Eric Van Dyken

Hi Kelly,

To the extent that Ocasio-Cortez has previously defended and supported her close friend in her calling President Trump a motherfu*#er, we really don't have to use our imaginations too much.  The reaction was predictable.  Supporters of the two ladies defended them, while those of differing perspective spoke against them and the "rudely maligning" language that was used.  Perhaps they feel that President Trump is not worthy of honor and respect, and I suppose to great extent I agree with them if we think of things on a merely secular, personal level.  But if we move beyond the personal, we realize there is an office that deserves respect (which Ocasio-Cortez herself stressed in noting that she is a Congresswoman).  And if we move past the secular, we realize that for Christians, such rude maligning is never acceptable.  I suspect that Bonnie would have gotten less of a negative reaction if she would have chosen an example who was more consistent in her calls for civility and respect.  Whether Bonnie wants to recognize the pattern or not, there is a partisan (not political) slant that comes from her and much of the rest of the CRC bureaucracy that inevitably gets push-back.  It would be nice to see the various employees listen instead of doubling down on regular partisanship.  

And for what it's worth, your comment implies that complementarians are simply an "old boy's club" filled with men who "fear the loss of power".  Many will perceive such a characterization as a rude maligning, including my wife and mother, who I happen to believe are deserving of respect and honor.

My answer to your question, Keith, is yes and no.  To be sure, the purest version of anti- (opposed to; against) racism is beneficial to the extent that it opposes unrighteousness.  That much seems plain on its face.  But, as usual, the devil is in the details.  When anti-racism imports worldly philosophies and definitions that are contrary to scripture, then the term is harmful to the witness of the church and not God-honoring.  Unfortunately much of what we see today in the church is inseparable and indistinct from the anti-Christian methods and philosophy of the world in the realm of anti-racism.  

To be sure, preaching and beliefs without action are empty - James drives that point home.  Of course that is true for all sins/teachings/challenges.  The question that it seemed your post was getting at was the language that we use in pursuit of justice.  The church has the language to deal with sin and injustice.  The meaningful discussion and dialogue that we should all strive to have should be God-honoring and honest.  Much of the world's approach and language in the realm of racism/anti-racism and justice/injustice drags in baggage from worldviews and moral frameworks that compete with a biblical worldview and moral framework.  The end result of using the world's language, methods, and worldview for our conversations and dialogues is often something that actually does not resemble biblical justice.  I wish that in the CRC there was room for more honest dialogue about all the factors at play in these discussions, but frankly the denominational offices tasked with that sort of work have done an exceedingly poor job of fostering honest and broad dialogue.  

Hi Mark, I'm glad to dialogue as well.  You read me somewhat correctly.  My concern is not really about me, though.  When I said "leave me out" I was speaking illustratively.   I am glad to be called all sorts of things and will also gladly own with Paul that I am the greatest of sinners, because I have the greatest of saviors.  I don't usually get too hung up on feeling judged, as I am rightly judged all the time in the manner of Psalm 51:3 - that is my confession too.  

What I have consistently objected to is the one-sided view of racialization, where some racialization is bad and other racialization is good if the perceived recipients of said racialization are perceived to be deserving as a class of being racialized.  That is neither philosophically consistent nor biblically tenable.  By treating whites as a monolith and assigning various traits of racism, privilege, fragility, etc. to whites as a group, the author indeed diminishes and dehumanizes a group (again, my concern is not for me).  This is the thought process that lead to hateful practices against any number of people groups over time, and it is not sanctified by being applied to one's own people group or to a people group that is seen as deserving.  Yes, I do assert that grouping people by skin color  (as oppressors vs. oppressed, such as in CRT) and pitting people against each other in a quest for power (which is the basis of CRT and intersectionality) is divisive and unbiblical.  I generally agree with Neil Shenvi's analysis here: https://shenviapologetics.com/critical-theory-all-content/ 

Beyond that, my first point is simple: The author is misleading in his title to the extend that he spends his much of his time accusing others of racism.  Additionally, the author makes the mistake of equating privilege with racism, or at least implies that at the end of his first paragraph.  There are all sorts of privileges in this world which we understand as God's grace to us, not as sin.  I was raised in a two parent home by devout Christian parents.  This gives me rank privilege over the vast majority of people in the world and a substantial majority of people in NA. This is biblically commendable and not to be despised.  As a matter of fact, I am promised that in passages such as Deut. 4, Deut. 5, Eph. 6, etc.  The popular focus on privilege misses the point: If I am treated justly, that is not the problem.  The problem arises when someone is treated unjustly.  Take for example the oft-used example of two shoppers.  A certain store owner follows a black customer in his store while leaving the white customer to shop unimpeded.  An unrighteous judgment has taken place.  The white customer can be said to be privileged, but the injustice lies in an unrighteous judgment made by the store owner that the black person is suspect because of the color of his skin.  Therein lies the sin.  Now, pivot back to our author, who makes the exact same unrighteous judgment of whites.  It matters not that he judges his motives to be righteous. He seeks to place a burden of sin on people based soley on their skin color.  That is not a judgment of righteousness, and actually runs contrary to the Galations passage that he references.  Much more could be said, but I've rambled enough for now.  Thanks again for dialoguing.

Mark, I would offer that it is not enough for the church to hope to offer articles and advice with mixed evil and righteousness and hope that people sort through, holding that which is righteous and rejecting that which is evil.  At it's core, Joshua approach is as you say "not generally helpful".  But it's worse than that - it's unrighteous, and it is not what the church should be promoting.  Unfortunately, there are at least two church agencies that speak this same language consistently and with impunity.  I wonder why giving to the denomination is down?

Mark, I'll offer one further thought to ponder.  According to what we confess in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 112, part of the aim of the ninth commandment is that "I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name."  It's a part of the positive implication of the commandment not to bear false witness that gets ignored quite often, yet we do well to take it to heart. There is no reasonable way that we can understand blanket condemnation of a people group based on skin color as heeding the ninth commandment.  In no way does such action seek to guard and advance our neighbor's good name.  

Mark, absolutely.