Is the Bible Consistent in its Teachings on Racial Equality?

In response to my essay on Christian Missions, an atheist commented:

• “How do you reconcile that claim [of Biblical racial equality – Gen. 1:26] with the explicit approval of slavery by Yahweh? Are some humans "more equal" than others (the Israelites being the most equal in the OT, of course)?”

Biblical slavery was never conceived or practiced in a racial way, as had been practiced in the USA and other nations. Kidnapping of foreign peoples in order to enslave was strictly forbidden:

• "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

Instead, slavery had been instituted to address the problem of unpaid debts and criminality, and it did this in a very humane manner – much more humane than imprisonment or dismemberment. In many instances the Israelites could be redeemed by their family members. Even if the family wouldn’t or couldn’t redeem them, they were to be released after six years of labor (Deut. 15:12).

The institution of slavery also provided protections for the slave:

• "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.” (Exodus 21:26-27)

Slavery also addressed the problem of what to do with a defeated enemy. While the ancient practice entailed the extermination of the males and the sexual abuse of the females, the Bible prohibited this:

• “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife…If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” (Deut. 21:10-11, 14)

Admittedly, there was a great difference in status between Israelite slaves and non-Israelite slaves who could be passed on as an inheritance. However, there was nothing to prevent the gentile from receiving circumcision and becoming an Israelite, thereby assuming all of the Israelite privileges. In fact, not becoming an Israelite was the choice of obstinancy in light of the miraculous evidences of the presence of God in Israel’s midst. Rejection of Israelite citizenship was nothing short of a rejection of Israel’s God. If he wished to remain a slave in his mind, then why not also in body!

Biblical slavery is as opposed to other forms of slavery as the punishment of the righteous is opposed to the punishment of the guilty. Therefore, we find that it had been Christians who had led the battle against modern slavery, as Dinesh D’Souza relates,

• “Christians were the first group in history to start an anti-slavery movement. The movement started in late eighteenth century in Britain…In England, William Wilberforce spear-headed a campaign that began with almost no support and was driven entirely by his Christian convictions…Pressed by religious groups at home, England took the lead in repressing the slave trade abroad.” (What’s So Great About Christianity, 73)

• “The Second Great Awakening, which started in the early 19th century and coursed through New England and New York and then through the interior of the country, left in its wake the temperance movement, the movement of women’s suffrage, and most important, the abolitionist movement.” (75)

But wasn’t God’s selection of Israel a racist act, as you suggest? Certainly not! Moses repeatedly warns Israel against such an idea:

• “After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.” (Deut. 9:4-9)

If anything, Israel was less deserving than other peoples! But didn’t God elevate Israel to the “chosen people” status? Yes! God had made them a sign-people. If they were obedient, they would be blessed more than other nations. If they were not, they would be punished more. In either case, their condition would testify to the presence of God in their midst.

Even today, many marvel at Israel and their trust in the faithfulness of Yahweh is renewed. He promised that He would thrive the Jewish people by virtue of His covenant faithfulness:

• “You may say to yourself, ‘My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.’ But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today.” (Deut. 8:17-18)

For those of us who have eyes to see, the success of the Jewish people – a severely persecuted people – in whatever land into which they had been dispersed, is incredible! What is equally incredible is their unfaithfulness to their Yahweh and the horrible price they continue to pay for it, amidst their successes – tokens of the faithfulness of their God. (He has not abandoned them – Zech. 12:10; Romans 11:29!!!)

God had established a beachhead in the midst of Israel, and from this beachhead, He made His appeal to the other nations – for all belong to Him:

• “In that day the Root of Jesse [Jesus] will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.” (Isaiah 11:10)

He performed His miracles in Egypt, in the desert and in the Promised Land so that all nations would know that He is God. They all saw or heard, but just a handful would come to Him by joining the Israelites. Rahab was one who did:

• “We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed.” (Joshua 2:10)

They all heard but, as it still is, few are concerned about truth. We find the truth too uncomfortable (John 3:19-20). I find it strange that you should even raise such a challenge about the morality of racism. As an atheist, you don’t even believe in moral truth, other than what you arbitrarily create for yourself. And yet you assume the moral high ground and judge the Bible, because it doesn’t measure up to your subjective and arbitrary moral standard. Having surrendered any claim to moral absolutes, you are in no position to judge, but judge you must. You live in God’s world and must reluctantly submit to His standards. You might as well also submit to His Lordship!

Correspondence with a Gay Friend

This is my latest response to my gay friend’s blog:http://dseiple.blogspot.com/2010/10/society-and-homosexuality.html?

Asking me to surrender the “history’s-verdict-against-homosexual-behavior” argument is like asking a diva to surrender her song. My primary concern is to demonstrate that there has always been an overwhelming price to pay for same-sex sex, whatever the culture, whatever the time and even whatever the degree of social acceptability it has achieved.

Admittedly, some of my argumentation is weak. History doesn’t pass on many numbers/stats regarding homosexuality’s physical, emotional, and social down-side, but it does give us some idea of the extensive chorus of voices raised up against this practice. Is it simply a matter of the fact that all the major religions and societies have largely forbidden this practice merely out of prejudice, or because of the perceived destruction brought on by this institution? We might also ask the question why has adultery (even in male dominated societies) and pedophilia been universally forbidden? Isn’t it because of the havoc they have wrecked on the family and consequently on society!

Moreover, this proscription agrees with all our other data. You might call studies, such an Ulwin’s, “antiques” of history, but this is just what history is! The antiquity of their investigation makes them no less valid!

Although we both agree that homosexuality has a long history, I’ve challenged you to show me what personal or social good has come out of it. There are a number of ways that you could possibly make your case. We find churches on every corner of the city. Their members boast that their churches have raised up their grandparents, parents and now their children. They have fed the poor and visited the sick. Where are the gay institutions which have a long-standing reputation as beacons in their communities? Can you find them in any nation?

It was the church that started our hospitals and our Harvards, Princetons, Yales, Dartmouth and Browns as Bible schools. Where are the venerable gay institutions?

Looking at families – what happens when traditional sexual taboos are violated (where sons sex their mothers or fathers their sons and daughters or brothers sex their brothers)? And why shouldn’t what is potentially very pleasurable – free sexuality – be universally promoted? It is almost inevitable that when these taboos are violated, there are severe consequences.

We find these consequences prevalent in the gay community. We need go no further than their diminished lifespan. However, we also note the psychological torment that so many gays carry within themselves. I had mentioned the gay man who wanted to lash out at the churches, because they were unwilling to endorse his lifestyle. This is a response characteristic of many gays. When gay marriage was voted down in NY congress, gay organizations wanted to get names and addresses of those congressmen who had voted against this bill in order to intimidate.

We also saw this very same thing in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay groups obtained the names of those had promoted the bill and launched a campaign of intimidation and vandalism and them. Why?

When I was a parole officer, I had an overwhelming number of parolees in one particular town – a welfare town that had more bars per capita than any other town. However, there was an oddity about these town-folk that outsiders couldn’t help noting. They would always inform you about how proud they were of their town – a pride in stark contrast with its decaying streets and the drugged-up population. Clearly, their “pride” was no more than obstinate, corporate denial.

GLBT people are clearly conflicted and tormented, living in a way that violates their human nature. It is also clear that they try to drown-out this torment through denial and assertions of “gay pride.”

I can understand this. I too had been tormented by tsunamis of guilt and shame. I therefore resented those who I “perceived” regarded me with the disdain with which I secretly indicted myself. Subsequently, I’ve come to see that,

• “Fear of man [his opinions] will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.” (Proverbs 29:25)

As I’ve grown to trust in my Savior and in the confidence in His love and forgiveness – His comforting opinions of me – I’ve gained a freedom from what others might think of me.

Please try an experiment! Jesus had proclaimed that if anyone wanted to know the truth, this person should try doing His will (John 7:17). Here’s what His will is about:

• “He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13-14)

None of us are perfect – miles from it – and so we ALL need a Savior who will mercifully love and forgive us. And we must come on His terms, as little children!

Contempt for the Missionary

Christian missions have gotten a bad rap. If you doubt this, just watch a PBS or a BBC history special on the subject. In “6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization,” Research fellow, Philip J. Sampson attacks the myth that the missionaries were oppressors. The missionaries who followed in the wake of the Conquistadores have received special condemnation. A BBC TV series of The Missionaries claims that,

• “Under the guise of evangelism came harsh exploitation and eventually the enslavement of the Indians.”

Sampson counters that many of the missionaries had taken a strong stance against these colonial powers. He cites a sermon by Dominican Antonio de Montesinos (1511), preached against the sins of the white colonists:

• “Tell me, by what right and with what justice do you keep these poor Indians in such cruel and horrible servitude? By what authority have you made such detestable wars against these people…you kill them with your desire to extract and acquire gold every day…Are these not men…Are you not obliged to live them as you love yourselves?”

Contrary to the philosophy of Aristotle who regarded the slave as a “live tool,” the Bible grants dignity to all humanity as “created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). Sampson points out the consequence of this:

• “Many 19th century missionaries were appalled at the slave trade and did their best to try to change it. William Burns opposed the ‘coolie’ trade in China and protested to British government representatives…Missionaries in East Africa were horrified at the local slave trade and were at a loss as to what to do about it.” (100)

In her discussion of the missionaries to Africa, historian Ruth Tucker acknowledges that, while there were missionaries who also understood their role as one of westernizing the natives,

• “They, more than any other outside influence, fought against the evils colonialism and imperialism brought. They waged long and bitter battles…the heinous traffic in human cargo. And after the demise of the slave trade they raised their voice against other crimes, including the bloody tactics King Leopold used to extract rubber from the Congo. The vast majority of missionaries were pro-African, and their stand for racial justice often made them despised by their European brothers. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that without the conscience of Christian missions, many of the crimes of colonialism would have gone entirely unchecked.” (“From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya,” 140).

Sampson explodes the myth that the missionaries were in collusion with the imperialists and colonists. In fact, the missionaries were often expelled by the colonial powers to prevent them from “publicizing atrocities or intervening to help the native people.” (101) He agrees with Tucker that the,

• “Missionaries in Africa were opposed to slavery from an early period, and they used a variety of means to oppose it, including buying slaves and establishing plantations for them to work on.” (102)

According to Sampson, rather than collusion, conflict characterized missionary-colonialist relations:

• “The missionaries insisted on treating native people as human beings who are entitled to the protection of the law, and this rubbed salt into the wound. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that colonists and traders often opposed missions.” (103)

• “Traders and colonists resisted the evangelism of native people, seeing conversion as the first step to indigenous people gaining access to the resources of Western culture and hence to the power that colonists wished to keep for themselves…Native people who wished to break free of the settler’s stranglehold and worship God were immediately persecuted by the white traders.” (103-104)

Stephen Neill’s “History of Christian Missions” gives an example of this:

• “The missionaries [to New Guinea] from the start found themselves in bitter opposition to the white traders and exploiters, whose attitude was expressed by one of them to John G. Patton in the words ‘our watchword is ‘Sweep these creatures away, and let the white men occupy the soil,’’ and who, in pursuance of their aim, placed men sick of the measles on various islands in order to destroy the population through disease.” (355)

In contrast to the concerns of the missionaries, the educated, disdaining the idea of the “spiritual equality of all colors of Christians,” aligned themselves with the exploiters:

• “Missionaries, on the other hand, were ridiculed in scholarly journals for their shallow thinking in regard to race.” (Tucker, 140)

Darwinism had made racism intellectually respectable. Evolutionist Karl Giberson, in “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution,” acknowledges the prevailing racism:

• “How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in the Western culture at the time …shared [evolutionist] Haeckel’s [racist] ideas. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements…there can be little doubt that such viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.”

Consequently, evolutionists presented no rationale to oppose the abuses of colonialism. In contrast to this, Tucker cites A.F. Walls,

• “But one thing is clear. If missions are associated with the rise of imperialism, they are equally associated with the factors which brought about its destruction.” (111)

She also cites Ralph Winter:

• “Protestant missionary efforts in this period led the way to establishing all around the world the democratic apparatus of government, the schools, the hospitals, the universities and the political foundations for the new nations.” (111)

What greater testimony could there have been to the missionary dedication to those among whom they worked! Nevertheless, they have often been charged with the destruction of native culture. This is ironic because missions have done more to “codify and preserve [indigenous] languages” than has any other group:

• “The anthropologist Mary Haas estimates that ‘ninety per cent of the material available on American Indian languages, is missionary in origin.” (Sampson, 109-110)

Indeed, the missionaries did campaign against certain native practices like female circumcision. Charles Darwin confesses,

• “Human sacrifice…infanticide…bloody wars, where the conquerors spared neither women nor children—all these have been abolished…by the introduction of Christianity.” (Sampson, 110)

Why then all the bad press against the missionary? Darwin proposes that,

• “Disappointed in not finding the field of licentiousness quite so open as formerly, they [the Western traders] will not give credit to a morality which they do not wish to practice or to a religion which they undervalue, if not despise.” (Sampson, 111)

Consequently, the historian Stephen Neill concludes that the,

• “Weight of the evidence tells heavily against” the accusation that missionaries have been responsible for the destruction of native cultures.” (Sampson, 111)

The Christian missionaries bravely opposed the prevailing worldview. Representative of the Darwinian thinking of his day, Richard F. Burton complained that the Christian willingness to treat Africans as “men and brethren” was “a dangerous error at odds with the evolutionary facts.” (Sampson, 98) Instead, faith in the Gospel…

• “encouraged Dr. John Philip of the London Missionary Society to support native rights in South Africa in the early nineteenth century…Lancelot Threlkeld to demand equal protection under the law for the Awabakal people of Australia and also inspired John Eliot to persuade the Massachusetts courts to find in favor of native people against settler claims. Even so unsympathetic an author as David Stoll concedes that the contemporary missions in Latin America ‘tended to treat native people with more respect than did national governments and fellow citizens.’” (98)

This should be no surprise. It has been the faithfulness to their beliefs that has motivated Christians from the start. Regarding this, Philip Yancey provides some insights that he gleaned from the historian Rodney Stark:

• “In the midst of a hostile environment, the Christians simply acted on their beliefs. Going against the majority culture, they treated slaves as human beings, often liberating them…When an epidemic hit their towns, they stayed behind to nurse the sick. They refused to participate in such common practices as abortion and infanticide. They responded to persecution as martyrs, not as terrorists. And when Roman social networks disintegrated, the church stepped in. Even one of their pagan critics had to acknowledge that early Christians loved their neighbors ‘as if they were our own family.’” (CT, Nov 2010, 32-33)

Homosexuality: Are its Problems Due to Stigmatization or Something Else

Here is my response to a gay friend's blog: http://dseiple.blogspot.com/2010/10/society-and-homosexuality.html

You’ve re-focused us on an essential question:

• “Why is there such a high price to pay in many cultures for expressing homosexual affection? Is it a problem intrinsic to the homosexual condition, or is it a kind of self-fulfilling sentence passed upon a marginalized minority group, due to the deeply embedded fears of human culture itself?”

I don’t think that social “fears” can adequately explain the obvious fallout resulting from same-sex practice. It can’t explain the fact that gays live severely shortened lives, nor their incidence of venereal diseases, nor even a myriad of other problems. Instead, these seem to be endemic in the lifestyle, something reflected in the fact that this institution has been tried extensively throughout history without any clear indication that it contributes to the well-being of those who practice it. Even in places where it is reported that same-sex sex was widely accepted, like in ancient Greece and Rome, it seems that it only achieved very limited acceptance in the final analysis. “Aristotle, Herodotus, Aristophanes, and many other later Stoic and Cynic philosophers expressed moral disapproval of such practices.” (John Davis, “Evangelical Ethics,” 144). Arno Karlen has observed that those who think that homosexuality had been broadly accepted “have not read the primary sources.” (“Homosexuality in History,” 80).

Why has the rejection of homosexuality become what seems to be the ubiquitous verdict of history? Perhaps, it’s because the various societies and world religions have observed the price tag associated with this practice. In this regards, Davis writes of the work of British Anthropologist, J.D. Unwin:

• “After a comprehensive study of both Western and non-Western cultures throughout human history, Unwin concluded that the record of mankind ‘does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it had been absolutely [heterosexually] monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.’ Unwin observed that a society’s adoption and maintenance of heterosexual monogamy as a social standard “has preceded all manifestations of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in conquest, in art and sciences, in extension of the social vision, or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism.” (p. 116)

Similarly, after investigating 77 different societies, Ford, Beach and Gadpaille concluded that if homosexuality is adopted, it will prove socially counterproductive. Why? We are not born with a blank slate, but with a moral character that reacts against certain things. God has written His laws on our heart, and when we break these laws, we have to pay with internal conflict and corruption (Romans 2:14-15). Paul illustrates this price:

• Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another… 1:26-27 Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I know that this picture is very offensive, but I wouldn’t be preaching doom and gloom unless our Savior had the perfect remedy:

• 1 John 1:8-9 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Without Christ, we’re all in the same shame-ridden boat. I write this not to shame or stigmatize but in hope that the reader will resort to the only One who can remove all of our shames and stigmas. He says:

• Psalm 34:8 Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.

Is Johnny Still My Child or Does He Belong to the State?

Patrick B. Crane raises an important question:

• “Countries such as Britain, Spain, and Portugal are promoting abortion and contraception in the classroom without parental consent, he said, in clear opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR, adopted in 1948 in the wake of the great atrocities of World War II, insisted on the primacy of parents as the educators of their children, he noted, because of the Nazi's use of the education system to indoctrinate children.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110309.html

Whose children are these? Do they belong to the parents who gave birth to them or to the State? Who possesses the over-riding claim to them? Perhaps one way of answering this question is to ask another question: “Which party loves them the most and will therefore provide best for them?”

Two prostitutes had been trying to lay claim to the same baby, both claiming that the baby was theirs? Their claims came before King Solomon:

• Then the king said, "Bring me a sword." So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: "Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other." The [real mother]…was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, "Please, my lord, give her the…baby! Don't kill him!" But the other said, "Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!" Then the king gave his ruling: "Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother." (1 Kings 3:24-27)

In wisdom, Solomon gave the baby to the one who demonstrated real love – to the true mother. Instead, modern liberalism is ignoring the love of the rightful parents and is giving the child to the State educational system against the pleas of the parents.

Another way to answer the original question – “Whose child is this?” – is to ask another question: “Which party has the greatest likelihood to abuse the child?” This is not a difficult question to answer. History shows us that whenever the child becomes the ward of the State, no little comes of it. Crane mentions the Nazi debacle. The same can be said of communist indoctrination, pitting children against their parents.

Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher report that,

• “A preschooler living with one biological parent and one step-parent was forty times more likely to be sexually abused than one living with two natural parents.” (“The Case for Marriage,” 159)

We wonder what the statistics would shout when no biological parents are present and the unfortunate child finds herself in the hands of the State. In another study, it was found that:

• Abuse of children is 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.”

• “Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children. It is a deadly toxin to marriage, family, and culture.” www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?print=1&did=0907-schneider

Instead of co-opting Johnny for their own ideological purposes, the State should recognize that its long-term welfare is best served by maintaining the welfare of its most important institution – the family!

The Heart Separates; The Heart Unites

The desires and inclinations of our heart become the foundation for all our subsequent thinking. This is why we continue to go round-and-round without any resolution in certain conversations. Consequently, one atheist responded that I’ve never answered any of his challenges, while I had thought that I had answered all of them! Here’s my response to him:

It shouldn’t amaze me that two people can look at the same facts and come up with entirely opposite conclusions. This is because the battle – the differences between us – isn’t a matter of facts, but of the inclinations of our hearts. The Bible is very cognizant of the essentially determinative nature of the heart, and so the writer of Proverbs prays:

• Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God. (Proverbs 30:8-9)

He understands so profoundly the need for suitable conditions to nurture our thinking. Too much and we become proud and go astray. I think that this is the problem we experience today – our plenty and successes breed atheism.

How Does Evolution Gives the Glory to God?

The Biologos Foundation now claims that evolution helps us to give God the glory He deserves:

• “BioLogos Program Director Kathryn Applegate points to evolutionary science as a way to gain a richer understanding of the glory of God.” http://biologos.org/blog/how-evolutionary-science-reveals-gods-character/

If this is the case, then we need to take a second look at evolution! However, this boast is like Joseph Stalin bragging that the Soviets are now enjoying a workman’s paradise under his benign regime! Anyway, here is my response to Biologos:

• “While I agree with you that science reveals to us the glory of God (Romans 1; Psalm 19), the same doesn’t hold true for the theory of evolution. Evolution instead says, ‘Mindless, purposeless processes have created what you see around you.’ As such, it deprives God of His glory!! Please don’t confuse the two things—science and evolution!”