R.C. Sproul, Jr., has earned a name for himself at this site with his heretical shenanigans and biblicism. But he has more to say. In a blog post criticizing hypocritical pro-lifers and defending (to an extent) the tactics of Live Action as they record staged conversations to expose abortion clinics, he concocts a baffling scenario, a real head-scratcher:
Suppose Live Action had sent in an actress who told Planned Parenthood this story. “I’m a freshman at a Christian college, hoping to go into missions. I was assaulted by a black man. The doctors say the baby has spina bifida, and trisomy 13. Can you help me get an abortion?”
A new wave of dangers is upon us if mere assaults by black men actually produce unwanted pregnancies! But Sproul is clearly not surmising that assaults can actually cause conception. Instead, he is simply but evidently frightened to use the word “rape” in the context of a black crime, even a hypothetical one. A reader may initially glance over such a statement quickly and not suspect anything awry about it, but only a moment’s reflection will reveal that something bizarre must have been its motivation. The word “assault” just does not mean “rape”!1 Whether he chose the word automatically or with conscious aforethought—I presume the latter—he obviously possesses some moral-psychological barrier to even saying that a black could be guilty of such a thing as rape. Any such accusation would be the unforgivable sin of “racism,” of course.
In response, Sproul or his fans might initially think that this post uncovers that I am “obsessed with disputes and arguments over words” (1 Tim. 6:4), but that is frankly untrue, for it is not merely the case that his choice of words is bizarre. When one grasps the modern egalitarian zeitgeist in which it is situated, his choice of words is also wicked. Blacks are substantially more violent and criminal than whites are, as is apparent from a cursory look at their crime statistics. If pastors today possessed any moral fortitude, they would be promulgating ways for whites (and blacks, for that matter) to protect their own wives and daughters from dangerous men and the false anti-white guilt which endangers them in the first place. But Sproul is so far from actually helping people, that he is too cowardly to even imply that blacks could be guilty of rape! White girls get raped by the dozen, but Sproul prefers the head-patting he giddily receives from the politically correct establishment.
Such anti-white and anti-Christian stupidity reflects the heresies Sproul has espoused elsewhere. For he has also written a separate blog post on racial diversity, where he tells us that we are morally obligated to be colorblind. To Sproul, believing and acting as if race is real creates sinful divisions, for Galatians 3:28 instructs us that faith in Christ ought to transcend such distinctions (which aren’t really distinctions). His pseudo-pious colorblindness sits in opposition to the “most barbaric racists,” who are so barbaric as to have a preference for their own racial kin. Who do these barbaric racists think they are, anyway? Followers of the apostle Paul?
“For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:3).
R.C., you need to wise up and man up. There are real black-on-white rapes going on now, and your cowardly refusal to protect your own (not to mention acknowledge their existence) is numbingly sinful.
Footnotes
- Certainly, rape is a form of sexual assault, but we still never speak about a rape victim as having been merely “assaulted.” ↩
| Tweet |
|
|
|
