Why would any white parent want their kids to be forced to choose between being Eminem and being the target of black-on-white hatred?
The current generation of evangelical leaders is growing a crop of self-hating, America-loathing whites and coddled, angry blacks. It’s not hyperbole, it’s fact demonstrated in the high-and-mighty way black Reformed thinker Anthony Bradley treats his white skeptics. Even when they’re not race realists, Bradley treats white skeptics as if they’re straight outta Hell.
Look at this exchange regarding his favorite book of 2017, Doctrine and Race, written by rainbow flag-waving, self-proclaimed “Nasty Woman,” Mary Beth Mathews.
Anthony B. Bradley, PhD: [yes, he really refers to himself on Facebook by his academic credentials]
I can’t imagine why anyone white would proudly claim to be an “evangelical” given its history. [emphasis mine] It seems more like a source of embarrassment than a source of anything you’d actually want anyone to know, many would say. I’d like to invite someone, using historical data, to make me a liar and prove me wrong…
Dan Hamilton: [who is not a race realist, but merely a pro-Western cuckservative]
Since you asked: Assuming without conceeding that everything said above is historically accurate, to use that history as a way to attack the evangelical movement seems to be the rhetorial fallacy of guilt by association. The Christian church at various times in its history (for example the middle ages) supported discrimination, if not genocide, of Jews and Muslims for example — therefore how could anyone knowing that history be a Christian? Why? Because a belief must stand or fall, not on the character of those who claimed to have professed it in the past, but on the principles upon which the belief is founded. Attack an idea on its merits, not by attacking those who in the past have alleged to profess it. Hitler built the Autobahn — that does not make the Autobahn evil or support an argument that it should not be driven on. All men are fallen, the founders of the evangelical movement were men, therefore the founders of the evangelical movement were fallen. That is a logical and unremarkable sylogism: however, it just doesn’t have anything to do with the merits of the evangelical church itself.
Racially and historically conscious white Christians should really cite the Church’s discrimination against Jews and Muslims as proofs of why racial and religious discrimination is correct. Sadly, Hamilton takes the typical cuck approach of disavowing his own people, religion, and history. But note Bradley’s response to this lily-livered critique of poor logic.
Anthony B. Bradley, PhD Dan Hamilton …Your Hitler example proves that you don’t get it. Hilter wasn’t claiming to do what he did in the name of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. We’re talking about more than “fallenness.” This is more than “sin,” we’re talking about iniquity.
It is the putrid arrogance of evangelicals [emphasis mine] who fall back on this, “what matters is what we believe, not what we do.” This is rubbish (the kind that comes out of a bull) [emphasis mine]: “Because a belief must stand or fall, not on the character of those who claimed to have professed it in the past, but on the principles upon which the belief is founded.” This 100% unbiblical and is the exact type of warped theology that allowed evangelicals to watching lynchings, promote Jim Crow, resist MLK, etc. The character of the people matter. This is why pastors get fired when they are caught in adultery. Let me guess, you don’t like the book of James or Jesus teaching things like John 13:35English Standard Version (ESV) 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
During Jim Crow, the black church was asking, “why don’t white Christians love us and stop people oppressing us?” Dan Hamilton’s response would be, “well, it doesn’t matter, white Christians back then believed the right things so that’s all matters.”
Please stop excusing sin. Dan’s response explains why racial reconciliation is nearly impossible [emphasis mine] and is rarely successful in many cases. To invoke Hilter in this discussion is disgusting. [emphasis mine]
I’m not really sure who this “Hilter” guy is, but since Bradley mentioned him twice, clearly this PhD thought he’s important enough to chastise Hamilton for mentioning him. Additionally, note that Hamilton’s critique was of Bradley’s logic. Bradley’s response was to critique Hamilton himself, and hundreds of millions of white American Christians, ad hominem. This fact didn’t escape Hamilton in his reply.
Dan Hamilton Having first used the rehetorical fallacy of guilt by association to attack the evangelical movement, Dr. Bradley responds to my comment by now using the similar rehetorical fallacy of an ad hominem attack — i.e. attacking the person and not the idea. He does not dispute my observation that he is attacking a movement by attacking some of its adherents or that this approach violates basic principles of logical argument. Instead he calls my observation “putrid arogance,” “rubbish,” “disgusting” and “excusing sin” (the latter being the additional rehetorical fallacy of creating a strawman — i.e. mischaracterizing an argument and then attacking the argument that was never made.) It does not logically follow that because Christ said we can recognize “them” by their fruit, that therefore everything “they” assert is therefore wrong…
I know nothing about Dr. Bradley — I commented only because a friend and brother in Christ asked for my thoughts on his post. However, his personal attack because of my response, like his original post, creates more heat than light. We do at least agree on this: Christ’s disciples can be identified by their fruit and the conversations of Christ’s followers should be “always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” Collossians 4:6. A personal attack is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit, it does not edify the body, and it does not persuade anyone. I wish Dr. Bradley well.
Rather than acknowledge that he had erred in launching an ad hominem attack against a well-intentioned cuckservative whose opinion had been solicited by a separate black Christian, Bradley next referred Hamilton to higher authority: “have you read this book [Doctrine and Race by Mary Beth Mathews] or any books on this subject?”
This dialogue simply illustrates the dead end into which cuckservative white Christians are leading their posterity. By taking the position that the black “civil rights” movement and other, associated “civil rights” movements are inherently moral and blessed by God, these whites have put themselves and their posterity in the position of being whipping boys for every non-white that feels slighted by the alleged historical or present-day slights of whites towards non-whites. Hamilton never left his tack of using logic versus Bradley’s emotion, but it was not persuasive to Bradley. In fact, it made things worse.
Anthony B. Bradley, PhD Prince Ricky Rye Anyone who believes he’s qualified to evaluate the historical scholarship of Dr. Matthews and other scholars of religious history with, “Assuming without conceeding that everything said above is historically accurate, to use that history as a way to attack the evangelical movement seems to be the rhetorial fallacy of guilt by association…” is, on purpose, picking a fight. I don’t care if he is a “brother” or not. [emphasis mine] To question this historicity of the narrative (when you have zero academic credentials) and then to launch into the use of logic means that you want to, as they say, “play ball.” His is the typical response of white resistance that I’ve experience for the past 20 years and I’m not having it anymore. It’s the “rubbish” that needs to be no longer accepted. I am tired of it. Such a typical response. [emphasis mine]
Anthony B. Bradley, PhD Dan Hamilton the fact that you ignored and seem not to care about what black Christians did not understand [emphasis mine] re: white Christians claim to Christ folllowers and support Jim Crow tells the story for us. Instead, you’d rather deflect about “logical fallacies” instead of the history and the black experience. This is enough for us to see what really matters to you. It’s not the black experience in evangelical history. Again, this is not my first rodeo and I’ve seen these types of deflections before. Instead of talking about what the black church experienced, you’d rather argue something tangential. [emphasis mine] I don’t need to know your academic credentials because it was obvious in your response. Anyone who has actually studied this history would not have responded the way you did. Again, your deflections are “rubbish.” [emphasis mine] I hope that one day you’re willing to be open to black Christian voices in history decsribe their experience. Black Christian scholars, as mentioned frequently in the post, legitimately question if evangelicals during Jim Crow were actually Christians [emphasis mine] and you’re not even willing to engage the history or that part of the story Instead, you initiallu chose deflection. This will get us no where.
To sum up, anything less than affirming Bradley’s emotional outbursts and ideological stances made Hamilton (and all white Christians) worthy of excommunication. By contrast, Bradley’s initial post singing the praises of Doctrine and Race were eagerly scooped up by self-loathing Eminem wannabe, associate pastor William Horne.
This white fan of Bradley hosts a website with posts by black authors on why Christians are bad for being “Islamophobic” and why low-income black communities are all the fault of white people. For Horne to assert that pre-1965 white Christians (like his grandparents) lacked salvation by virtue of their opinion of race relations is requisite for inclusion in the “socially acceptable white people” club.
In terms of difference, Matthews makes clear the major break away of Black Baptist/Methodist from white fundamentalism is the groups views on race relations as it relates to Christianity. White fundamentalism sat idly or enforced a racialized society that saw blacks at inferior to white counterparts. They didn’t see the bible as mandating a view on race outside the status quo or worse they saw segregation as divinely mandated. Black Baptist and Methodist on the other hand, rightly saw race relations as a critical part of the Christian walk and took on more “progressive” views on racial and economic issues. To view and treat other humans as not being made in the image of God is cause to questions one’s Christianity. [emphasis mine] This is the crux of Matthews thesis that helps us understand why many blacks are “conservative” on issues of gender and sexuality while being “liberal/progressive” on issues of race and economics.
So the question for all our white conservative evangelical friends out there is, which white scapegoat do you want your kid to be? Do you want him or her to become the conservative white logician who gets shamed and bullied by angry blacks with PhDs behind their Facebook profiles? Or do you want your child to be the self-loathing blogger and aspiring minister who makes his living by denouncing his ethnic group’s entire history? (That includes you and your parents and grandparents, by the way!) Will you be happy to see him or her bring home Tyrone or Shaniqua? Will you be the proud grandpapa of a “new and improved” American that thinks you’re a cisgendered, Islamophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist bigot? That’s sure a lot to look forward to in your golden years. Social Security going bankrupt will seem minor in comparison!
Keep in mind that there are millions of blacks without high school diplomas who will do far worse to that white child of yours than Bradley did to Hamilton. It’s the daily experience for thousands of white victims of black-on-white crime every day in America, Britain, South Africa, and elsewhere. There are also millions of whites actively counter-signalling their own ancestors every day to position themselves in the socioeconomic pecking order. Some go so far as to interbreed and interracially adopt; others just damn their ancestors to hell as unsaved heathen.
If you’re wise and loving, you’ll elect to have your kids become neither thugs nor cucks. You’ll direct your children into a third path: the path of racial solidarity and pride in what God has done for them. Become pro-white. Join the Alt Right.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
