Thomas Achord, co-author of a book I criticized recently, has responded in a podcast to the Doug Wilson posts I praised with some strong disagreement. I'm with Doug on this one. Below are my shorthand notes that I took while listening, summarizing Achord's argument. My comments are in [Italics] until the end.
Doug said we have more in common with a Nigerian Anglican
Christian, than with a white, non-Christian neighbor.
Achord: we do NOT have more in common with Nigerian Anglican
Christian women, than with white conservative neighbors.
We have heavenly eternal things in common, but MORE in
common? No.
I have more spiritual things in common with the Nigerian…
I have more earthly things in common with my neighbor than
with Nigerian…
Thus, my earthly resources should be more engaged with my
neighbor.
“You have a lot in common with them [the Nigerian], supposedly.”
[Our earthly resources should be directed by our
spiritual priorities, not by physical factors in common. And what is this “supposedly”? He’s talking about union with Christ. Achord grossly devalues the spiritual bond of
brotherhood in Christ, to uphold earthly factors of place and race.]
Shouldn’t your spiritual priorities be focused on the
Nigerian, then? No.
You have nothing to do with them.
DW is not sending part of his check to help them.
You can’t pray for every Xian in the world. Who do you focus on?
DW throws out rhetorical bombs here. We should be more careful.
It’s not a game of counting numbers of how many things I have
in common with Ghanan Christians.
Augustine’s order of loves: Achord reviews this for the last 40 minutes of the podcast.
Achord contrasts Augustine with DW
[To assume DW doesn’t get Augustine’s order of loves is ridiculous. He does.
And he knows how to apply it to the issue of race far better than Achord
does.]
Give to the one more bound to you, and closer to you.
[A good general rule, though there are times to heed the
Macedonian call.]
Care about your people, not those half way around the world.
[What affect would this have on international missions
efforts? I hear Achord basically arguing
against them, altogether.]
Love the ones God put you with. Marriage analogy.
[So if God puts you with white people, you just love
white people? Marriage is a covenant to "forsake all others." There is no such restriction in society. Rather, we seek "justice for all."]
Augustine: consideration of race remains “embedded in our
mortal interactions.”
[Achord changes this to “should be respected.” A big change I don’t think Augustine would
have agreed with. There are plenty of
times we need to take race into account in interactions, but these should be
minimized, more than respected. We want
to respect the dignity of each person’s background, but whiteness or blackness should
not be a major driver shaping our identity or opinions. Since when is Augustine our expert on modern race relations, instead of a theologian, anyway?]
Don’t blend the heavenly/ecclesial realm, where there is no
Jew/Greek, with the earthly realm, where gender [and racial?] roles
should still be taken into account.
There is an analogy to gender roles.
The Left is trying to wipe out the roles.
[So there is a similar dynamic with race?? Yikes, what is that supposed to look
like? He never says.]
Destruction of social distinctions is the problem generally.
[I agree with this, regarding gender roles, and the bane
of egalitarianism. But race should not
be a part of that concern.]
Don’t spiritualize the earthly or let the earthly overwhelm
the spiritual.
[Agree with this principle, but Achord certainly
overwhelms the spiritual with a focus on earthly/physical factors.]
Augustine: peace of soul = order of the parts; peace of
society = order of the parts
Have to regulate your affections to the natural order of
what is better
[I generally agree with this, but again, Achord implies an
application to race, but says nothing about it.
I deny an application of this excellent classical principle to race.]
Paul: there are different members of the body (1 Cor. 12).
[Same problem: Achord implied that difference of race makes you a different member of the body. But a black pastor may have the exact same gifts as me,
and be the same kind of member, regardless of race.]
We shouldn’t feel bad about focusing on the people around/near
us.
[Agree. Rejecting
all forms of “white guilt” is important.
But to over-react, and PREFER people who are like us, especially
racially, is to violate the 1 Cor. 12 principle! The finger is naturally going to prefer other
fingers, and denigrate the ear, etc.
That needs to be BATTLED, not respected.]
Summary critique (me, not Achord, now):
This is an over-emphasis on earthly/physical factors and
priorities.
It is an over-reaction to Gnosticism.
Past generations in the church focused overly on pietistic spiritualizing. But ever since Darwin, Marx and Freud, society has been materialistically
focused. Christians are tempted to be
sucked into that vortex, rather than critique it with a balanced, biblical
worldview. While we should revel in the particularities of God's material creation, spiritual principles should always direct, temper, and even overwhelm, the weight we give material/physical factors (John 4:9 is a good example).
If you love being white, because the woke are trying to shame you for being white, it's just passive-aggressive anger at the woke, to spite them. That's not Christ-like or biblical at all.
It was the curse of Babel to scatter and divide us, geographically
and racially.
Let’s not call that a good thing, and affirm any and everything "natural," but rather seek unity over
racial issues in Christ, and seek common cause socially, instead of reinforcing the dividing of people a la Marx.
The woke are dividing society over class and race.
Ironically, the ultra-right is agreeing with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment