Douglas Wilson responds to SBTS' Slavery and Racism report

From my reading of the article and of Mohler, Moore (who I do not trust), Platt (ditto), etc., I think that we should be careful about our imbalance. Yes, Southern has a murky past regarding slavery, and this ought to be a point where its leaders give a clear and unequivocal statement of their views of it - along with a show of institutional contrition like renaming certain (not all) chairs and buildings. Then they ought to shut up about it and get on with the business of theology.

What has happened in the present climate though are things like MLK50! This was an absurdity, since for all of his secular greatness, MLK was no Christian and not even a moral man. It is coming on the heels of THIS sort of unbiblical gesture (with Platt calling on whites to repent of…something) that makes some of us think that there is an unwelcome foot in the evangelical door; and we better get it out.

Wilson also highlights the issue of money. Strange how the non-victims of past sins are crying about free tuition to make up for sins that nobody living in the present committed against them. And we ought to be vigilant about not committing the genetic fallacy just because we don’t like Doug Wilson.

Being a tenured, full professor does not exempt a person from bias. Whether he has/had any bias, I have no way of knowing and neither does anyone in this discussion. All I said is that Wilson is in a position to know more than we do and to automatically assume he is wrong because you don’t like him or approve of what he has said/written in the past is unfair to him. Do I agree with everything Wilson writes? Of course not. But he has the courage to state clearly and provocatively what often should be said. And what he said in his article was worth saying. Many people who post on SI criticize Fundamentalists for prejudice, bias, “nit-picking”, etc., etc. Perhaps some should look in the mirror.

Regarding the notion that blacks today are non-victims because only those above age 55 or so actually have vivid memories of legally enforced Jim Crow (in both North and South), we need to remember what that entailed. Blacks were denied opportunities in education, church, jobs, networking to find jobs through whites-only social clubs, the right to purchase housing in neighborhoods of their choice, and more.

Those children who were born to them, therefore, were in poorer households in neighborhoods where relatively few (if any) of their neighbors were in the skilled professions, where parents very often could hardly read (let alone have a good library for kids to learn), and whose parents and friends did not have the social connections that would get them “in” at certain employers, etc.. They’re also victims because the places where they could then afford to live are higher crime. All of this—and quite a bit more—has lasted quite a bit longer than Jim Crow did. Parents are, after all, the strongest predictor of how their children will turn out.

Other things involved? Sure, but let’s face facts; churches in the South aided and abetted Jim Crow and perpetuated this unjust system until quite recently, really.

And as we look at the victimization we see today, we see the “reparations” we need to give; not cash, but the earnest welcome into our communities, social organizations, and the like—the educational, job, and social opportunities many have been wrongly denied. (if it could be done with cash, sign me up, but after trillions trying to equalize things doing absolutely no good, I’m guessing that’s not the solution)

Wally, what I’m saying here is that just because someone has a bias (everyone does) does not allow one to call another an “ambulance chaser”, which is a perjorative in legal circles more or less corresponding to the Anglo-Saxon words we won’t allow here. For the sake of argument, I can suggest that Wilson knows an incredible amount about this, but still say that it’s inappropriate for him to use that term about Tchividjian.

And for the record, given that Wilson was arguably pretty wrong about Steven Sitler and Jamin Wight, when push comes to shove, I don’t think Wilson knows that much. He rather was reacting to the fact that Boz was saying something he didn’t want to hear.

The race issue is a tricky one.

Certainly, it is good to honestly own-up to the past.

But, isn’t there something to be said that that the constant talk about slavery & race relations can actually make things worse?

Comments on Al Mohler’s slavery report, and a detractor. Pushback of Wilson’s slanderous nonsense from a fellow Dominionist of Wilson. https://americanvision.org/17270/comments-on-al-mohlers-slavery-report-…

[mmartin]

The race issue is a tricky one.

Certainly, it is good to honestly own-up to the past.

But, isn’t there something to be said that that the constant talk about slavery & race relations can actually make things worse?

Constant talk without any effort to deal with the still-lingering effects of historic racism certainly would be worse, that’s for sure. And that’s precisely where (thanks Joel) a sober view of the situation is important. If “our tribe” was complicit in these things—and obviously our ancestors were—and if that discrimination shut out the ancestors of young black people from jobs, schools, churches, social clubs, and job networking opportunities—and obviously it did—we might guess that the current status of many african-americans today derives in part from the actions of our ancestors. Put in words, if your father was an illiterate sharecropper, your life opportunities are going to be far less than if your father had been educated and become a tradesman, professional, or the like. (on average, obviously there are exceptions)

More importantly for us, the pattern of past discrimination shows us a present remedy, and quite frankly a wonderful path for ministry—to make sure that our black brothers and sisters have these partnerships with “majority culture” if they want them. Contrary to Wilson, it’s not all about the money—yes, there are some who want just that, but it’s not the primary need, or even the majority expectation, as far as I can tell.

Bert wrote:

the pattern of past discrimination shows us a present remedy

I have nothing to do with that. I’m responsible for my own sins. The congregation where I serve has nothing to do with that either; it was founded in 1978 in Olympia, WA and has not committed any sins (in a corporate sense) against any people group.

Bert chose to hone in on some of my last paragraph (about reparations) and bypass the first two paragraphs. Okay, but in my third paragraph I was referring to those (e.g. Kyle J. Howard) who have called for monetary reparations on the basis of SBTS’s past involvement with SLAVERY. Perhaps that wasn’t clear?

Bert’s points are well taken for the most part, although what churches are guilty of they must address, not Southern Seminary. I was speaking about Southern Seminary. He speaks of “the victimization we see today”, and his solution is of giving an “earnest welcome.” Who is being victimized and who should give the welcome that is not giving it? The government? The churches? Whites? Seminaries? Society in general? All the above? But this is not what I was speaking to with my comment on “non-victims”, and I am unclear about who Bert identifies in the present as the offenders.

Whatever, Kyle Howard is not a victim.

I don’t know Kyle, although there are a few conferences that we’ve mutually attended. But he’s a young 20 something who just graduated from SBTS with a emphasis of trauma counseling. He’s not a leader within the conservative black evangelicalism and in my opinion, hasn’t really thought out the ramifications and negative unintended consequences of monetary reparations when it comes to dealing with racism that often does more harm than good. Although the discussion here has led to reparations among Christian institutions, the Atlantic had a great article dealing with reparations for minorities within broader society that could be applied as well. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/the-impossibility-…

Joel,

The issue here is about whether seminaries like SBTS have anything to apologize for once they have identified what their forebears did. Although he states a few home truths in the piece I see no constructive ideas in it. As I have said before, much of the problem is with black culture. He seems to agree. But it is a political piece. How does this relate to the spiritual work of the church?

A question for Paul and others who partially or fully agreed with Wilson,

Did you read the pushback article from Dr. Joel McDurmon? Thoughts?

The issue here is about whether seminaries like SBTS have anything to apologize for once they have identified what their forebears did. Although he states a few home truths in the piece I see no constructive ideas in it. As I have said before, much of the problem is with black culture. He seems to agree. But it is a political piece. How does this relate to the spiritual work of the church?

My point in relating the Atlantic article was to express the complexity of reparations, which are almost impossible to do and could leave to unintended consequences, whether it be as broad as society or narrow to a Christian institution like SBTS. And Yes I realize we are talking about spiritual work of the church. As for much of the problem being “Black Culture,” there is some truth to this, although when we peel the onion back, often times we see more than meets the eye. The example the author gives about African American children spending much more time on electronic media can go deeper. In my experience, the hundreds of urban youth that we rub shoulders with on an annual basis come from fatherless households. Many of them have fathers who are not able to be in their lives due to over-criminalization/mass incarceration or unjust child support laws that limit the father’s involvement (depending on state-to-state) to hold their child accountable so that they can flourish in society. Of course they need to first own up to the consequences of their sins in these situations, but I’ve had too many young men that I’ve discipled who desire to be much more involved in their kids life so that the cycle of fatherlessness can be broken, yet the state often enables mothers to manipulate the system and keep the fathers from being a good father to their kids. But that’s for another thread.

Yes Jim and thanks. It was well written and I did not disagree a whole lot. My position has been clearly stated and I do not endorse Wilson. But I do not throw all of him out either. My concern (and I fancy it is his too) is that this is part of trend which will take evangelicalism into foreign waters: foreign from its purpose that is. I had cited MLK50 as an instance of this trend.

This para from the article causes me concern:

“Of course you can’t repent for other people’s sins; but you can acknowledge them, and you can acknowledge the effects of those sins. And when the effects of those sins are social, while you may not be accountable for those sins, you are responsible for some of the effects of them in your society. When you are part of, or especially the leadership of, an institution or body that was complicit in those social sins and effects, that responsibility is greatly enhanced.”

If you haven’t committed the sin then how can you be responsible for it? And where does this bus take us? If the answer is that one owns up to past evils and acknowledges them publicly, good. But is there any more responsibility other than making sure that this acknowledgment is set in stone? I think the question of “what else?” is there to do after the sin of others has been confessed openly and the prejudice corrected? I say, nothing. Get on with teaching the Word.

[Paul Henebury]

This para from the article causes me concern:

“Of course you can’t repent for other people’s sins; but you can acknowledge them, and you can acknowledge the effects of those sins. And when the effects of those sins are social, while you may not be accountable for those sins, you are responsible for some of the effects of them in your society. When you are part of, or especially the leadership of, an institution or body that was complicit in those social sins and effects, that responsibility is greatly enhanced.”

If you haven’t committed the sin then how can you be responsible for it? And where does this bus take us? If the answer is that one owns up to past evils and acknowledges them publicly, good. But is there any more responsibility other than making sure that this acknowledgment is set in stone? I think the question of “what else?” is there to do after the sin of others has been confessed openly and the prejudice corrected? I say, nothing. Get on with teaching the Word.

After reading McDurmon’s article, I had some of the exact same concerns as you do. I also thought his continual bringing up of the “Lost Cause” was not really relevant to most of us (maybe there are some in Wilson’s camp and similar), because most of us, even if we disagree with having responsibility for things we did not do, do not think that slavery wasn’t so bad, etc., and we are not using that argumentation or justification in any way.

I think McDurmon didn’t really want to answer the question about “what else?” — he wanted to leave it unspoken, and leave it to the reader to infer, which for me, is getting pretty close to expecting us to come up with some type of actions to make up for the past. He reinforced it by the way he talked about repentance — it sure looks like he wants something awfully similar to reparations, but he didn’t want to come right out and say it.

To what you said about “what next,” I might add that we not only want to be sure the acknowledgement is set in stone, we want to do what we can to not repeat the sins of previous generations. But otherwise, I agree that we need to move on, rather than continually hammering on it, and get back to the Word.