I understand that some readers think I have an axe to grind about certain figures in the Gospel Coalition. But surely even those predisposed to discount Old Life in favor of the youthful, restless, thing that aspires to be Calvinistic — surely they can spot the difficulty with this. Tonight John Piper and Tim Keller are going to talk about Christianity and race. They are going to do so with an African-American on the platform. That man will be Anthony Bradley. But Bradley will not be one of the primary interlocutors. Instead, he will be the moderator.
Having been a moderator of various groups, I understand that the work is not difficult but is also not front-and-center. A moderator facilitates. He does not get in the way of the persons assembled to deliberate.
Maybe tonight’s format will be different and Bradley will be more than a “typical” moderator. But is it really unreasonable or uncharitable to wonder why Bradley himself is not one of the prime participants in this conversation about race, and why either Piper or Keller could not back out of the limelight to take the seat of moderator? I mean, even if evangelical Protestants are inclined to see nothing odd about this program because of their abiding appreciation for Piper and Keller, can’t they at least imagine how outsiders might see the billing for this event and the unfortunate implications of having a black man play a supportive role to white men can answering questions about Christian and race?
Postscript: I am dumbfounded that in the video promoting this event, Piper does not even mention Bradley. Holy smokes!
Old Life 
Atrocious!
LikeLike
Neither Keller nor Piper are doctored in history or sociology with specialties in this area, yet they speak. Yawn.
LikeLike
According to the promo video, Keller and Piper will also be wrestling (2:00). It may be worth watching the live stream after all.
LikeLike
Yeah, and I bet neither of them attended the prestigious Dupont University.
LikeLike
hmmm, do you think they’ll discuss the relation of Old School Presbyterianism and American slavery, vis-a-vis the New York Post articles of the 1830s? Or the position of R. L. Dabney on the African American slave? (or James Pettigrew Boice for that matter)
I wonder if Bradley dares? I wonder if DGH dares?
LikeLike
Ted, you’re right. I bet they didn’t discuss Moses, David, Jesus or Paul on slavery either.
LikeLike
Maybe they did, Ted. No one in the PCA I know denies those guys had those views, or is surprised by it. Is there a point to your question or were you just thrill-seeking with a breezy theological drive-by? Or maybe you are offering yourself as someone more courageous (“I’ll dare ask these questions!”) and thoughtful on race and Presbyterianism than Anthony Bradley (a PCA minister). We all know how Anthony is so shy and retiring on these issues and really needs help from white folks to see these things clearly… (ahem)
By the way, there is an article on the website of SBTS with the following quote: “The fetishistic use of historical figures is precisely what leads to the kind of “absolute good vs. absolute evil” characterizations we often see among Christians in the way they view current leaders.” The whole article is here: http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/07/28/is-it-wrong-to-display-a-picture-of-robert-e-lee-my-response/
LikeLike
Antebellum slavery was wicked and beyond defense and so are those men who countenanced the kidnapping and sale of men against their will and against the witness of Scripture. Dabney’s sad and pathetic words stand in sharp contrast to the warm and Godly work of his Southern Presbyterian colleague John Girardeau.
LikeLike
Ben, so how do you feel about OT slavery?
LikeLike
You are a smart guy Dr. Hart. Playing stupid doesn’t look good on you.
You know the differences between antebellum man-stealing slavery (which was punishable by death in the OT, Ex. 21:16) and the Old Testament forms of slavery. Stealing men against their will and forcing them to work without pay (which is also against Biblical Law, Lev. 19:13) and dividing their families is immoral and wicked and cannot be defended.
LikeLike
Ben, I just wanted to make sure that you weren’t opposed to all forms of slavery.
Thanks for the compliment. Your recent remarks at Greenbaggins suggested I was lacking in the intelligence column.
LikeLike
DGH – bet you’re right, which it too bad, because if they did could denunciate American slavery for what it was (thank you Ben Glaser). Such clarity could not only help expose the horror of American man-stealing, and simultaneously uphold the excellence of Scripture.
Pat Roach – “had views” – that’s all? you’re kinda going out on a limb there, don’t ya think?
Thanks for the links to Moore’s article. I would’ve been “Moore” impressed if he had been real about Boice’s blindness than Lee’s. Lee gave his life to studying the military; Boice to Holy Scripture and founded the seminary Moore works at. Moore walks past Boice College every day. There’s blindness, and then there’s blindness. Like Dabney, Boice used the Bible to defend and commend man-stealers who are likely experiencing present judgment (Exo. 21:6, 1 Tim. 1:10). If I were African American, I would be a lot more put off by Boice’s picture in my professor’s office than Lee’s. To put it in modern context: Boice affirmed and strengthened men who are in the same reprobate category of male to male prostitutes (1 Tim. 1:10).
How ’bout you, Pat? Would you disciple a young black man in the Lord using Dabney’s works? When would you direct him to read Dabney’s view of the Black man, at the beginning of your discipling process with him, or at the end (or never)? If at the beginning, would he not likely flee? And if you waited later to tell him how Dabney denied humanity to the Black man, would he not express outrage that you knew about it the whole time and used Dabney as his teacher in the Lord? And if silence… well, how very American Presbyterian you would be: (http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2010/07/why-didnt-they.html).
LikeLike
Also if one examines Robert E. Lee’s and Thomas J. Jackson’s (a good Presbyterian) views on slavery and the black race they sound downright progressive in comparison to the vast majority of folks, North or South, of their day.
Lee was pro-abolition and Jackson, for instance, openly violated Virginia State Law by teaching his slaves to read and write as well as leading a Bible Study for other slaves in his own home.
LikeLike
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/a/jourdonanderson.htm
It’s always more interesting to hear from the former slave’s perspective.
LikeLike
They seem to have wanted him to just stand there and be black. Like all SWPLs, Piper and Keller have no real interest in non-whites that aren’t useful to their cause. And usually, minorities are used to gain leverage over other whites.
LikeLike
Ted, so you’d recommend to Pat that he would regard black men the way you regard Dabney? But Dabney was not a man-stealer. He defended slavery, not man-stealing. And the OT does not condemn slavery.
BTW, some of the ways the Israelites acquired slaves were not pretty by Uncle Tom’s Cabin standards. Nor were the Israelites’ treatment of conquered peoples. You know, of course, that women and children were sometimes not spared.
Careful getting off your high horse.
LikeLike
“Careful getting off your high horse.” – Love it. I’ll try not to sound haughty here. thanks 🙂
Darryl, I don’t regard Dabney as a man with less of a soul than other men, which is how he viewed the African American slave. I’m sorry if I expressed myself with a lack of precision on that matter. Indeed, I view him as fully culpable for his teachings precisely because he did have such a fully human soul. If I failed to make that point, again, please overlook my lack of clarity. He was more culpable than Lee since he had a both a brilliant mind and such unfettered access to the mind of God in Scripture.
The OT does indeed condemn slavery – the kind of slavery Dabney defended… and we must add: promoted. But we must differentiate between 2 kinds of slavery, both of which are attested in Scripture. One is entirely evil. It is first evidenced in the battle of the kings in Gen. 14 where men and women are stolen in battle to become slaves (Gen. 14:14-16). Then, as Ben Glaser referred to, we have some super-clear Law on the matter – Exo. 21:16 and Deut. 24:7. The crime is labeled “kidnapping” and required capital punishment in obedience to God. This is referred to in 1 Tim. 1:10. Super-de-dupity clear. Dabney defended the slavery that was kidnapping.
Now God could abrogate this law on occasions for His own holy purposes, such as the extermination of the Amorite and others races He judged (Num. 31:1-9). But that doesn’t provide a good justification for the slavery we had in America, does it?
And the kind of slavery that was “good” was almost exclusively volunteer slavery, where a man put himself under slavery for economic reasons (usually). That had regulations and rights in both the OT Israelites and Roman versions witnessed in the Scripture.
Comparing American slavery to biblical slavery is like comparing…. well…. kidnapping to employment.
Now all of this is preliminary to my larger point. What do you do with Dabney as a teacher of Christianity? At what point do you explain his defective anthropology – specifically his rabid view of African Americans – to your students. At the beginning of the teaching, during the teaching, at the end of the teaching, or never?
LikeLike
Ted,
Thanks for your reply. I would use Dabney to disciple any young man (why should black men being discipled be considered/treated differently than whites?). Obviously, Dabney’s racism would not be commended or endorsed, but he didn’t only write about those things. Anyone could benefit from reading Dabney on Christian education, for example (regardless of whether they concurred with him). Or do you only read people who have avoided the sins and failures you have?
Further, since discipleship is not simply about modeling/commending perfect exemplars, Dabney or Boyce could be read and discussed with profit. You don’t have to subscribe to a person’s whole theology to benefit or learn from them. It can even be useful in discipleship to see how Christians grossly and systemically fail (no doubt this is one of the things our grandchildren will glean from our lives, too). And there is value in that. People, like history, are messier than that (hence the reference to the article I referenced in the first post).
LikeLike
John Brown was a Calvinist!
Anyway, I’m a Black Puerto Rican with leftist politics, grew up Pentecostal (founded by Klan member Charles Parham and child of ex-slaves William J. Seymour). Although white Pentecostals played down Parham’s racism and emphasized the “multi-racial” character of Azusa, Protestants of color (or at least within my community) emphasized that “good religion” doesn’t necessarily mean “good race-relations”.
After leaving Protestant Christianity for a decade, I was brought back by way of some folks from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Most, but not all, were Theonimst and Dominionist. (The Elders seem to reflect the 2K position of Hart) As much as some of their views on race and politics disturbed me, their theology gave me hope. And their church community created an environment where our political and sociological views were put into check.
I had to leave the Orthodox for the liberal PCUSA (more for my wife than me). As much as I agreed with some of the members of this denomination, politically, the church services were a bit uncomfortable. In their drive to become multi-racial and multi-cultural, the church services were a smorgasbord of modern cultural trends, reminding me of some of the Pentecostal churches I grew up around.
All that to say, the usual conservatives vs. liberal catagories do not look the same within Protestant of color communities. Even the category of “racism’ is used differently among Protestants of color. My father is still a hard-core Pentecostal and attends a church with a Pastor he views as racist, but appreciates many of the other things he brings to church.
I would rather attend a Calvinist church with a racist/bigoted Pastor with proper theology, than a church with a Pastor who I agreed with politically, but had screwed up theology.
Who I align with politically does not have to be someone I align with theologically.
LikeLike
That should be
” As much as some of their views on race and politics disturbed me, Calvinism gave me hope.”
LikeLike
Pat- Clearly it’s very hard to read only those with whom one agrees absolutely. “Agrees with” isn’t the best phrase. Always right, is perhaps better. But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try.
And we’re talking here about discipling: i.e. teaching. Reading Dabney to understand a particular historical theological school is one thing; using Dabney to teach is another. We’re not talking about minor differences or errors in emphasis; nor are we taking about a theologian who happened to hold the (by modern standards unappealing) attitudes of his time. We’re talking about someone who promulgated error- evil error- in the face of strong opposing opinion. He had before him a clear choice and he chose wrong.
Also, why should one use Dabney to teach? If we want people who are, effectively, right on everything we have Calvin, Beza (if one speaks Latin), Turretin. Why use moderns like Dabney, or even Hodge- who are in error on the sacraments- when we have these guys?
LikeLike
Calvin and Beza didn’t have to deal with European imperialism in the Third World. Racism was an essential part of most, if not all, Euro-Settler societies after the Enlightenment. Looking for pristine angels, among that long stretch of history, will leave us with very few folks indeed, if any at all.
I think there is an honest and blunt way to teach and learn from even the most genocidal racist, without reducing all of them, to modern liberal, multi-cultural categories.
I think we’ve reduced the word “racism” to only refer to NAZIs and Klan members, when it was widely understood to be much more and pervasive than that. Almost no one could escape it.
LikeLike
Pat – “Or do you only read people who have avoided the sins and failures you have?”
zoink.
I wouldn’t hold myself up as the standard, but rather the elder qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. By those Dabney is disqualified, specifically – Titus 1:8-9, “a lover of good” and “able to give instruction in sound doctrine.”
“You don’t have to subscribe to a person’s whole theology to benefit or learn from them.”
It is an faulty logic to equate “differences in theology” with “gross errors in theology.” Dabney’s perspective on the Black man was not a theological blunder only, it was a moral blunder of the 1st order (1 Tim. 1:10).
How would you feel about pardoning a theologian who is sound on the Trinity and also uses Bible texts to support and commend male prostitution?
For me that would take him off not only my reading list but my list of chosen authors from whom I teach the truth that leads to godliness. 1 Tim. 1:10 equates male prostitution with man-stealing.
LikeLike
Ted, I believe you are wrong about Dabney and the souls of black folks. He did believe that Europeans were superior to Africans. So did Abraham Lincoln. That doesn’t mean he believed African-Americans lacked souls or weren’t human.
As for the biblical views of slavery, have you considered that Paul calls believers slaves of Christ. And that we were bought with a price to be brought into this slavery. And since Christ also says that he came to break up families, you could actually find some biblical precedent for Southern slavery.
I’m not advocating such an interpretation. But I would like to see those who are so quick to condemn the South watch out for the boomerang that hits them a few seconds after condemnation.
LikeLike
The Lakota and Aztecs were pretty big practitioners of imperialism, racism, genocide, slavery, etc. Give Bernal Diaz a read.
There’s nothing unique about the European man.
LikeLike
One of the myths of history is, “the South was responsible for slavery in America “.
The Northern colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut were the first to legalize slavery. North Carolina and Georgia were the last.
Northern and foreign merchants were responsible for the importation of African slaves to this country, they made millions. Not one Southern vessel imported slaves.
When the US Constitution was signed, all thirteen states held slaves.
When Northern slave owners and Industrialists discovered that it was cheaper to hire poor European immigrants rather than to care for slaves, they didn’t free their slaves… they sold them to the South… and made millions again.
When some Northern states outlawed slavery, they also passed laws forbidding them from living in the north.
So let’s set the record straight, the institution of slavery was started by the Northern States and was responsible for the profiteering and importation of the slaves. When they had no use for their slaves they sold their slaves and then outlawed them.
LikeLike
The Lakota and Aztecs were pretty big practitioners of imperialism, racism, genocide, slavery, etc. Give Bernal Diaz a read.
No doubt, the desires of empires reflect our fallen dangers. However, the idea of racism, was a new way to organize the world, and it seems to have been tied to the Enlightenment.
LikeLike
Dgh- but the breaking up of families is by Christ, not the slave trader surely? Such an interpretation could only work if one viewed the slave trade as the Gospel in operation.
Certainly the Bible is, overall, indifferent to most slavery depicted and God clearly tolerated the practise amongst his own people. And Jesus and the Apostles clearly were looking beyond the earthly realm to the Heavenly, spiritual one and so they were focused on proclaiming the Gospel not ordering society: there’s was a spiritual, not a fleshly salvation. I don’t dispute any of that.
However, can we take from this apparel indifference a justification- i.e. a positive argument- for slavery? Especially a system of slavery based on the belief that one man is superior to another because of the colour of his skin? That one race is superior to another? That is Southern (and British) slavery. And Dabney didn’t just tolerate slavery: he offered a theological, positive argument for it. That is not equivalent to God’s toleration of a practise by his people of a cultural norm.
LikeLike
Alexander, all of your points are fair and the arguments of Dabney about the superiority of whites over blacks is no justification for slavery. But I think it is important to note that slavery as an institution is not sin and if Christians argue such they are using a standard outside the Bible, always a dangerous move. Another point to remember is that slave-holders were not the only ones to believe in the superiority of whites. You could oppose slavery as Lincoln and Hodge did, and still believe that Europeans and Africans could not live together.
One further consideration is that some Americans today believe that Americans are superior to Mexicans and that the two people can’t live together (illegal immigration notwithstanding). That doesn’t mean that beliefs in superiority are welcome or acceptable. But the United States and its educational system invested a lot of resources at one time in the idea that the West, Europe, and North America provided an example of a superior civilization in the history of the world. I still believe that assertion has some merit with certain qualifications. It is by no means a justification for the subjection of non-Europeans. But my main point is that critics of slavery need to be care in denying superiority outright. It can lead to a cultural relativism that multi-culturalists promote and enforce.
LikeLike
Here’s some excerpts of RL Dabney’s speach in the Synod of Virginia, Nov. 9, 1867, arguing against allowing African Americans to have any leadership in white Presbyterian churches:
“Does it imply that we many properly decide that the evidence of God’s call and qualification is fatally defective, where an insuperable difference of race, made by God and not by man, and of character and social condition, makes it plainly impossible for a black man to teach and rule white Christians for their edification? If so, I adopt it. “
Notice “An insuperable difference of race made by God?”
“while I greatly doubt whether a single Presbyterian negro will ever be found to come fully up to that high standard of learning, manners, sanctity, prudence, and moral weight and acceptability, which our constitution requires, and which this overture professes to honour so impartially; I clearly foresee that no sooner will it pass than it will than it will be made the pretext for a partial and odious lowering of our standard, in favour of negroes.”
Notice the “odious lowering of our standard in favor of negroes”
He goes on.
“Do not facts prove it? Were not the only black ministers ordained by our church since the war, all three ordained in flagrant violation of the constitution? There has broken out among many a sort of morbid craving to ordain negroes; to get their hands on their heads. Indeed it seems to be a fatality attending the moral and mental malaria which infects the age, that when people become interested about this unfortunate race, that they must take leave of their own good sense, and grow extravagant, hasty, and inconsiderate.”
Notice “this unfortunate race” only esteemed when people “take leave of their good sense”
“Fourth, I oppose the entrusting the destinies of our Church, in any degree, whatever, to black rulers, because that race is not trustworthy for such position…. Now, he that knows the negro, does not know that he is a subservient race; that he is made to follow and not to lead; and his temperament, idiosyncrasy, and social relation, make him untrustworthy as a depository of power?”
Notice the negro is a subservient race and is untrustworthy of power
Later,
“If you trust any portion of power over your Church to black hands, you will rue it.”
Later,
“This day we are threatened with evils, through negro supremacy and spoliation, to those who atrocity the late were tender mercies.”
Later,
“It is (shall I pronounce the abhorred word?) to amalgamation! Yes, sir, these tyrants know that if they can mix the race of Washington, and Lee, and Jackson, with this base herd which they have brought from Africa; if they can taint the blood which hallowed the plains of Manassas, with this sordid stream, the adulterous current will never again swell a Virginian’s heart…”
LikeLike
Ted, I’m not defending Dabney’s racism.
But your assertion that he denied the souls of Africans, as if they were inhuman, does not follow from these quotes. I’m not questioning how objectionable Dabney’s views were. I’m questioning your interpretation of them — both by attributing to Dabney things he did not say, and by failing to see that racism extended to the slaves’ liberators, all the way up to Abraham Lincoln. In which case, your beef is with more than Dabney. It’s with the entire American society before — well, where does the outrage end when it comes to the way these white men treated women, native Americans, and Africans. It’s not that far to go from your outrage to the way that the Left regards the U.S.’s past.
LikeLike
“Ted, I’m not defending Dabney’s racism.”
OK. But you are minimizing it.
“I bet they didn’t discuss Moses, David, Jesus or Paul on slavery either”
“Ben, I just wanted to make sure that you weren’t opposed to all forms of slavery”
“Dabney was not a man-stealer. He defended slavery, not man-stealing. And the OT does not condemn slavery.”
As if you don’t know the difference between OT slavery and ante-bellum slavery.
“your assertion that he denied the souls of Africans, as if they were inhuman, does not follow from these quotes.”
As if I even hinted at such a thing.
You say I am outraged.” Please. Passionate? Yes. There are men in Christian leadership who use the Bible to defend really, really horrible sin. They need to be marked out and people need to be warned about their schismatic words (1 Tim. 1:6-7, 1 Timothy 6:3-5).
I trust you are repulsed by Christian leaders who defend the sodomite. Based on 1 Tim. 1:10, that is the same category of sin as defending the slave – trader.
I’m not applying rage to Lincoln or American culture. What have I to do with judging that?
The reason I’m passionate is because Dabney, a Christian leader, denied the active obedience of Christ, practically speaking. He wickedly and repeatedly denied that African men have a soul as full as glory as his own – just read the quotes above.
But African humanity has to be as much in the image of God as Christ’s own incarnate humanity, or else they can’t be saved by Christ’s full humanity. He didn’t atone for something less than a full humanity – a humanity as valuable, precious, and dignified as Dabney’s own. The doctrine that Christ redeemed a number of men from every tribe and people by His own active and passive obedience ought to be Presbyterianism 101. The White man, as much as the Black, required the same full embodiment of Christ into humanity to accomplish his redemption.
If some races are inferior in their humanity, then those who are saved out of those races must be saved than something other than the active obedience of the full humanity of Christ. I agree with the catholic statement of Gregory of Nazianzus: “all that He assumed He redeemed.” To strike out at the Black African (and the Mexican as well, as Dabney did) impugns the redeeming love of Christ who offered Himself for just such sinners as them.
Therefore, Dabney is disqualified as a teacher to the Universal Church, and the evidence is plain to see, brother.
LikeLike
correction
“but a humanity as valuable, precious, and dignified as Dabney’s own.”
LikeLike
Dgh- do you take the position that the institution is not a sin from the fact that Paul told slave owners to treat their slaves well rather than release them? I suppose I never read it like that.
I certainly don’t think we should discard theologians unless they were abolitionist of th year, so I take on board what you say about Hodge. My main issue with Dabney is using him to teach. I think his work as a teaching tool is discredited by his warped exegesis on this issue.
I don’t believe that Christians have a duty to promulgate multi-culturalism. But I think we can and should draw a line with teachers whose theology is dangerously misconceived.
LikeLike
Ted, if Dabney’s view of the black man was sinful, and you are outraged by sin, why not extend the rage to Lincoln?
Even if you want to back away from that 2k distinction between God’s people and the rest of humanity, are you really saying that one strike and a person is disqualified from saying anything good? That is perfectionism, BRO! Are all of the theologians you read and teach without sin? Is racism the unpardonable sin, or would God actually forgive Dabney? If God can forgive, why can’t you?
I’m not defending slavery. I am opposing self-righteousness. And I am defending us poor sinners who know our failings and still try to advance the kingdom of grace.
LikeLike
Alexander, like I just wrote to Ted, you’re going to rule out a theologian for one strike? Can you possibly meet such a standard (assuming you are not sinless)?
LikeLike
I think you are making false dichotomies, Darryl.
It isn’t about “outrage against sin;” it’s about protecting the sheep from Christian leaders who need not to be outed for horrible sin. Lincoln wasn’t a Christian leader.
This isn’t about peccadilloes or the normal stuff of indwelling sin; it’s about disqualfiying sin.
This isn’t about one strike and you’re out; this is about exposing a long-standing pattern of sinful teaching.
LikeLike
Ted, disqualifying sin? Unpardonable? You better send a few letters to the Banner of Truth Trust, and I’ll be looking for your boycott of the Banner’s conferences and merchandise.
LikeLike
Ted,
The problem you are advancing here is assuming the perspective that comes from time and distance, something Dabney did not have here. Sure he was wrong, but by your arguments we shouldn’t use Calvin either, you know with his misjudgment over Servetus. Should we use the Psalms of David, since he was a murderer and adulterer? Augustine the philanderer and glutton? If we are afraid to let the warts of the saints in the past show, we end up whitewashing history. I say teach it so that the grace of God can shine through human fallenness, isn’t that the point of teaching in the end? Isn’t it far better to say that even where the saints of the past failed, drank too deep of the cultural sins of their day, that the grace of God is greater, and able to use their meager gifts in spite of their propensity to fail to serve the greater council of his will.
Who knows what future generations will say of our blind spots. And I am not so sure that if I were in Dabney’s cultural situation that I would have been so different – I think it’s arrogant to assume so.
LikeLike
I’d agree with Ted. Being sinful and teaching sin are two different things.
LikeLike
Alexander, no one has yet to prove that Dabney was teaching sin since very few in Dabney’s day believed his views were sinful (among orthodox Protestants). Have you ever considered the way that Americans view Islamists or Communists? Do Americans believe they are superior to Al Quada or Karl Marx? The way you and Ted argue, no one has any grounds for claiming social, cultural, or political superiority. I believe that is what Dabney was claiming. I disagree. But if you regard all claims of superiority as teaching sin, then the whole lot of humanity needs to take a number.
LikeLike
But there were orthodox, confessional Protestants who thought differently: as you mention, Hodge. Dabney seems to me to be the worldview transformationalist to Hodge’s 2ker. Dabney was using Scripture to argue for a particular socio-cultural construction; Hodge said the church should stand back (that’s my understanding of the Old School anyway). Dabney may have been arguing to preserve rather than create, but the principle is the same as your bog standard worldviewer. A theologian may be racist, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that he systematises that racism as a Biblical precept. To me that is the dividing line.
Also one can argue that Western society is more advanced and civilised than others without 1) being racist and 2) arguing that the Bible tells me this is so. The Western 2ker should acknowledge that his culture is superior but that to this fact the Bible, and especially the Gospel, is indifferent.
LikeLike
Alexander, Hodge like Lincoln like most whites believed that Africans and Europeans could not live together. It wasn’t because they though whites were inferior.
The Bible may be indifferent to culture. But are you indifferent to the culture of the schools where your children may attend classes? Would you prefer to live in the favela in Sao Paulo or the neighborhoods of Baltimore?
LikeLike
Ted,
I think you are over-interpreting Dabney’s quotes, and being uncharitable to him by the standards of his day.
I know next to nothing beyond what you posted above, but I read these quotes as mostly descriptive. Dabney observes a class of persons — defined by their race — that is virtually in its entirety unfit for leadership, due to their “unfortunate” state (mostly uneducated, untrained, and inexperienced in leadership). He further believes that their current state as observed is not unrelated to the particular abilities of their racial subgroup and correlates with it biologically.
I think it was a pretty common view in the 19th cent. that races were more or less gifted in different areas, and a colorblind view would be virtually unprecedented. If we’re honest, I think most American sports fans today believe that African Americans are more athletically gifted than caucasians (generally, as a race, more muscular, and possessing greater abilities toward strength or speed). I presume this isn’t true, but I’ve heard it voiced, and I think it’s a commonly held view in our enlightened day. Is it such a stretch to believe as people in Dabney’s day did that caucasians had inherent advantages at book learning? It’s clearly bigoted, but it matched their observed data (on the whole). And to say races are differentiated by God (more or less gifted physically or mentally in different ways) does not imply that Christ’s blood wasn’t shed for them all equally. There may be Dabney quotes to that effect, but I don’t see that in what you posted here.
I also think it’s interesting that Dabney seems to be arguing against a practice akin to affirmative action, where Africans were being promoted based solely on their race (to score political points) and “in flagrant violation of the constitution.” I’d be curious to know the particulars of that case… but if unqualified black men were put in office based solely on their skin color (and not “unqualified” in Dabney’s eyes solely because of their skin color), I can see Dabney’s concern here. He thinks people are abandoning ecclesiastical principles in their abolitionist fervor.
In short, we don’t know enough from your quotes, and the lines you call out and highlight don’t prove what you seem to think they prove. Clearly, his conclusions are incredibly offensive today, not to mention demonstrably false. But they have to be read in their historical context. Is that “minimizing his racism?” Perhaps, if a historically uncharitable reading maximizes it. We certainly don’t need to excuse it. But we can learn from him and set aside his errors without judging him by today’s standards. And I don’t think these views (not the ones you posted, anyway, which I would guess are among his worst) disqualifies what he said on other theological topics.
LikeLike
Dgh- I would prefer Baltimore. I have no problem saying that certain cultures are superior to others. I just don’t think that’s inherently racist (though I certainly agree it’s portrayed as such by liberals) and nor do I think that’s what Dabney was arguing. I think he went further- and sought Biblical justification for his views, which, ultimately, is my problem with using him to teach.
LikeLike
Whew. That wasn’t easy, but I’ve read all the posts and concluded that while I agree with most of what everyone has said, I can say that none of it appears to have really hit the mark regarding Ted and Alexander’s position. I’m sure this was unintended, that you all weren’t purposely misconstruing their position. I have read some of Dabney’s discussion’s and read them, in some cases, to my benefit – although it’s not easy for a burr-headed old roughneck as myself to understand someone as brilliant as RLD. I would never use him to disciple christians of any race. None of the examples or counter-arguments above seem to address that head-on. I’m surprised at my own acuity. It’s not about whether Lincoln was a rascist (which he was) or whether Calvin executed Servetus (which he didn’t) – it’s about Dabney having the intellect to know what he was about and doing it anyway. It’s not about removing him from office (he’s pretty dead); and it’s not about taking his books down of the shelf (along with Thornwell? How about Shedd? Anyone else?); I ‘m pretty sure it was about using Dabney to disciple, and at what point his Anthropology would be revealed.
er, at least I thought I was reading it correctly…
LikeLike
I say teach it so that the grace of God can shine through human fallenness, isn’t that the point of teaching in the end? Isn’t it far better to say that even where the saints of the past failed, drank too deep of the cultural sins of their day, that the grace of God is greater, and able to use their meager gifts in spite of their propensity to fail to serve the greater council of his will.
That’s how it is taught in my house.
LikeLike
My Father’s words are “They are saints, in spite of themselves.”
LikeLike
“No doubt, the desires of empires reflect our fallen dangers. However, the idea of racism, was a new way to organize the world, and it seems to have been tied to the Enlightenment.”
I bet I could find examples of racism in Genesis: “They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.” (43:32)
A wise man once said, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
LikeLike
“They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.”
I don’t see how that is necessarily “racist” or “racial”. It seems to be ethnic/ethnie/ethnos. Dividing the world into racial categories, (ie white=European, black=African, Asia=Mongaloid/Yellow, etc.) seems to have been developed from theories, that had its seeds in 1492, with Spain and the crypto-Jews (that is, although Jews had converted to Christianity, their blood kept them Jews, according to the Spanish) and becoming fleshed out in the Enlightenment, that biology, more so than geography, created a racial identity. And within each racial group, there was a hierarchy as to who were “pure” white, and “all black.”
Turning whole continental regions into “tribes” based on biological theories was quite a testament to the power of the Enlightenment and Imperialism. Since the sciences (biology, geography, social sciences) were more important than religion. It also didn’t have to deal with the unpredictable nature of conversions.
LikeLike
@DGH
“You better send a few letters to the Banner of Truth Trust, and I’ll be looking for your boycott of the Banner’s conferences and merchandise.”
chuckling 🙂
I hope you don’t admire Catholics who minimize pederasty in their priests (1 Tim. 1:10).
@ Brian Lee
Brian, I don’t want to judge him by the “standards of his day.” And I would ask that you don’t judge me by the standards of my day.
The issue is one of moral righteousness as revealed in Scripture. Dabney defended and commended a form of slavery condemned by God and revealed in Scripture.
Judge both me and Dabney by that, OK, brother?
I
LikeLike
Ted,
Why do you keep referencing I Timothy 1:10 as if that seals the deal for you in your chest-thumping about Dabney? Since you have already excommunicated him and sent him to hell (I thought you were Baptist, not the Pope?) you must know that Dabney explicitly condemned the man-stealing that happened in early American history (cf. 226) in “Defense of Virginia.” calling it an “iniquitous traffick.” By the standards of our day, saying that Dabney was a man-stealer and endorsed that view is bearing false witness. That isn’t so great in pastors, either.
PGR
LikeLike
Pat: Who has “excommunicated” Dabney? All we’ve said is we wouldn’t use him to teach the doctrines of the faith. What’s wrong with that? I’m not saying erase his name from
the history books, or even don’t read him. Why are you so invested in using Dabney to disciple new Christians?
Even if we didn’t consider his anthropology to fundamentally discredit him as a tool for teaching, surely you see that it would cause offence and act as a stumbling block to many Christians? When there are so many other great theologians/works at our disposal why cause unnecessary problems by using Dabney?
LikeLike
Pat,
I’m not a Baptist, nor a chest thumper. I’m not even a chest-thumping Baptist.
When I accuse Dabney of complicity in slavery I am saying that he did know the difference between biblical slavery and ante-bellum slavery but that he defended and commended the ante-bellum purchaser of kidnapped slaves, not necessarily the practice itself (“Defense of Virginia” pp. 51ff).
LikeLike
Alexander, I’m betting you’ll find someone in your church who will find offensive some aspect of every theologian’s life. So I guess that leaves you and Ted to teach the church.
BTW, I wonder if your realize how similar your arguments are to those lefty academics who got rid of Shakespeare and Kant for the sake of affirming the identities of modern American students. Born-again moralism really does prepare the soil for the political left.
LikeLike
Dgh- I don’t know of anyone who has any trouble with Calvin. Let’s just use him.
I think one can be a covenant child, raised in a Presbyterian church, eschew the conversionistic chat of evangelicals and still find racism wrong and be opposed to using a theologian who used warped exegesis to promote racist and objectionable points of view, especially as theology. Even if we allow that he was a product of his times, our times are not his. If he didn’t know better, we do, so why use him to teach? No one has actually given a positive defence of Dabney.
(Btw, sad to disagree with you. Love your chat! You could do with being less ecumenical and more sectarian however 😉 :P)
LikeLike
Alexander, so you give up Edwards and Hodge?
LikeLike
I never had a thing with Edwards to begin with:) Hodge is cool though.
LikeLike
Ted,
Agreed. But the problem is, “the standards of scripture” that both you and I want to use to judge Dabney and Lee and Bigelow are actually “the standards of scripture” as understood by Dabney and Lee and Bigelow as they read scripture according to the standards of their day. This isn’t a recipe for absolute relativism. The norms of righteousness are absolute objective norms. But it is a recipe for humility. I realize that I have certain blinders on when I come to Scripture — the categories and cultural concepts and trends of my times — and so did Dabney. Did he err? Yes. Do I? Yes. And not all are errors are of equal weight and value. I would hope that none of my errors today have the distorting impact on the pressing issues of my day that his did on his.
But I don’t know what my errors or blinders on. So I try to read Dabney’s views as charitably as possible, because if I don’t, I’m not really understanding the nature of his errors. I’m caricaturing them. And I’m at greater risk of repeating similar errors if I don’t understand them, and learn from them.
I hope you see that there is a bit of historical naivety in your view, and I say that charitably. CS Lewis’ line about reading literature from different periods comes to mind. It helps you see your own blind spots. And as Lewis notes, its a grave error to cast aspersions without first granting the limits of your own perspective.
And as a fellow Christian (or human), we owe Dabney the most charitable possible interpretation of his comments, according to the standards of HIS day, or we are bearing false witness.
LikeLike
Who says Calvin never killed Servetus? Sure, there was a difference between church and state in Geneva, but it was a “Christian city-state” and Calvin did have a lot of influence on the execution of Servetus. And unless you are 2 k or anabaptist or something, wouldn’t you do the same today? Or perhaps you agree with the revisions in the confessions.
I don’t bring up the mistakes of Calvin to excuse them (everybody but anabaptists was doing it then.) But neither do I bring up the mistakes of Calvin to say that people should not read and learn from Calvin. We can learn from the mistakes Calvin made in the Institutes about the magistrates. And we can learn the priority of the forensic from Calvin, despite his mistakes on sacramental union as antecedent to justification.
One way to be a good “biblicist” is to read people like Calvin commenting on the Bible.
LikeLike
Brian, well said. If you were in one of my freshman sections, you’d get a treat.
LikeLike
But Brian, that doesn’t mean it’s unproblematic to use Dabney, today, to teach.
LikeLike
Alejandro,
Is Dabney so problematic to teach that we should avoid him altogether? I get the sense from you that the answer is yes. To me, we need a more nuanced criteria for teaching so that we don’t end up flattening history to an account of “the good guys” vs. “the bad guys”. History, whether in the church or elsewhere is far messier as I read it.
LikeLike
Jed-
I would say no. But I would also say that while all theologians flawed
and sinful- as we all are- that doesn’t mean all flaws or sins have the same impact on how we use their works. For example, the case of Servetus has been mentioned. Even if Calvin had a part in that, it’s not the same- or worse- than Dabney. Circumstances are different. Geneva was essentially in the middle of a war- a war to win the freedom to practise true Christianity. In that context, I understand heresy being a capital offence. And from a theological perspective capital punishment is less problematic than racism.
I also think using the “product of his times” argument is dangerous: if Dabney’s racist theology was a product of his times, why not his his doctrine of the person of Christ? Is it not undermining of the entire principle of confessionalism to assume we are more enlightened than our forbears?
What I have also asked for is a positive reason to use or read Dabney.
LikeLike
Alexander, so just to keep track, you’re saying it’s less troubling to execute a man for what he believes about Christ than it is to enslave a man? Death is not as bad as enslavement?
Also, you appeal to “product of times” when you explain away Geneva’s capital punishment laws.
Do you know for certain that our views about slavery are not the product of our political and economic culture? Since the Bible did not condemn slavery, it sure looks like an anti-slavery w-w has more to do with our times than with God’s word.
That’s not an argument for slavery. It is an argument for the evasiveness and selectivity of anti-slavery.
LikeLike
I think times of war justify actions that are unjustified during peace and I think purity of the faith is something worth fighting for: slavery is not. Furthermore, 16th century Geneva existed in a Constantinian system. Whereas slavery was never as universal or even general as you would suggest. There were never any plantations in Britain.
The Bible may not condemn all types of slavery, but it doesn’t extol them either. It recognises slavery exists and prioritises salvation over abolition.
And yes I think being enslaved could be far worse than death. Better dead than red (or Arminian).
LikeLike
Alexander, you clearly don’t seem able to admit that you are as much a product of your time as the next man. But maybe you could take a lesson from Kuyper, then, who made it plain that if to be Reformed meant agreeing with Calvin (and the confessions) on the role of the magistrate in enforcing true religion at the point of the sword then he’d rather not be considered Reformed. Instead of overstating matters and saying a man is unworthy of teaching us, he actually put the burden back on himself. It’s possible to speak strongly without being judgmental.
It’s also amazing to me how Constantinianism covers Servetus to you but nothing (and I mean nothing) can explain slavery. 2k opposes Constantinianism without excommunicating Calvin.
LikeLike
Alexander, so American slavery is worse that Soviet Communism?
LikeLike
Um, they’re both evil.
Why should I read Dabney? What positives are there to reading him which outweigh any problems?
LikeLike
Zrim: oh so now Kuyper is a bastion of positive teaching? I thought he was the godfather of all 2kers hate most.
Why do you insist on using melodramatic and misrepresentative language like excommunicate? No one has said anything of the sort. We are asked to make judgements about who should lead us all the time, but apparently Dabney is soooo essential to the Reformed faith that we must use him: still waiting for a reason why though.
We may have rejected Constantinianism but we must come to terms with the fact it was in such a context the Reformed faith was born and developed and would most likely be quite different if the circumstances had been otherwise. We are all influenced by our times, I never denied this. Scottish Presbyterians are the children of the Constantinian Covenanters; American Reformed
folk have slavers and segregationists.
I readily admit that my views and prejudices are influenced by my times: but I try not to seek Biblical justification for them where it does not exist. I would have thought a 2ker would understand that tension: but, again, apparently Dabney is too important.
LikeLike
Alexander, you’re right, depose is better. But the point remains: Calvin isn’t deposed for his theocracy by 2kers, so why do you depose Dabney for his anti-abolitionism? I’m not a fan of theocracy or slavery, but I’m also not wild about throwing doctors of the church into trash heaps for propping up either. But Kuyper helped get Belgic 36 more in line with 2k. I give credit where it’s due.
LikeLike
I just think it’s unhelpful to use someone like Dabney to disciple and teach. It creates an unnecessary stumbling block, in my opinion. And I think if someone brought up Servetus it would be easier to resolve Geneva’s theocracy than Dabney’s racism: especially in an American context.
LikeLike
Alexander,
By your arguments any positive contributions that Dabney made to Reformed theology and faith in America are rendered essentially null and void because of his folly with regards to slavery. Dabney is crucial to a whole faction of Old School Presbyterianism. For those of us sympathetic to the concerns of the Old School, we may be inclined to see the excesses of the New School’s penchant for revivalism, and erosion of a churchly faith to be as damaging to the church as Dabney’s errors with regard to slavery. In fact, even more so, because while slavery was abhorrent it concerned the affairs of this world, however the erosion of confessional Reformed Christianity in the US has gutted our church, leaving only a small band of contemporary theologians and churchmen who are seeking to pick up the pieces and recover what was lost.
Your approach seems to discount the ability of the average Reformed parishioner to attain a more nuanced understanding of history, and accept the fact that even some of the church’s brightest minds are prone to blind spots and even grave error. I find it better to teach the controversy than paper over it and pretend that it never existed – it only produces a whitewashed view of history or our own frailties in the current settings we exist within. The fact of the matter is that Dabney remains an important theologian for the Reformed church, especially in America, and he will continue to be in spite of your misgivings.
LikeLike
Alexander, you read Dabney for the same reason you read other people. He was right about a lot. He may have even been right that the Bible does not forbid slavery. If that’s the case, then a lot of Christians who are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible on slavery should not be taught, by your logic.
As for his views about African-Americans, I do not think he justified them by the Bible. Nor did he let the Bible inform his views about Africans and Europeans.
LikeLike
Jed, dgh- What you’ve both just posted seems fine to me. I have no problem affirming his historical importance, and if he made important contributions to particular debates at the time I can understand his significance. But I will maintain that if a young (in the faith) Christian asked me for a recommendation in what to read to get an overview of the faith Dabney would not be my first choice, for theological and pragmatic reasons.
Jed- I don’t delude myself that I have the power to influence who the American Reformed church takes direction from. I merely offer my opinion. And I agree: ecclesiastical error is significantly graver than political error, which is why I never said we should “excommunicate” Dabney or pretend he never existed.
LikeLike
Alexander, thanks. I think I see more where you’re coming from now, though I’m not convinced that we do young faith a good service by avoiding Dabney. When teaching young minds American history, do we avoid Jefferson because he owned slaves? Isn’t Dabney as important to American Presbyterianism as Jefferson is to American history? So I still can’t help but think yours is more or less an ecclesiastical version of political correctness. I hope that’s not too melodramatic to say.
I’m also not sure Calvin’s theocracy is really resolved in the American context any easier than Dabney’s Antebellum sympathies. Arguably, the American project is more about disestablishment than it is about human or civil rights. So if our hypothetical young convert is more scandalized by Dabney than he is by Calvin it could be because he’s not as historically astute. Still, if we have another young convert who is more astute and potentially scandal prone, I still don’t see any reason to good reason to avoid Calvin. And that’s because of the previous point above about political correctness.
LikeLike
Zrim- I take your criticism of political correctness. It probably is, though it’s not a label I’m used to having applied to myself 🙂 I think maybe Geneva’s theocracy would be more palatable in a Scottish Presbyterian context, though that’s only a vague assumption. I plead ignorance to the position Dabney has in American Presbyterianism beyond knowing he is one of the “heavies” in the arena. Looking in from the outside I just find it hard to see how the race issue wouldn’t dominate in reading Dabney, especially for a black convert. But I’m a Brit and not an American so it is just an “outside verdict”.
I think we have all come to a place of broad consensus and toleration now 🙂 I would like to think so 😉
LikeLike
Alexander, righties have been fairly effective at making it synonymous with “whatever lefties think.” But political correctness, like sin, is an equal opportunity affliction. So your surprise at it afflicting your outlook seems similar to the surprise that comes to eeeevangelicals, who have been just as effective at making sin synonymous with “whatever unbelievers say and do,” when it is suggested that believers too are sinners and not just unbelievers. But admitting you’re an outsider looking in might be the first step to seeing better the affliction. For my part, I’d rather give our black convert more credit.
LikeLike
Well I don’t concede I was wrong. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see s situation for what it is.
Peace brother 🙂
LikeLike