A Final Wrap-Up: Thabiti Anyabwile and Douglas Wilson
The Bible, Culture, and Race
Written by Douglas Wilson
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Introduction
When our discussion first started, we were both surprised at how well
it went, and both of us are very grateful to God, and to one another,
for this great blessing. We have also been grateful to the readers and
commenters who participated in this discussion in the same spirit,
praying with us, and laboring to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).
Agreements
We wanted to bring our discussion to
some sort of formal close, and so this is it. As we understand it, our
points of agreement are:
1. Mankind is one in Adam, which means we share a common humanity,
and a common slavery to sin. We together believe that mankind cannot
come together in a true unity until they do so in the second Adam, the
only one who is capable of overcoming the sorts of things that divide
us.
2. We both believe that racism is a grievous sin, and we believe that
it is a sin that has the practical effect of undercutting the gospel.
Jesus came to cast down the middle wall of partition, not only between
Jew and Gentile, but also to cast down any other walls that exist
between any other races, nationalities, tribes, or tongues. Worthy is
the Lamb, for only He could do this. But even He had to do it with the
price of His own blood (Rev. 7:9).
3. The logic of the gospel is jubilee logic. This means that the
messianic promises all looked forward to the day when the liberation of
the world from every form of slavery would begin, and the arrival of
Christ was the inauguration of God’s kingdom. This liberation from
slavery begins with liberating men from their slavery to sin, but it
necessarily and inexorably includes all other forms of slavery as
well—whether the forms of slavery as they existed in the ancient world,
or the more recent forms in our country.
4. We agree that the letter of Philemon is saturated with the idea of
koinonia fellowship, one that Paul and Philemon and Onesimus all
shared, and that Paul uses this spiritual reality as the foundation of
his argument, urging manumission for Onesimus.
But Differences Remain
In the areas where we
continue to differ, those differences are significant, although some of
them may well be differences of emphasis.
Thabiti continues to believe that:
1. The history of slavery—even the existence of American chattel
slavery, especially among Christians—represents a far more egregious
transgression of love, the gospel, and humanity than represented in Black & Tan,
which attempts a dangerous revision without sufficient historical
evidence. He believes privileging man-made constitutional arguments over
the liberty and full flourishing of fellow human beings betrays the
gospel, betrays the command to love our neighbor, and fails to consider
the balance of all the relevant biblical texts. That combination of
revising the record of slavery’s inhumanity and privileging only the prima facie
reading of texts compatible with one’s position leads to gross
misjudgment and siding with the oppressor against the oppressed in the
case of American chattel slavery.
2. A defense of “state’s rights” or the South’s withdrawal from the
Union is tantamount to a defense of American chattel slavery. The
inevitable consequence, had the South won the War, would have been the
perpetuation of race-based slavery and all its concomitant evils.
There’s no way to credibly defend the South’s position without also
providing means for the continuation of its sins and oppression of Black
people. There’s no way to credibly defend the South as a “Christian
nation” while tolerating its practice of race-based chattel slavery,
even if we hold to an emancipative gradualism. Only an immediate end to
slavery would have been consistent with the “jubilee logic” of the
gospel and repentant of the “grievous sin” of racism upon which the
practice was based.
3. We need an unembarrassed and stalwart acceptance of every jot and
tittle of the Bible, including difficult texts that pierce and challenge
our own favored positions and cherished histories. After all, the word
of God is a piercing double-edged sword which heals by slashes and cuts.
We need to embrace what Wilson calls the “angular texts.” But we need
not do that in a way that makes us impervious to charges (i.e., racism,
insensitivity, etc) that we ought to hear or forgetful of the fact that
different “angular texts” challenge each side of a dispute. “Angular
texts” and all, as servants of the Lord we must be gentle, not
quarrelsome, and certain that what we’re defending is the truth of
scripture rightly understood and not just our favored positions or our
pride.
4. The Constitution of the United States was never a perfect
document. Its guidance then (antebellum South) as well as now (battles
against abortion) is insufficient and in need of modification from time
to time. To assert that the Constitutional issues at the time of the
Civil War are directly contributory to the Constitutional issues
surrounding abortion is a massive logical mistake. Despite some
parallels, it’s better to recognize that the document has and continues
to fail us at various critical points in history—slavery, women’s
rights, and now the protection of unborn life. The Liberty Bell has been
cracked from the beginning, a crack put there by the hypocrisy of
ringing for liberty while holding slaves. The fix is not to root our
current discussion in debatable matters involving the country’s racial
past, but to pursue “a more perfect union” by more fully applying and
defending the high ideals and values the Constitution does embody. We
don’t need to look back to go forward, especially if we’re looking back
with a biased eye to a “history” that did not exist. We need to be
faithful in our own day, and that means not sticking your finger in the
eye of people who would and ought to be cobelligerents but showing
genuine love “in word and deed” (1 John 3:18) as we work together on life-and-death matters of mutual concern.
Douglas continues to believe that:
1. The “angular” texts of Scripture must be handled and understood in
a way does full justice to them on their face. I believe this is
possible to do in the light of redemptive gradualism, but this in turn
means that not every Christian slave owner was bound to the duty of
immediate manumission. After all, how do we interpret the text that says
that the Israelites could hold foreign slaves forever? We can’t just
agree to face these texts in principle — we have to actually face them
and say out loud what they mean. Are these some of the words that are
profitable for instruction (2 Tim. 3:16)?
Further, because in our present day, such commitment to all the texts
of Scripture is sufficient to get any Christian tagged as a racist, any a
priori commitment to avoid charges of racism at all costs will
necessarily morph into a regrettable softness when it comes to the
issues of biblical authority on the controversies of our own day —
abortion and homosexuality chief among them.
2. We have allowed our indignation at sins committed one hundred and
fifty years ago to hide our complicity in the atrocities of our own day.
I believe that the constitutional implications of the War and the
Reconstruction amendments paved the way (in the realm of constitutional
interpretation) for Roe v. Wade, and has resulted in a far greater evil
being perpetrated on blacks in the 21st century than slavery ever was in
the 19th. While it is good to be correct about idols toppled long ago,
it is far better to be right about the idols that are currently
demanding the blood of innocents, including many millions of black
innocents. Our obedience before God will be reckoned in how we dealt
with the sins of our own era, not the sins of another. My central
interest in all these historical issues has to do with how the legal
principles that were laid down then are being understood and applied
today.
3. I do understand the point that support for the South would have
had the downstream effect of continuing the institution of slavery, at
least for a time. While the point is easy to make from this distance, it
imposes, I believe, an extra-biblical requirement, and furthermore, it
is one that nobody practices in our current situations. I believe it is
too simplistic and is unworkable. For an American soldier to go the
Middle East today and fight for “democracy” is also to fight against
nations that don’t allow abortion-on-demand, and it is to fight for a
nation that does. To help America is therefore to help abortion. Well,
we would say, quite rightly, it isn’t quite that simple. I completely
agree . . . but would also add that it wasn’t that simple in Virginia
one hundred and fifty years ago. We really must use equal weights and
measures. The Lord was quite insistent upon it — the judgment we use
will be the judgment that is used against us (Matt. 7: 1-2).
Conclusion
In conclusion, we believe a fair
summary of our conclusions would be this. It is possible for Christians
to disagree about volatile issues. Moreover, it is possible — indeed
necessary — to do so charitably. The strong disagreement makes us feel
like enemies and strangers, while the charity reminds us of our
brotherhood in Christ. The strong disagreement tests the bonds of our
fellowship and love for one another, while genuine love covers over a
multitude of sins and holds all virtues together. We believe we have
experienced both the testing strain of strong disagreement and the
preserving bonds of biblical love. We thank God for it even as we
disagree about some things, agree about others, and hope to be faithful
to our common Master in it all. We believe that this is what it looks
like to labor to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace —
it is kind of messy sometimes, but we believe it pleases God.
No comments:
Post a Comment