east or west) in 1860, 1950, or what have you.

There will only be a "Christian nation" until after the resurrection of the dead in New Jerusalem. Until then, we are pilgrims. We are subject to civil governments according to Romans 13 as you stated, but that is whether we are living in America, China, Indonesia, Somalia or Saudi Arabia. We are not to hold any allegiances - and especially not any chauvinistic attitudes - to any of these temporary, manmade kingdoms that will all one day come under judgment and be destroyed. We should be longing for a better country as Hebrews 11:16 instructs us to rather than reminiscing over what is gone with the wind, or more to the point holding onto what Revelation 20 says will be destroyed with fire. Lincoln, Davis, Jackson, Grant, Lee ... I have no dog in that hunt.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

RPittman wrote:
I believe that he has made a grave mistake in placing Lincoln and Christ juxtaposition in his article, Savoring Lincoln, Savoring Christ. I would seriously question comparing Christ and any man even as a vehicle of literary association.

This is really not what he does--though I do not believe there is anything wrong w/using comparisons that way. We do it all the time in sermon illustrations, and there is a long tradition of it in Christian allegory.
But this is not what the article does. Rather, he draws an analogy between a child's inability to appreciate Lincoln's importance and human beings inability/lack of delight in Christ. The parallel is between two human deficiencies... and it's a point well made IMO.

@Red... you made some interesting observations about the sources of Kennedy et al's Lincoln "hagiography." Does Kennedy cite these sources somewhere or are you concluding that these are his influences based on similarity of language in important places? I'm inclined to believe it's more likely that DJK et al and several of the sources you mentioned arrived at somewhat similar views independently.

RPittman's picture

JobK wrote:
Do you believe that miscegenation is sin?
Do you categorically state that segregation was neither sinful or hateful?

State your opinions and justify them using scripture, and do so without equivocation and qualification.

"The problem is that Northerners are quick to judge, according to their own preconceived standards, the South on race and religion."

And you don't do the same regarding the North? Especially with comments like "I do think the South was and still is the repository of orthodoxy"

And what does this orthodoxy of yours mean? Does it include Luke 10:27's
"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

Can you honestly claim that the segregationists were doing so with regard to black citizens? That they would have ever in a million years traded places in society with black citizens?

Also, a real problem is your mentioning Lincoln's own personal racism. That is very consistent with your position that Lincoln was not a Christian. Well, make the case that the south was this reservoir of orthodoxy while so many of its citizens either supported or participated in treating blacks - many of them also Christians I might add - in ways that they would have never accepted themselves? Orthodoxy is not just the creeds that you profess, it is also how you live. Matthew 23:1-3 says that the Pharisees were great at the former but horrible at the latter.

Now do not mistake me for a "social justice" theological liberal. Instead, I am speaking of the treatment of other human beings - again many of them Christians - by southerners who professed to be Christian. You speak of orthodoxy, this is James 2:18 and Matthew 25:31-46, and it touches the core of Christian living.

And finally, as dealing with the idea that the south was a repository of orthodoxy "Do you know what it is like growing up believing that miscegenation is sin?"
Well, since so much of the religious and social structure of the south was based on this belief - making it kind of important - in order for the south to be a repository of orthodoxy then, it had to be true. If it was false, and so many people in the south believed a lie and acted accordingly, then the south then was no repository of orthodoxy.

And now? The reverse applies. If miscegenation was sin in 1810, it is sin in 2010, which means that southern churches have departed from orthodoxy by now supporting miscegenation. It truly, honestly is a battle that cannot be won. Which is why it shouldn't be fought in the first place, and the same can be said of Christians everywhere from Brooklyn to Burma. No matter the time or place, the road to heaven is hard and the gate is strait, and most people are on the other path, which is the broad gate and the easy path that leads to destruction. If you want to claim that a particular nation or region has a large number of its churches or percentage of its residents who profess the orthodox creeds, that is fine. But claiming that a particular nation or region is one of born again Christians living out the faith ... that can't be supported by scripture. It would make the church "the world" and the world "the church", if even on a national, regional or local context. That wasn't the case in Jerusalem at the close of the book of Acts, and it certainly wasn't the case in the American south (or north, east or west) in 1860, 1950, or what have you.

There will only be a "Christian nation" until after the resurrection of the dead in New Jerusalem. Until then, we are pilgrims. We are subject to civil governments according to Romans 13 as you stated, but that is whether we are living in America, China, Indonesia, Somalia or Saudi Arabia. We are not to hold any allegiances - and especially not any chauvinistic attitudes - to any of these temporary, manmade kingdoms that will all one day come under judgment and be destroyed. We should be longing for a better country as Hebrews 11:16 instructs us to rather than reminiscing over what is gone with the wind, or more to the point holding onto what Revelation 20 says will be destroyed with fire. Lincoln, Davis, Jackson, Grant, Lee ... I have no dog in that hunt.

Although you address "Red" in your post, you are quoting me. It appears that you are more than a little confused. Furthermore, I find your post rambling and confusing. I cannot intelligently reply. Whereas you challenge me to support my assertions by Scripture, there are many things that Scripture does not address. This is simply a red herring. Why don't you just present a Biblical case against me rather than trying to place the burden of proof on me.

As for the ax that you are grinding, which I suppose is racism, you will be pretty hard put to find specific Scriptural prohibitions against it. Scripture does not give a specific prohibition against racism or even slavery. Now, all you have are inferences based on Scriptural principles of individual relationships--not racial, collective relations. I'm not sure that your inferences extrapolate in the way that you would like for them to do. My gripe is that pious folks inveigh against racism meanwhile ignoring the individual hatred and malice, which Scripture does condemn in no uncertain terms, all around them. My objection is the collective mentality that supposedly expunges the individual guilt. Not so. If you are guilty of hatred and malice, then you alone are accountable (see Galatians 6:5)--don't blame society, which is the old Liberal shoe. BTW, I don't see what this has to do with a "Christian nation."

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Start another thread please if you want to have a discussion about racism.
But I really need to assert a final word on it here: the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. That in itself is incompatible with what we have come to know as "racism" (slavery even more so). But there is more than that. There is only one race, the human race (Acts 17:26). What we usually call racism is really an odd mix of ethnism and prejudice based on skin pigmentation. Both of these attitudes are incompatible with multiple biblical principles (Gal.3:28 comes to mind).

If folks would like to continue discussion on that topic, though, please start a new thread and maybe post a link to it here.

JobK's picture

I asked you to state your opinion. You refused. It is as simple as that. Just as you refused to deal with how racism and the golden rule can co-exist. (There is also the matter of Galatians 3:28). Transgress Romans 12:1-2, and you will defend the indefensible every time.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

JobK wrote:
I asked you to state your opinion. You refused. It is as simple as that. Just as you refused to deal with how racism and the golden rule can co-exist. (There is also the matter of Galatians 3:28). Transgress Romans 12:1-2, and you will defend the indefensible every time.

JobK... you're responding to RPittman here? Trying to sort out whom you're answering.

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.