White Supremacy is not a "hoax" (sorry Tucker Carlson)

How many acts of domestic terrorism, how many mass murders, does it take for a problem to be "real"?

"Its actually not a real problem in America...This is a hoax...They're making this up..."  These were the words of political pundit for Fox News, Tucker Carlson, on his show on August 6th, two days after the mass shooting in El Paso that killed 22 people who were targeted because of their race by a young man who subscribed to White Nationalist ideology.  {Fox News host Tucker Carlson says white supremacy is ‘not a real problem in America’}  To give Tucker Carlson the benefit of the doubt (whether his past actions/words deserve it or not), it seems that he was trying to make the case that there are more important/significant problems in America today than white supremacy.  And while terrorism of any kind has never been high on the list of causes of untimely death in America, I don't recall anyone arguing after 9/11 that Islamic jihadist terrorism was not a big deal for America (even with the Muslim population in America below 1%).  It was easy to get on board with fighting against Islamic jihadists, after all, they lived elsewhere and didn't look like us, to combat them was a military issue that didn't require us to look in the mirror and ask hard questions.  {At least not early on, war tends to result in hard moral questions whether we want it to or not}  The reason for Tucker Carlson's assertion that white supremacy is a "hoax" was also clearly expressed, he believes that treating it like an actual problem in America would be bad politically for those he supports.  His decision to downplay the threat of white supremacy was not a moral decision, but a political one.  Also, to say that a problem isn't the "most important" one as a way of dismissing it, is both illogical and an act of moral cowardice.  To those affected by this most recent example of white supremacy which resulted in violence, it does little good to point out that heart disease kills more Americans each year.  Evil is still evil, even if there are greater threats and fears in this world.  {This is the inherent flaw in the argument made by Neil DeGrasse Tyson for which he was roundly criticized: Critics say Neil deGrasse Tyson should ‘stick to astrophysics’ after his tweets about mass shootings  Also, accident are not morally equivalent to purposeful acts.}   And while I could point to other instances of sin that are more prevalent in the American Church (pride, materialism, and sexual immorality certainly outnumber racism by sheer volume), and within American society in general, how does that in any way diminish the fact that racism/white supremacy is by all statistical measure a problem that is currently growing not shrinking?
I will choose to not address the political ramifications of our society treating white supremacy like a real problem (in other words, whether or not Tucker Carlson is correct in his fear of its impact upon the side he wants to win), for my primary concern is NOT politics, but morality.  From that perspective, white racism and its natural final manifestation, white supremacy, has always been a deadly threat to the American Church.  As a nation that has always had a self-avowed Christian majority, and still does, things which are detrimental to the Church are also likely to be detrimental to the United States.  From how the first settlers interacted with the American Indian population, to the arrival of the first African slaves, the American colonies and later United States of America, have always struggled with the pervasive sin of treating people unlike ourselves as an "other" to be disregarded, mistreated, and even exterminated.  That these faults are not unique to any particular race or nation does not make them any less corrosive and dangerous to the people who make up this nation. 
While better healthcare for those suffering with mental illnesses would benefit the nation greatly, that is not the root of racism/white supremacy.  For the vast majority of those suffering from mental illness have never been violent.  Southern slave owners were not mentally ill, they were racists choosing to commit evil acts.  When the Klan was able to organize parades at the beginning of the 20th century attended by a hundred thousand people, it was not an outbreak of mental illness, but immorality.  Nearly all of those who hate others based upon how they look or where they are from do not suffer from a mental illness, they have chosen to embrace evil.  Some of those who lash out in violence might also suffer from a mental illness, but the true danger of this ideology is far more mundane, and far more difficult to treat than an illness.  Hate is rarely a mental illness, it is a darkness in the human heart that requires a spiritual cure.
Hate is real.  Racism is real.  Anti-Semitism is real.  White Supremacy is real.  When pushed to a dark corner, or exiled from the mainstream, they regroup and return again.  Chants of "Never again" cannot stop them, for they thrive in the fallen human heart.  If we are to minimize them, protect the innocent, and even rescue some of those in their thrall, we must first acknowledge how very real they are. 


I have written about the danger of racism in connection with Christianity on a number of occasions:
White Supremacy and White Nationalism are an Abomination to the Church

The Church: The most diverse organization in the history of the world

If you have a problem with Christians who don't look like you

There are no racists at the Cross

Why we can never allow "them" to be singled out

Why the killing won't stop...

After yet another horrific mass shooting in America, this one breaking the "record" for most people killed in one incident, a "record" that continues to horrifyingly climb, talk will invariably turn toward questions of prevention revolving around issues of law enforcement, mental health programs, gun ownership, and safety precautions.  All of these conversations are necessary, and useful, but they won't solve the problem because the problem lies deeper.  Combating the inhumanity of man against his fellow man, is not like combating a communicable disease.  Education, treatments, and vaccines have a chance at wiping out a disease, and even though some diseases which were thought to be no longer a threat have made a bit of a comeback (often due to laxity in keeping the vaccinations going), there remains realistic hope that solutions are possible to even the deadliest and most widespread diseases.  The human propensity toward violence is a far different problem, and far worse.
Why do people commit heinous acts against each other?  The answer is simple: mankind is flawed; deeply.  This is not a new concept to those who are part of the Judeo-Christian worldview, for scripture contains the first recorded act of violence among humanity, the story of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain spurred on by simple jealousy, as well as ample teaching that repeats again and again that our individual and collective hearts are darkened.  The psalmists and the prophet Isaiah wrote (as paraphrased by Paul in Romans), "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.  All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one...the way of peace they do not know.  There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)  Making the same point, the prophet Jeremiah wrote, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.  Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)  In Christian theology this viewpoint regarding innate human nature is known as Total Depravity.  Its conclusions are simple: (1) All of mankind is flawed, in rebellion against God, (2) Nobody is capable of fixing this problem for themselves or anyone else, (3) therefore mankind is entirely dependent upon God's grace and transforming power.
We ought to do what we can as a free society to protect the innocent from those who would do them harm, but we also ought to recognize that the underlying cause is a spiritual one, not one of economics, education, or ideology.  Why do people kill?  Because their hearts are full of sin.  The only solution to this depraved state is the grace of God given freely to mankind through Jesus Christ our Lord, anything else is a band-aid on a bullet hole.
Pray for those who protect the innocent in society, but don't expect them to win this war anymore than the war on drugs, or the ongoing scourge of sexual slavery, the heart of man is too far gone to be restored by anything less than the power of God.

The Folly of Angry Witnessing and the Folly of attacking Christians who befriend the Lost

Is this what Jesus had in mind when said, "Go into all the world..."

From time to time in my life I've seen people standing on a street corner with a homemade sign that lists a variety of things that God hates.  Sometimes the things on the list are accurately taken from the text of the Bible, and sometimes they reflect the beliefs of the person who made the sign, often involving politically motivated choices as well.

What then should the average Christian think in response to such demonstrations, most of which involve anger and shouting, a tactic far more likely to make enemies than friends.  Should Christians care about offending the Lost?  Should we be presenting the Gospel with anger or love?

The most important question, which should be obvious to all who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ but perhaps is not, is this: What does the Word of God say about the tactics we should be using to witness to those who don't know Jesus as Lord and Savior?

1 Peter 3:15-16 is one such key passage, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

Do you mean, Peter didn't write, "Shout at the unbelievers, ridicule them, call them names, for then they will want to join you."  And he didn't write, "disrespect the lost, treat them with unkindness, and say horrible things, especially false ones, about anyone who dares to befriend an unbeliever."

Peter did write that we must witness with gentleness and respect, and he did write that we must conduct ourselves always with good behavior as representatives of Christ.

So, why all the yelling, why the hatred?  For some, it is a misguided notion that they have to defend the Law of God against societal or governmental forces, and therefore they have appointed themselves as judge, jury, and executioner on God's behalf.  For others, it might be a form of racism or ideology based hatred that is driving their counter-productive attempt to hate-witness.  The most obvious example of this in action in the West today relates to Islam.  There are some in the Christian community, at least they claim to represent Christ, who feel the need to warn about the dangers (which are of an apocalyptic level in their mind) of terrorism from individuals/organizations influenced by Islam, and therefore their only interaction with Islam is angry and militant.  They say things like "All Muslims are terrorists", or "Islam is of the devil".  They think that they're defending Western civilization and Christendom, but in reality all they accomplish is to make terrorism more likely by further marginalizing Muslims living in Western nations, and even more importantly, shutting the door against the Gospel's message even more firmly.  What Muslim, who believes in Muhammad and the Qur'an, is going to listen to what you have to say about the love of God and the desire that God has to offer forgiveness in Christ, when you approach that Muslim by insulting Muhammad and spitting upon the Qur'an?  In what reality does this tactic work even 1 in a million times?

Do you want the Lost to hear the Gospel so that they can be saved, or do you just want credit for yelling it at them?  Do you actually love the Lost, in imitation of our heavenly Father, who sent his Son to die for our sins, while we were still sinners, or has hatred clouded your mind and convinced you that some people are beyond God's saving grace?  (As if you deserved God's grace, but they don't!)

If you can't speak to those who don't know Jesus with gentleness and respect, maybe you should just keep your yap shut and let those whose hearts are burdened for a world full of people without God's love in their lives, be the ones to represent Jesus.

Do Christians really want Muslims to be saved?

In light of recent venomous criticism raised by self-proclaimed Christians against Christian author and apologist James White because of his willingness to dialogue with and debate Muslim apologists and imams with respect and fairness, an important question needs to be asked of the Church.  Do we, as followers of Jesus Christ, really want Muslims to come to know the love of God that is in Jesus Christ?  Do we want Muslims, any and all of them, to be violently killed or saved by love and grace?

If you actually do, as a Christian, want Muslims to come to know the love of Christ, (like any of the Lost: Atheists, Mormons, Hindus, etc.) what attitude would best help that evangelistic effort?  Do expressions of hatred help spread the Gospel?  Does calling all Muslims terrorists help them see that they need to come to Jesus by faith?  Or do we actually push forward the cause of the Gospel through dialogue, openness, respect, honesty, and charity?

James White has been the lightning rod of this issue, but it is far bigger than him.  The Church is being challenged by the violence of terrorism to reject hatred and remain steadfast in the embrace of the peace of Christ.  Giving in to hatred it easy, it appeals to our fallen human nature, it appeals to our tribalism and racism, but it is the opposite of the Fruit of the Spirit which we are supposed to be cultivating as disciples of Jesus.

Consider Saul of Tarsus.  He was a violent man, full of hatred, responsible for the deaths of Christians.  Should the Early Church have killed him in self-defense?  Should they have spewed hatred at him in return?  What did God do about Saul of Tarsus?  He showed him Jesus, and turned him into the Apostle Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary the Gospel has ever seen.  If Peter or John had given in to the temptation to respond to Saul with hate, how many souls would have remained Lost instead of hearing the Gospel?

A related question that we, as Christians, need to answer: Is our hatred of Muslims being driven by our politics?  When contemplating the criticism directed his way, much of which has only a token connection with the truth, James White recently said, "If your politics destroys your passion for the Lost in your life, dump the politics, stick with what has eternal value."

Are you a Christian?  Do you want Muslims, the vast majority of which are non-violent no matter what nonsense you read online or hear from politicians trying to get your vote or businesses trying to get your money, but even the terrorists who have killed Christians, to find forgiveness in Christ?  You have been forgiven for your sins, you came to Christ by grace, are you willing to be so ungrateful an adopted child of God that you would push others away from God's love?  All have sinned, all need a savior, if you think you have any right to be God's gate-keeper and decide who deserves God's grace and who deserves God's wrath, you are woefully and dangerously mistaken.

If the Gospel you claim to believe isn't for everybody, then you don't really believe it.

If you don't show love to the Lost, you have failed in your responsibility to share the Gospel.

What justice do the families of terrorists deserve? Deuteronomy 24:16

Terrorism has been part and parcel of the political discourse of nations all over the world since 9/11.  The evil on display in terrorist acts has caused great anger, and rightly so, and some of that anger has been aimed not at those committing the terrorist acts themselves (or even supporting them) but at those associated with terrorists by either their ethnicity, country of origin, or religion.  It is easy for a people feeling threatened and afraid to lash out at whichever target they can get their hands upon, including the families of terrorists.  It has even been suggested by an American presidential candidate that we should kill the families of terrorists as a purposeful tactic in violation of the Geneva Convention.
What does God have to say about such guilt by association?  We needn't wonder as to the answer, because God included a denial of the concept of guilt by association in the Law of Moses.  Deuteronomy 24:16 states, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."  To kill the wife or child of a terrorist in retaliation for even a barbarous act of terrorism, is an affront to the justice of God, it is not the action of a people who live according to the ethics of the Word of God.
We've been down this road before, the same guilt by association was used during WWII to justify the leveling of cities from the air, a tactic which was as immoral as it was ineffective.  At the time, it was argued that the civilian population was supporting the war effort through their work in the factories and thus they were fair game, it was a Faustian bargain, and a losing one.
Terrorism seeks to change the attitudes and thought processes of those it is used against.  If we lower our belief in the value of life, justifying it in the name of protecting our own lives and way of life, we will have failed the test.  The Law of God was clear on this issue in the Covenant of Moses, right and wrong hasn't changed.

In Defense of Morality: The War on Terror and Strategic Bombing in WWII

It is rare, sadly, to find someone interested in what the perspective of history has to teach us about current events, politicians seem particularly oblivious to this need.  That being said, the bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII as part of the Strategic Bombing campaign carried out by the British and American air forces offers us a much needed dose of morality regarding Western Civilization's (and these days, seemingly civilization in general) now fifteen years of actively fighting against those who would utilize terrorism for political/religious ends.  Early on in the British attempt to bring the fighting to Germany after having evacuated the continent at Dunkirk, it was discovered that attempts to selectively hit targets such as factories producing munitions and armaments had failed miserably, as "Less than one-third of its bombers were dropping their loads within five miles of the specific industrial targets they were attacking." (from Williamson Murray, "Did Strategic Bombing Work?").  Failing to destroy the intended targets was compounded by the horrendous costs to the bomber crews paid to achieve such paltry results.  Having failed to selectively target legitimate war-related targets, Bomber Command switched to "area bombing" hoping to "dehouse" the Germany urban population and break the morale of the Nazis by killing non-combatants because hitting the center of a city with firebombs is a much easier task that would certainly produce "results".  Until the end of WWII, this policy was continued, with the Americans eventually attempting their own strategic bombing campaign and eventually joining in with the British to wipe German cities off the map (with the corresponding effort in the Pacific to demolish Japanese cities).  Despite the horrific loss of life, hundreds of thousands of non-combatant men, women, and children killed, the will of the Germans and the Japanese to fight on never wavered.
In his essay on the effectiveness of the Strategic Bombing campaign in WWII, historian Williamson Murray wrote, "World War II was a matter of national survival, a war waged against a tyranny that represented a hideous moral and strategic danger.  Consequently, any judgment on the Combined Bomber Offensive must rest on the grounds of expediency rather than on those of morality."  In that essay, Murray seeks to establish that the bombing campaign was indeed effective in helping shorten WWII, but the vast majority of the evidence he presents revolves around actual strategic bombing of transportation networks and military targets (which was effective) rather than the indiscriminate destruction of cities (which was not).  Why did the Allies target cities?  Because they felt the need to do something, and this was what they could actually do.  Plus, there was also the desire to punish the German and Japanese people for the actions of their political leadership and military, and the unspoken belief that the lives lost in the bombing campaign were a part of the cost of winning the war, thankfully, being paid by the other side.
How do we evaluate Williamson's claim, and what does this have to do with terrorism?  The claim that any national emergency can set aside morality as the judge of our actions, and WWII was certainly a serious existential threat that is not in dispute, must still be categorically rejected by a Christian worldview.  If we can abandon the principles by which we seek to imitate Christ when our lives or even our civilization is threatened, of what value are those principles?  It is when we are being threatened or oppressed, as individuals, as a Church, and as a nation, that our feet should be most firmly planted on the solid rock of Christ.  If we instead call a "timeout", wage war by any means necessary to protect ourselves, and then seek to put the genie in the bottle again afterwards, we will instead only discover that we ourselves have changed in the process of defeating our foe, and not for the better.  I don't doubt for a moment the valor and service of the men who flew the bombers over Germany and Japan in WWII, but I cannot accept the defense of the strategy that sent them there to firebomb cities as being "necessary" at the time.  Necessity may be the mother of invention, but it is also the author of immoral behavior.
The War on Terror that started, for most of our awareness of it at least, with the horror of 9/11 and the deaths of so many innocent people, cannot be allowed to devolve until we are little better in our actions than those we are seeking to destroy.  We have already made mistakes and taken steps in that direction, the fact that politicians and talking heads debated whether or not torture should be one of the tools of our forces tells us as much.  The shame of Abu Ghraib is another example, along with the ongoing secret targeting of threats with drone strikes, suggestions that we can solve the ISIS problem by "carpet bombing" Syria, and now the ludicrous suggestion by one political candidate that Muslims be banned from entering the United States.
Terrorism is not nearly the threat to Western Civilization that the fascism of the Nazis and Japanese was.  Terrorism also is not nearly the threat to Western Civilization that Communism once was.  Terrorism is psychologically disturbing, creating fear that never seems to dissipate, but all the world's terrorists and would-be terrorists have a comparatively tiny amount of power versus the threats that have already been defeated in the modern era.  It would be a strategic mistake, and certainly an ethical one, if we allowed terrorism to change who we are, if we abandoned our optimism and desire to help those in need because of fear.
The morality taught to us by Jesus Christ is not an optional morality.  We cannot put it on when useful and take it off when it gets uncomfortable.  We must live, regardless of the threats against us, as disciples of Jesus Christ, the last thing we need to do is to start targeting the innocent alongside the guilty.

What is a Christian willing to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?

What are we willing to attempt to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?  The answer, literally, should be nothing, for there is nothing that we ought to be willing to utilize evil in order to achieve, but when most people use that phrase they're talking about effort and sacrifice, perhaps a little stepping over the line when needed.
The following video is a test, watch it first before reading my comments upon it below.  Your reaction to this video will judge your ability to understand the purpose of the Gospel, your willingness to obey what it requires of you, and just what it is that you are willing to see blood spilled to accomplish.  The speaker in the 6 minute video is Pastor Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, a 12,000 member church.  He received a standing ovation at the end of these remarks, how will you respond?


Pastor Jeffress in response to ISIS

Did you cheer along with the audience, or did their cheers send a chill down your spine?  The words of Pastor Jeffress paint all Muslims as believers in the ideology of ISIS, saying that the Koran is full of commands to violence, while dismissing the commands of God in the Old Testament, and then following that up by saying that individual Christians need to love our enemies, but our government should blow them all to hell.  Also, where in the Bible does it say that God is against illegal immigrants and refugees, to claim Acts 17:26 as a justification for that political viewpoint is terribly poor exegesis.  Likewise, quoting a politician from the pulpit, and endorsing his viewpoint, especially a politician who has demonstrate virtually none of the fruit of the Spirit, is both foolish and dangerous.  I'm sorry, Pastor Jeffress, killing our enemies by "doing whatever is necessary" is NOT what Jesus taught his followers; not even close.  That misguided ideology led to the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII, civilian casualties be damned.  We cannot defeat radical Islam, just as we could not defeat militant communism, by lowering our moral standards and killing innocent women and children along with those who are actually a threat.  Don't we need to overcome evil with good, isn't that in the Bible, or do we get to ignore that command when the government does the killing for us?

What are you willing to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?  I recently spoke privately with a friend because I was alarmed by his publicly expressed zeal to see Muslims, even if it is just militant ones, killed.  I tried to remind him that our obligation, given to us as a command by Jesus Christ, is to witness to the Gospel to everyone, our enemies included.  Sadly, the response I received later was to mock my concern for Muslims who don't know Christ, it seems some who claim the name of Christ (and thus should know better) would rather cheer while their enemies are killed by a smart bomb than sacrifice to share the Gospel with them.  If that attitude had prevailed in the early Church, the zealot hater of Christianity, Saul of Tarsus, would have been assassinated by Christians instead of hearing of God's forgiveness on the road to Damascus, there would never have been an Apostle Paul who received numerous beatings to spread the Gospel without God's willingness to forgive, God's willingness to turn an enemy of his people into a champion for his grace.
Did you cheer when Pastor Jeffress gave the government a blank check to kill as many people as necessary to stop those living among them who are terrorists?  Do you celebrate when the bombs fall, or when the knees bow in repentance?  The answer matters, there are over a billion Muslims in the world, aren't you required to present to them the Gospel of God's grace?  In the words of that redeemed enemy of Christ, the Apostle Paul, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

Why Christians cannot claim all Muslims are the same

On a recent podcast, James White, author and debater on a variety of Christian topics, explained why it is not only dangerous, but ultimately sinful for a Christian to paint all Muslims with a broad stroke as terrorists.  It has been popular in some circles to claim that all Muslim are interested in Jihad, that a global caliphate achieved by violence is inherent to all Muslims.  Rather than argue about the nature of Islam, let us instead focus upon our responsibility as Christians to witness to the Gospel.  Why can't Christians dismiss all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?  The answer is simple: It destroys any hope you may have of sharing the Gospel with a Muslim.  Maybe you don't care, maybe you're so afraid of Islam, or so angry about terrorism that you simply don't care if there are Muslims who are non-militant (which there are).  Well, that's too bad, you don't have the choice to act that way because you have been commanded by Jesus Christ to share the Gospel with the whole world.  We must care for all of the Lost, even those who dislike us or hate us.  We have been called to show compassion to the Lost, we have been called to bear witness to the trans formative power of the Gospel.  This is not optional, to dismiss a type of person or group of people as being beyond the scope of the Gospel is a sin on our part.  It is not acceptable.  The "throw them all out of the country" attitude is not acceptable.  The "kill them all before they kill us" attitude is reprehensible.  We must reject, without reservation, the temptation to make the world an "us" vs. "them" fight; why, because the Gospel requires us to.  Our response as Christians must be that of our Savior, that is our only option.  It is easier to hate, but it is not Christian, not even a little bit.

The video by James White, pertaining to this topic, begins about 44 minutes into the video and runs for the next 5 minutes or so, and then also picks back up about 1:13:30 until around 1:15

James White on the Dividing Line

And this video from James White as well, beginning at about 38:30, with the most clear explanation coming toward the end of the video

James White on the Dividing Line - video #2

** Disclaimer, I don't agree with James White on everything, primarily we would disagree about Ecumenism (esp. regarding Catholicism), but his work on textual issues (i.e KJV only debate and history of the Bible stuff) is top notch, and his views on Islam are both informed and Biblical. **