What’s Really Behind “White Guilt”?
While watching The O’Reilly Factor last night, I heard journalist Bernard Goldberg state, “There are no limits to white liberal guilt.” He also said that if you understand that sentence—you understand everything happening in our mainstream media culture right now.
If you watched Dinesh D’Souza’s America you know that slavery is far from being a black thing only, yet one gets the idea that slavery is synonymous with black victimization only. When we think, “slavery,” we think, “black.” This is not reality by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, “slave master” being synonymous with “white” is also a steroidal misnomer. In fact, to cite proof on this point is to state the obvious.
Yet, how and why have we arrived at this perception of reality? Contrary to the belief that the Bible is a mysterious book difficult to understand, the simplicity of its answers often escapes us. Often, biblical answers to seemingly complex social issues are shockingly simplistic, and this issue is no exception.
A particular problem mankind has dominates biblical subject matter: the need to control others. This need originates with sin. According to the Bible, sin is characterized by a desire to have mastery over others:
Genesis 4:6 – Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why are you looking down? 7 Will not your face be happy if you do well? If you do not do well, sin is waiting to destroy you. Its desire is to rule over you, but you must rule over it” (NLV).
Sin has a desire to rule over others. And note what it uses to destroy people and gain control over them: failure or not doing well (good). Sin gains control over others through condemnation. The major tactic for controlling others is the destruction of self-esteem. By self-esteem, I mean an honest assessment of one’s personhood; in other words, self-esteem is earned. A bank robber has no right to think well of himself. My grandmother, like many wise grandmothers, set the bar at doing one’s best in every endeavor.
Why do some people want to control others? It’s simply what sin does, and according to the Bible, it makes its appeal through “sinful desires.” Those desires are often lustful and selfish. The Bible also states that the fulfillment of sinful desires increases the intensity of the desires otherwise known as “addiction.”
In addition, according to the Bible, the following of these sinful desires leads to all kinds of temporary and eternal deaths. This isn’t very complicated; an example would be a desire to smoke cigarettes and the consequences following. This is why Christ died on a cross: to pay the penalty of sin defined as law-breaking and thereby ending condemnation. Without condemnation, sin is stripped of its power to enslave through condemnation:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
1Corinthians 15: 56 – The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
My wife Susan and I have opportunity to do counseling from time to time, and we see this concept on every level of human existence, especially marriage. Most bad marriages are the result of two people trying to control each other using condemnation. In almost every case, both spouses come to counseling with lengthy condemnation lists, but the Bible says “love does not keep a record of wrong.” In marriage counseling we often hear: “He/she will NEVER change!” Of course not, that’s the ammo one needs to beat the other spouse down in order to control them. Change is not acknowledged, and improvement is met with new accusations/faults that rain down condemnation for purposes of control.
This is why most formal religion is predicated on sin, especially Protestantism. The whole idea of the total depravity of man is a naked control ploy. But let us now apply the same principle to the politics of “white guilt,” and its kissing cousin, “white privilege.”
It’s the politics of control, and many think it got President Obama elected, and I think there is some merit to the charge. If you will notice, America is given little or no credit for its core ideals that overcame slavery. It’s little different from the spouse who will give no credit to the other spouse for change because that takes away one’s ability to control through condemnation. No matter what the other spouse does, it’s NEVER good enough. Why? Because control and domination is the goal—not love. Likewise, you can always tell what the agenda of an administration is when the House or the Senate cannot agree on anything. Partisan politics equals us against them and the artillery is condemnation.
The effectiveness of this strategy is at times astounding. Many will compromise and alter their good behavior to avoid being condemned or slandered. Has there been anyone who has employed this tactic more than Hillary Clinton? Her incessant drumbeat in regard to the “war on women” and her recent comparison of Republicans to terrorists and Nazis belongs in this category of control tactics.
White guilt is indicative of sin’s successful work. It’s a misrepresentation of true character in order to condemn and control. Obama’s apology tour was designed to break the will of the American public accordingly. It’s literally the oldest trick in the book that started with the serpent convincing Eve that she lacked understanding. She bought into a false assessment of her ability and how she esteemed herself.
And America would be ill-advised to follow her example.
paul
Here We Go Again: “The Church”
In the video below which promotes a book on the subject, we have another example of this whole idea that God will bless America if “the church” is running the show. I wrote a post on this yesterday and defined what is meant by “the church.” In the video, this very term is used: “the church.” The key to America returning to greatness is “G-o-d, not G-o-v.,” via “the church.”
What is the assumptive presupposition? That, and this even coming from Rush Limbaugh of all people, some “concept of God” is key to strong leadership. What does this assume? It assumes what we swim in daily: God is not concerned with particulars. God is not concerned with the particulars of the Big T, truth.
Get out of bed, get dressed, put your hands over your eyes, walk a couple of steps into the day, and look, and there you will find an example. On Facebook the other day I saw a conversation among women who belong to “the church,” in this case Baptists and Methodists, clamoring about getting a group together to hear Beth Moore speak in Cincinnati, Ohio. Never mind that she flaunts her Eastern mysticism in broad daylight, she is a well-spoken, feel-good expositor that is part of “the church.” Her outfits are also to die for. ‘Nuff said.
This makes the case that mankind is helplessly enslaved to the concept of church state which is founded in the ancient doctrine of the knowledge of good and evil. It is the belief that creation is fundamentally evil and only the invisible is good. Moreover, the invisible is a subjective complex knowledge that takes a spiritual journey that should include everyone, and as many “gifted” teachers as possible. Faith in general, and “Christianity” in particular is a journey in pursuit of the gnosis. All who are on this journey are good and closest to the gnosis that brings wellbeing (utopia), those who are not part of “the church” are confused and cannot discern anything of the gnosis. They are not “spiritually discerning.” They are helplessly enslaved to material absolutes.
This is exactly how “the church” functions. It is an institutional church state wannabe. It is an institution that groans and weeps for the realization of Plato’s Republic. It moans and weeps for philosopher kings to save us from the abyss of people governing themselves.
It took mankind something like 10,000 years to break free from this tyranny and the historical demarcation was the American Revolution. The reason American ideology works so well when properly applied is because it has a biblical metaphysical premise: creation became weak, not inherently evil.
In addition, mankind in general can know things—mankind in general can know reality. Secondly, every person born into the world is responsible to God personally, and God speaks to every human being individually in a way that every person can understand. In other words, people are created free and culpable before God alone for the sum and substance of their own lives. The sole purpose of government is to insure that freedom for each and every person born into the world.
The framers of the American Constitution held that these principles were “self-evident.” Some were Christians, most were deists, some were agnostic if not outright atheist, the principle of individualism versus collectivism was the driving force—NOT where the principle came from! All of them agreed on the principle and the role of government and cared little about where the others thought the principle came from. What we see today is an emphasis on the source, not the principle. And this is the fly in the ointment: some “concept of God” can be interpreted in a variety of ways; in every case, enter tyranny.
Hence, “the church” is a purely Platonist concept propagated by the big three of the Protestant Reformation: Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. A cursory observation of history reveals that all three were murdering despots. Most Christians, really all save a few, are helpless to know the difference because world philosophy is “worldly knowledge.” So, if the premise of what you really believe is unnecessary knowledge, the philosopher kings of “the church” can lead you around like a dog on a leash.
Want an example? Wherever you are, just remove your hands from over your eyes and look.
paul
What is “The Church”?
We hear it constantly, references to “the Church.” When discussing statistics, they are always in reference to “the church.” This is the term used constantly regardless of the fact that “church” can refer to Catholicism and an array of Protestant denominations including Charismatics and a myriad of Baptist stripes.
So, what is meant by “the church”? The concise definition is very obvious: the church is institutional theism. At least in Western culture, that is the starting point of accepted goodness that must prevail for the survival of humanity. In the same way that some parents send their children to Sunday school because “everybody needs some morals,” being a “Christian” is the minimal requirement for being unhazardous to humanity.
Hence, we have another definition: a “Christian” is someone who is identified with institutional theism, or “church.” And again, this is a societal Good Person Seal of Approval. For example, even President Obama claims to be a Christian and is a member of an institutional church. No Presidential candidate would have a prayer of being elected without some sort of religious affiliation whether Catholic or some breed of Protestantism. Quality of faith is far from being the issue, but the minimal requirement is a wink towards “the church.”
Being a Christian in America means you are a member of the institutional church which is anything theism. If you are a member of a theistic institution, you have good intentions and nobody has a right to judge your path to the pearly gates. Go to any Baptist church and start criticizing Catholics and you will quickly hear about all the Catholic friends they have who are saved and loved by God. Go to any of the National Day of Prayer gatherings and you will see that everything but the religious kitchen sink is there.
“The church” is the “Christian” club and means, not atheist, but rather any and all things theistic. Even the umber pragmatic Rush Limbaugh concurs. Just the other day on his radio program he stressed the importance of people, especially political candidates, having some “concept of God.” Bingo. A belief in some sort of deity: good; not believing in some sort of deity: bad. Limbaugh associated atheism (the Greek article “a” which means “anti” prefixed to “theism”) with being deceived about all sorts of things including global warming which he mentioned specifically.
Dr. Jay Adams, in a recent article, assumes that there are enough doctrinally sound churches in a given town or city to prevent “church tramping.” In my book, “church” and “tramp” are mutually inclusive.
When did “church” begin? The etymology of the word is German (kirche), and replaced the Greek word for “assembly” found in the Bible manuscripts (ecclesia). The word “synagogue” also means “assembly” or “congregation.”
The first complete English bible was the Tyndale bible in about 1524, and that bible did not use the word “church” anywhere in its pages, it used the word “congregation.” Sometime after this bible, they started replacing the word “congregation” with the word “church” (Christ’s Ekklesia and The Church Compared: Richard Anthony; http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html).
However, the concept of church started much earlier in history after the deaths of the twelve apostles. The early church fathers, at least according to the English translations, used the word “church” often. Several of the early church fathers were disciples of the original twelve apostles and deemed authoritative theologians of that era.
Unfortunately, an apostolic succession controversy took place immediately following the passing of the twelve apostles. Regardless of the fact that the twelve established a home fellowship model led by elders and organized by deacons, and predicated by gifts rather than authority, many of the church fathers argued that chaos and doctrinal abyss would ensue unless the authority of the twelve was replaced with a like central authority.
However, even the apostles pointed to Christ as the only head and rarely implemented apostolic authority. The principle protocol was that of persuasion by apt teaching from the Word. Nevertheless, the church fathers insisted on a central hierarchy located in Rome that would rule over what they called “the church.” The first “ruling bishop” of Rome was Linus who was a disciple among the original twelve and an early church father, and for all practical purposes, the first pope. Later, Protestantism came out of the institutional church which originated in Rome.
The home fellowships established by the apostles contended against the institutional church for about 200 years until home fellowships finally began to give way in the 4th century. Unfortunately, the home fellowship model only continues in certain geographies because of necessity, usually economic or governments that prohibit organized religions that follow Christ.
Obviously, “the church” is little concerned with “sound doctrine” emphasized by the original twelve. The focus is some “concept of God” defined by “Christianity.” It is quite enough that the first Republican announcing his candidacy is calling himself a “Christian,” and has included video of his family praying before a meal in a TV ad—no one will ask for any particulars, the main concern is that he’s not an atheist and is a member of formal theism. The main concern is, does he have a “concept of God”?
This is where the home fellowship movement has opportunity. We are NOT “the church.” And by today’s definition, we are NOT “Christian.” And if nothing else, that will spark curiosity. But more than that, when the freedom to pursue sound doctrine is fully exploited, I wonder what the Spirit might do?
paul
Core Ideology’s Bloody Road to Utopia
It doesn’t seem to make any sense. I have written on several occasions about the tacit approval of terrorism communicated by leading evangelicals in the New Calvinist movement. One such leader protested in a recent article that ISIS atrocities in Iraq were being exaggerated. Well, gee, that just isn’t fair. I have also written about the fact that many well-known evangelicals voted for President Obama. This seems perplexing.
Now, after all of the bantering back and forth between groups about school prayer, and religious groups meeting at school, etc., we find out that public schools across the nation are promoting Islam. One such report can be found here.
What’s going on? Regardless of the brutality and horrors perpetrated by Islam, people whom conservatives disagree with, but would stop way short of suggesting they support Islamic brutality, are conspicuously aloof from standing against Islam’s virus-like infiltration. It’s almost like there is something they have in common with Islam that they deem very important.
And that’s exactly the case.
Sure, liberals vehemently reject the brutality of Islam with all prejudice, but there is a more egregious enemy plaguing the earth; those who believe mankind can self-govern. This isn’t an oversimplification; liberals believe that utopia can be reached if the right mediators between truth and mankind are ruling, and the great unwashed masses are obediently following without question. All of the bloodletting is due to half-hearted endeavors. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace; there would be peace if everyone would only see that they know what’s best for the world. For another example of this, see “Democrat.”
And that my friend is the ideological tie that binds. The American principle of a government by the people and for the people is a tough nut to crack, and it requires whatever it takes. Quibbling about innocent blood is beside the point, that’s collateral damage and necessary sacrifices for the common good. Once Islam has served its purpose in helping socialism destroy self-governing, Plato’s philosopher kings can sort it all out with more bloodletting.
It’s all very ugly, and that’s “unfortunate,” but alas, that bloody road leads to utopia.
What America needs is a Patriot Party. Few conservatives really understand the true ideology of the original framers of the constitution, even fewer Republicans, and I venture to guess not a single Democrat. How bad is it? Even Rush Limbaugh doesn’t recognize the colonial Puritans for the Islamic socialist pigs that they were and has unwittingly endeared them to our children through recently published books. Moreover, and sadly, Ayn Rand, a Russian immigrant, has probably shown more understanding on this issue than anyone in the past 70 years.
We are in big, big, trouble. As an aside, that’s why I think Immel’s TANC 2012 sessions need to be viral. Really, we need to have a weekend pizza party and get a good video redo on that as well. Nevertheless, the transcripts are presently available. His three sessions really nail the big picture.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment