Fred Luter Jr, SBC’s first African-American first vice president, talks about race

[Alex Guggenheim]
Sorry Jamie, “we” are Christians, our race is a spiritual one with respect to method of identifying our brothers and sisters in the Lord. Anthropological properties are anecdotal. You are practicing what is called “Race Based - Special Interest Theology and it is a grave error based on humanism. You completely miss the phenomenal transformation and categorical change from God and new protocols for the church, God’s people, the body of Christ, when you approach it based on anthropological properties.

Alex…your accusations are a big jump…and are inaccurate. You haven’t the personal knowledge my ministry practices to be able to give them any label. You may be able to say that the ideas I expressed where similar to your perception of “Race Based-Special Interest Theology”…but you have no idea what I practice. My encouragement to you would be to ask questions prior to making accusations…but that’s really beside the point.

I completely agree that we are one spiritual race and that Christ has broken down ALL walls of separation (Eph. 2). And in heaven, we are really going to enjoy that reality. But in the meantime, we minister in a world full of perceptions based on culture. And to be effective at preaching the gospel in the varying cultures around us we are wise to know them better and to adapt to them…as long as we do so within biblical boundaries.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.”-1 Cor. 9:20a
“I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” - 1 Cor. 9:23

[Andrew Comings] I hope I am not being too awfully reductionist when I summarize the following arguments:

Alex: “God didn’t prescribe a specific system of government, so Christians shouldn’t be concerned about social issues…unless said concern is in maintaining the status quo.”

James K.: “The world already despises Christians, so this gives us license to be as despicable as we would like.”

Christian Cerna: “Your job is equal to being bought and sold as human chattel.”

Fair?

Um, no. Where did I say anything about having a license to be as despicable as we would like?

Maybe focus less on coddling the unbelieving mentality. Eye of the tiger Andrew. Focus.

[Jamie Hart]

[Alex Guggenheim]
Sorry Jamie, “we” are Christians, our race is a spiritual one with respect to method of identifying our brothers and sisters in the Lord. Anthropological properties are anecdotal. You are practicing what is called “Race Based - Special Interest Theology and it is a grave error based on humanism. You completely miss the phenomenal transformation and categorical change from God and new protocols for the church, God’s people, the body of Christ, when you approach it based on anthropological properties.

Alex…your accusations are a big jump…and are inaccurate. You haven’t the personal knowledge my ministry practices to be able to give them any label. You may be able to say that the ideas I expressed where similar to your perception of “Race Based-Special Interest Theology”…but you have no idea what I practice. My encouragement to you would be to ask questions prior to making accusations…but that’s really beside the point.

I completely agree that we are one spiritual race and that Christ has broken down ALL walls of separation (Eph. 2). And in heaven, we are really going to enjoy that reality. But in the meantime, we minister in a world full of perceptions based on culture. And to be effective at preaching the gospel in the varying cultures around us we are wise to know them better and to adapt to them…as long as we do so within biblical boundaries.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.”-1 Cor. 9:20a
“I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” - 1 Cor. 9:23

Andrew, my comment was in direct response to your comment and no further. Within your comment their was an exercise of doctrinal belief hence, a practice. Again it looked no further than that. Time permitted I will aporoach your now, more qualified, comments.

Forgive me, the above should be addressed to “Jamie”. Mods feel free to correct.

[Alex Guggenheim]
Andrew, my comment was in direct response to your comment and no further. Within your comment their was an exercise of doctrinal belief hence, a practice. Again it looked no further than that. Time permitted I will aporoach your now, more qualified, comments.

I think you meant “Jamie”…although I have my own thoughts on the matter. These will have to wait, however, as I am preparing guide a group of American Christians through a week-and-a-half of fellowship with Brazilian Christians, or, if you prefer—ten days of experiencing “anecdotal differences”. ;-)

Just Brazilians? The number of anthropologically different Christians with whom I have worshipped and fellowshipped, taught and observed, from Europe to Asia to the Middle East and North and Central America is enough for me to know, practically speaking (neverminding the principles), that if a group of Christians properly abide by sound doctrine in forming their spiritual identity and its expression both individually and corporately then indeed their anthropological properties will be viewed anecdotally in this context.

By taking a moment before posting you would have seen I addressed the matter of my previous post regarding to whom I was speaking.

Sorry, as soon as I posted my correction, I saw your correction. I thought about going back and correcting my correction, based on your correction…then I thought, meh.

I firmly believe that such discussions are better carried out over a Coke in a diner somewhere, and I get the impression that such a conversation with you would be delightful. But, as I am in Brazil and you are most likely not in Brazil, a comment thread at SI will have to suffice. I look forward to following—as time will allow—your “class”, and responding in more detail after the 18th.

Alex

I agree, face to face with Coke would expedite the conversation. And though I am developing a series for my blog, a 4 part on marriage and it is consuming my limited free time, on Friday I anticipate putting aside an hour for a thorough post here. And it is a good thing my class is free online :)

Alex

Hmnm… something is in the water, now I address Andrew as Alex. Well tomorrow holds new adventures heh

[Andrew Comings] As you have represented it above (and if I understand correctly), how we behave toward others in a “church context” is one thing, and it is perfectly OK to act differently toward others in a “non-church” context.

You have stated a truth, though crudely. I will give you the most immediate and obvious example.

With respect to the body of Christ, a (the) spiritual construct, I approach my Christian family and respond to them based on spiritual protocols. For example, no member of the body of Christ is given greater privilege to spiritual blessings than another which, in my part, would involve the teaching of God’s Word. Everyone has equal access, no one is restricted by deliberate design.

On the other hand, several of us in a local assembly are members of the military. I stand guard at an entrance to a room segregated for Officers only. An enlisted member, who is also a Christian and co-member of my local assembly but more so, a spiritual family member of Christ, seeks access. I deny him this access. He is offended because he is a Christian brother but now I treat him as a subordinate. I treat him differently, now, than I do within the body of Christ. And for good reason. He is operating in another, anthropological structure, which operates on a different protocol. Now, I am no less courteous, this principle always applies and is not proprietary to the body of Christ, but the principles and protocols of equal access do not apply here. The military has the divine commission (that is, has the approval and responsibility to do so if they see fit from God, for those reading and unfamiliar with this term) to set up this protocol for their anthropological interests in which the protocols for the spiritual construct, called the church or body of Christ, do not get to override.

This is but one example of many which demonstrate a few things; namely that the properties of social or anthropological structures differ than that of the spiritual structure (the church) and that they follow a separate protocol, though they may share some principles or protocols but for different reasons and objectives, and thirdly that the protocols for one construct may not be imported into or onto the other in the attempt to force that construct to operate by the protocols intended for another construct.

[Andrew Comings] Are you implying that it would have been perfectly acceptable for a white believer at that time to insist that his “colored” brethren use a separate drinking fountain in the public park, so long as he was treated as an equal in the church? That is what I am getting from your response…I hope I have not wrongly interpreted your remarks.

Again, the crudeness of your reflection does not deny its general truthfulness but how it is stated carries certain implications of negligence on the part of those who would exercise such liberties. The formulation is thus and again, reflected above. Protocols for the church, the body of Christ, and its spiritual egalitarianism, are not mandated for social/anthropological structures outside of the body of Christ. Otherwise even your family could not segregate itself as a family unit based on the principle you seem to wish to hoist upon anthropological structures. There is no mandate in Scripture for social segregation or any condemnation. So dogmatism in this case is absent which makes certain condemnation of racial, ethnic, or cultural forms of segregation invalid.

[Andrew Comings] How would it be at all coherent for anyone to preach that all men are created in the image of God, and then participate in, and defend, a system that routinely treated a particular subset of those men as secondary citizens? Or, to bring it a little closer to where I live, how can we preach that all are equal before Christ, and yet prohibit a man from one subset of humanity from marrying a woman of another subset.

Equal in the image of God does not equate to inherent equal civil rights in a government. Equal in God’s image does not equate to or even demand, equal among men. This is an assumed misnomer by some a a deliberate one for others. This is turning a coin on its other side and saying if it is heads on one side why can’t it be heads on the other?

That is, not all men are equal among men though we are all equally men. And government serves the interests of men for their preservation, perpetuity and prosperity which God commissioned it to do. If a group of people determine that the inherent properties of another race are fundamental incompatible with the first group, nothing in Scripture condemns their self-preservation from segregating. In fact, one could argue it is negligent as a government to do otherwise in keeping with the divine objectives of government. Yes, government can be altruistic but not to the injury of its self.

It is one thing to seek to destroy another group purely for their racial properties, which is condemned as unjustifiable homicide, but it is not treated as sinful to segregate and seek a national advantage, even if national preservation, perpetuity and advantage requires forms of racial, ethnic and cultural segregation. That is not condemned in Scripture.

I do agree that it is arguable, constitutionally, I do agree with that, but not Biblically. And I do agree, practically speaking, polyglotism is not easily approached and forms of apartheid can become impractical. But this is practically speaking. And I do recognize that there are principles on both sides so non-segregationist are not without argument.

My argument is neither, per se, but in response to an earlier argument that with regard to civil rights and races, there is only one biblical side. That is a fundamental error.

As to marriage, that is separate category and though racial considerations for marriage are quite legitimate one can not say emphatically to marry another race is “wrong” or sinful. We are not mandated either way. But may government set up such a policy? Again, government is a social or anthropological institution (though a divine institution) which operates on differing protocols than the body of Christ which is a spiritual construct. So one cannot condemn government for failing to carry out a policy or protocol meant only for the body of Christ. BTW marriage is a social or anthropological construct, not a spiritual one, and trying to import spiritual protocols into marriage does not work either. Yes, I am aware of Ephesians, I cover that in my marriage series.

[Andrew Comings] At this point the “conservative evangelicals” of the segregation era still stand condemned, because in defending the status quo, they were in essence defending a particular social order (segregation) as mandated by God, and demanding that society maintain it, with all its advantages to them and disadvantages to people of color.

If they have argued it is “mandated” then they are in error, but if they have argued it is permissible and that there are principles from Scripture to which they can point, I agree, in principle, they have such arguments though I am not necessarily agreeing with the liberties they exercise. Neither has been mandated.