Introduction
Welcome to part two of the discussion on Christianity and racism. In this segment, we’re going to explore the background of racism and the philosophies have worsened it. We will also examine the question every Christian should ask liberals when it comes to racism. Having discussed this with liberals, I have come to the realization that they are not fond of this question. Usually, I find this is because it forces them to re-evaluate their premises when you phrase it correctly. Why? Because it forces them to engage their minds and then to confront their premise. That premise leaves them with a logical contradiction unsolvable if they hold to both their premise and their present conclusions.
But I am getting ahead of myself. We should start out with what the question is. Then we will talk about the two points of thought on the issue of racism, which lead to two different roots to this question’s answer.
The Question to Ask Anyone Reasoning on Racism from a Non-Biblical Perspective
The question is actually quite simple. It is simple because it asks the opposition reasoning from an evolutionary, anti-God perspective to defend their viewpoint. Rather than assuming the burden of proof for what we can rationally support in looking at the world around us, history, and the Bible, we assume that those contradicting themselves and these proofs must bear the burden of proof.
So our question, then, is this. Why is racism and racist behavior or thinking wrong? The follow up, then, is to ask what racism is. Most of them are defining it as one of two things. Either it is having power plus privilege (which they only apply to whites in our society) or it is anything they do not like and wish to discredit. Few I have interacted with understand racism in light of the dictionary. They do not define racism as the genuine hatred and prejudice toward another human being on the basis of skin color alone.
The Dictionary Definition of Racism
The dictionary defines the term racism in one of two ways:
A) as the “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
B) as “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”
These are the two main definitions that any dictionary has used up until today. Some, like Merriam Webster, have announced changes to the definition to satisfy extreme groups. These groups or individuals wish to redefine words to mean whatever they wish them to mean. But the above definitions are the accepted definitions used for at least the last few decades if not longer.
Liberal and Democrat Responses to Racism
First of all, these days liberals and Democrats fling around the word racist. They do this in much the same way as many conservatives throw the word “socialism” around. They use it to mean anything and everything they deem offensive in any way to a minority. Never mind that many of the loudest voices screaming about racism are white. They have never known what it is to be black, Hispanic, or Asian in America. Yet, somehow, they feel qualified to shut down even minority members who dare disagree with them.
Ironic that they should be the ones screaming the loudest. Ironic that they, who profess to be allies of the very ones they are, at times, getting in the way of, should be so dead-set on keeping the opposing viewpoint out of the discussion. Heaven forbid anyone thought for themselves. They might not stay brainwashed and complacent if they did.
But whether you agree with the above sentiments or not, it is a clearly seen, demonstrable fact that liberals and Democrats would scream from the tops of mountains that anyone who dares be a racist–however they may define that on any given day–is a disgusting, wicked human being. If they are in fact human. Ironic considering their worldview gives no yardstick by which to measure morality and thus offers them no grounds to say anyone is more wicked than another for any given behavior. But we will save that for later on in this discussion.
Our Present Reality in Relation to Racism
Whatever side of the argument we are on, because the Left is determined to keep racism alive in our minds at any costs, we are forced to face our present reality. We cannot avoid the issue of racism with the media and Democrats set upon shoving it down our throats. They will do so in both cases where it exists and in cases where it does not. Nor do I think that we should avoid it. In fact, we should be confronting racism and demanding that both sides do not call racist what is not or call good what is racist.
Right now we are hearing society’s loudest voices shout down anyone who dissents against their view on racism. We are hearing countless voices, conservative or liberal, denouncing racists and racism behavior. However, if we are going to do that, should we not know what we are standing against and why we are doing so? It is imperative that we exercise discernment and understand why we do (or do not) agree with a given philosophy or belief. For Christians, this is particularly essential. If we do not, we cannot ensure every word, deed, and thought is in line with Scripture.
We have been given a reasoning mind by our God for a purpose. It is not made available to us so that we can sacrifice it on the altar of blind, irrational belief or sentimentality that ignores reality. That is no way to live or to persuade anyone that our faith comes from God-given faculties of reason. The issue of racism is no different. The church has failed to address the culture with the proper counter-argument from Scripture and a Biblical worldview. We are now paying for it.
Why then, are the biggest advocates against racism those who are true believers following God’s Word and living in the Spirit? Let us take time to answer that. Let us also examine where this concept of racism really gained ground from and why it did so. Furthermore, I propose to show why you must reason from a Biblical worldview to validly claim racism is wrong.
A Question of Morals
There are many places I could start on the discussion of racism, but I am going to start with morals. You can have no equitable, lawful society if your morality and virtue is not grounded firmly in truth. The issue of racism, particularly, is an overtly moral one, whether we want to admit it or not. I think most can agree that it is not entirely political. Others want to say it is or have made it about politics, but it was a moral question first. If it were simply political, there would be no outcry on the grounds of certain behaviors being right or wrong.
Here, then, is the problem that you run into if you recognize it as a moral issue but refuse to acknowledge God or His Word as the solution. Many will say “we don’t need God to know the difference between right and wrong.” According to Psalm 14:1, they are fools as fools do not acknowledge that there is a God. Why is it so important that there is in fact a God? More specifically, why must we have a God like the Bible presents to have any basis for morality?
Change as the Reason
Change is the simple answer. Human beings are subject to change. The things we once considered morally acceptable will not always remain what we consider morally acceptable. To illustrate, let us look at a few examples.
Hitler
Once upon a time, the Germans (or at least large groups of them) thought it was fine, maybe even morally praise-worthy, to round up and slaughter Jews, Blacks, and other minorities like animals. Their argument for their racism was that these individuals were “less evolved” and “not a part of the superior race”. This was exactly how Hitler justified what he was doing.
American Slave Trade
Once upon a time, rich white plantation owners justified one of the most horrific forms of abuse known to man in the form of American slavery. Furthermore, while no one up North likes to admit it, most people North and South did not care much one way or another.
No one but a select group of very loud abolitionists, who rightfully found the practice reprehensible, spoke up against it. Some might have personally believed it was not a good thing. Most either ignored it if it did not affect them or viewed it as necessary. Few, if any, on either side viewed the Africans (or other slaves from, say, Ireland who were under the guise of “indentured servants” and were treated as poorly or worse than the Africans due to how cheaply they could be acquired) as human beings or people. Thus, they came up with compromises. This can be seen in the legal treatment of them as 2/3rds of a person under the law in some cases and as property in others.
To give the Founding Fathers some credit, they expected the issue of slavery to simply fade out of existence. Many were vehemently opposed to slavery and fought against it in later years. However, most agreed that it was necessary to find some way to account for it in the legal system until such a time as it would disappear. The 2/3rds laws were, in actuality, their attempts to move toward a time when equality was a reality for all.
Unfortunately, while this might have seemed the logical end of the matter to the rational mind, it was not the end of it. Slavery became a deeply entrenched way of life. It was a thorn in the side of the new government all the way up to the Civil War. This is what the toleration of evil brought on our nation. So, while the Founding Fathers must be given some credit for not trying to preserve it, they did make a mistake in their calculations that it would disappear, and we ended up fighting a horrific war, in part, because of it.
Darwin and Those Who Followed in His Footsteps
Once upon a time, Darwin stated that the natives of South America were savages and hardly human if they were in fact human at all. Furthermore, those who followed in his footsteps on the matter of evolution agreed. They made inherent dehumanization of those who did not act or look like them a major part of their theory.
Darwin himself justified this by saying that it was simply one more example of evolution in action. This was in line with the example of the Galapagos finches, which was to his mind an example of evolution in practice. Therefore, he said, those savages (referring to the non-white tribal people of South America and later to African slaves) were closer to being apes than he and those from England or Western Civilization were. As such, he saw no problem with treating them as less than human.
Still Acceptable?
These examples are only a few of the instances where humans set their own moral standards of right and wrong. They did so without God and His Word in the picture in every instance, even in the case of American slavery. Their consciences and nature itself could tell them it was wrong. Nonetheless, they chose to do as they were taught was acceptable by society. What happened, though? Do we still believe those mindsets are acceptable? No! We do not.
Society still teaches evolution, and there is absolutely nothing in the evolutionary theory or the science supposedly behind it that would give us reason to say that we should not behave just like the other animals around us. We are, after all, simply more evolved animals ourselves. Nonetheless, we still view these actions and thoughts as disgusting. Liberals and conservatives alike would decry these behaviors. Few think they are acceptable in any way. Why? Because society changed its mind. We do not live in a society that thinks this is still permissible.
The Breakdown of Morality
Fine, you may be saying, I see where you’re going with the whole issue of change. But clearly we can still have some moral compass without God, right? We do not accept those morally reprehensible behaviors as acceptable anymore. Therefore, some may say, that is proof we do not need God for a moral compass.
Check Your Premises
Allow me to pose a question to you if you agreed with my previous statement. How many things that we once considered morally reprehensible, which were in fact reprehensible, do we now allow? Do you think pedophilia is acceptable? There is an ever-growing portion of our society that wants it registered as just another sexual orientation. Do you believe that is permissible? Or perhaps we should look at abortion up to the moment the baby is leaving the birth canal? Once that would have been called what it is: murder. Do you think that should now be called acceptable as it is?
Should we credit the man who manages to avoid a pit in pitch darkness with having sight in the darkness? Does the blind man no longer have need of his cane or some other aid to keep him from walking into a light post? Should we say the same man, who by blind luck manages to avoid running into the wall without the use of those aids, is moving with understanding and purpose? No. We would not. Instead, those individuals were lucky or else were warned of the impending danger by some sense they did not recognize or acknowledge.
If that is the rational conclusion, we must not conclude that a man is then a moral compass in and of himself because he happens upon the correct moral guideline in one instance by the help of nature and his God-given conscience. He is no different than the blind man or the man in the dark who managed to avoid the dangers posed by the lack or refusal of a guide.
What, Then, Must We Reason From?
We must reason from Scripture. To reason from anything else is to discard the only source of unchangeable truth we have. We may at some times stumble across the right solution through either trial and error or by happenstance because we chose that instance to listen to our consciences, but at other times, we may be led astray by our own sinful inclinations and flawed reasoning to a principle of disastrous moral quality.
Anyone who is going to argue that one thing is wrong and another is right must argue it with a rooted belief in the God of the Bible. They will not admit this premise, of course, and they make their own arguments logically fallacious because they do not believe in God. However, evolution or any viewpoint with an unchanging, perfectly holy God must then be unable to declare anything moral or immoral.
The Removal of a Set Standard
There is no set standard because we as humans, who change our minds constantly, are the only ones who can decree what is right and wrong. We have proven this in our examples above as they show that we are capable of believing even the most morally reprehensible things morally laudable if given enough incentive, emotional push, or simply faulty reasoning that sounds good to us.
We may change our yardstick at any time, and if a yard is no longer a yard, what have we left to measure with? Society may then decide that what was unacceptable yesterday is now acceptable today. They may decide tomorrow that it is suddenly acceptable to kill every white liberal man or every woman who dresses a certain way. We cannot say it is wrong because society said it was right, and we have no absolute to judge by. There is no objective, only the subjective, and the subjective has said it is permissible.
But, on that moral philosophy, you also cannot say that Hitler was wrong to do what he did during his time because the majority of his society agreed with him. Had he won, most of Europe would not have found anything wrong with what he did either because the victors write the history books and put their own spin on it. That area of Europe would have adopted the same mentality because with no moral code higher than ourselves and utterly unchangeable, how can we declare it wrong so long as everyone around us says it is right?
Put It to a Vote
If I could ask for a show of hands right now for who feels comfortable with that conclusion, I doubt many would raise their hands. But herein lies the problem. If you do not believe in an unchangeable, holy God who gave us His moral code, which can never change, then you are left with only one option: humans must decide what is moral good or moral evil on their own. Whether society does it or you say a single individual does so for themselves, there will be problems with either.
Deep down, most of us can admit there are certain things like murder, hating your fellow man on basis of skin color, or taking/destroying another’s property that are simply wrong. For now, at least, society has not come to a point where it can condition us to believe these are acceptable (though the last is rapidly failing to be considered wrong as we see demonstrated by the numerous riots all across America).
But why? Have we stopped to ask that question? For someone with a Christian worldview, the answer should be abundantly clear. God says murder, hatred (murder in the heart, according to Scripture), and destruction or theft of others’ belongings are all sin. He punishes them, and they are clearly labeled as outpourings of a sin nature, which goes beyond a simple issue with a specific sin and is ultimately what will condemn us without Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and His blood applied to us.
The Logical Equivalent of Shifting Sand
Non-Christian, if you do not believe that God exists, what is your basis? Society said so? You said so? I will be a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but last I looked around, that landed us with riots, looting, murder, and chaos. We have already proven both your ideas of right and wrong and society’s are subject to change and that both can be incorrect, so how can you condemn someone who thinks differently than you if that is the case? What if they are right and you are wrong?
Or, if you prefer a less straightforward and more non-committal view, what if you are both right even though what you think is diametrically opposed? (If you doubt that this last can be adopted, look at those who refuse to tell someone else they are wrong and agree that the individual can think however they like. They are telling that person that, even though the two beliefs are unable to be reconciled, they will allow that the other person is right while still maintaining in their minds that they are probably also right. How else has gender become so mixed up that you can’t tell a woman who thinks she is a man that nature declares that she is wrong?)
This is, with all due respect, the logical equivalent of shifting sand. There is nowhere safe to stand, and you can stand for nothing, in truth, because you have nothing to stand on except the premise that there is a God, which you have rejected.
All Things Now Acceptable?
In the end, then, all things must be named acceptable so long as either a) they are acceptable to a large enough crowd of people or b) the individual has decided it is right for them. As we have already discussed, neither is a good solution. Both lead to all kinds of issues, and inevitably, again, as we are seeing all over in America today with the looting, rioting, senseless killings, and outcries for a false justice to be meted out on an entire group of people who, in most cases, neither descended from slavers nor have done anything truly racist or wrong. Both options that leave God out of the equation result in a breakdown of morality.
No True Morality Without A Holy God
You may split philosophical hairs all you want. However, if you are going to be logical about it, you cannot say everyone is human and deserves respect as such (that is a Biblical concept, not a progressive, evolutionary idea), you cannot say that we should do unto others as we want done unto us (that is also a Biblical concept, not a progressive evolutionary idea), and you cannot say in any honest way that we can discern right from wrong (because that is a Bible idea and a conscience thing, which animals and evolution have no room for, and it is not a progressive evolutionary idea).
If that is the position you wish to adopt, very well, but admit what you are doing and do not expect anyone else to grant you the illusion you are trying to peddle them. The rational mind reasoning from the premises they can observe in nature and human nature cannot and will not.
If you are going to be logical and honest about where a viewpoint without God leads in the matter of morality, you must then say that the only reason you think something is right or wrong is because it is not to your taste. It is not truly right or wrong because there is no such thing if you are not reasoning from a measuring stick that does not change.
Right and wrong are determined by society or by the individual, so the fact that you do not find it tasteful does not mean they are morally wrong for doing it. Your opinion is no more valid than someone else’s if there is nothing behind it except your own ideas of what is right and wrong. Those ideas are all in your head. They are as made up by you the same way a fictional world is constructed by a writer. Unless there is a God who holds us to an unchangeable standard and is Himself above all else with the authority to declare what is right and what is not; unless there is a holy, just God who will never pass judgment in error or change the standards up, you cannot have morality.
The Mindset that Justified Slavery
I promised that there would be some history involved in this. Now that we are done laying the premises of morality that we must reason from in order to answer our initial question, we must gain some insight into the backdrop and stage upon which slavery is and has been set.
An Ancient Practice
Slavery of the sort American plantation owners and British upper class citizens practiced has been around for nearly as long as mankind has existed. You can go all the way back to the Romans, Ancient Egypt, and certainly Ancient Babylon or Assyria even further back than the first two. You will find it, and it did not discriminate in color when it came to the wickedness of treating another human being as property. Many times, these slaves were “spoils” of war.
The Colonial Brand
But by the time history gets around to Colonial America and Britain previous to their anti-slavery policies, we see something start to happen that was not as common, if it was found at all. British and American traders began to take slaves on their forays into Africa, South America, and the Indies. They had other slaves, of course, in the case of convicts from Britain who were sent to work on penal colonies or Irish political prisoners in other cases.
However, there were rules governing how these individuals were to be treated, even if they were mistreated in many situations, and they were not viewed as non-humans. So why is it, then, that Africans and natives of places like South America or the Indies were not afforded the same privilege?
The answer lies in the mindsets springing up around the world and in the combination of both the old world view of the native inhabitants of the new world and the emergence of evolution via Charles Darwin and those who followed in his footsteps.
Now, I know full well that those who support evolution (meaning most liberals and even some progressive Christians who agree with the hypothesis of evolution) will say, we do not follow Darwin, and we know better because science has advanced. But Darwin was not simply a product of the prevailing discriminatory attitude Western civilization had for anything that was not Western. He certainly had that mentality, and it is obvious in his writings, but what is equally transparent is that Darwin was happy to state that his views on evolution informed his thinking on treatment of and status of the natives and Africans he encountered.
Darwin: Adding Fuel to the Fire of Racism
He not only viewed the natives as savages, but he also states many times things such as “one could hardly believe they were human” or that they were “far inferior to the English colonists”. Instead, he viewed them as “primitive beings” and did not see them as human. Darwin had no issue with slavery, not because it was widely accepted at the time, but because he believed natural selection dictated that it was acceptable and that the eventual extermination of the “savages” was inevitable due to natural selection.
Darwin even compared the natives of South America that the crew took back to England and their transformation into “complete and voluntary Europeans” as well as many other situations he observed in the native lifestyles to the natural selection he found in the finches on the Galapagos islands, which he viewed as evidence for evolution.
Using the Mindset and Philosophy to Justify Unspeakable Acts
So then, when his teachings are observed, it is clear that, at the very least, Darwin applied evolutionary principles to the human race and used it to create a distinction between a European and a native in South America. While it should be admitted that Darwin himself, on a humanitarian scale, did not agree with the heinous mistreatment of the natives despite his belief that they were, at the least, not the superior race, his beliefs and the logical conclusion of them were adopted by many who followed after.
This led to disastrous events and unspeakable mistreatment levied at those “less superior” races. Most notably, history gives us Hitler, Stalin, and the American version of slavery. Darwin would likely have been horrified by Hitler and Stalin. What he would have thought of slavery in America is less certain since he himself did not find any moral issues with it during his time, and it was no less hideous then. Still, there is no escaping the facts. The European mindset of Western superiority blended with evolutionary philosophies as Darwin and others developed it, and this set the stage for justification of some of the worst acts known to man. Furthermore, for those who are willing to be honest and consistent in their beliefs and understanding, we still see it causing issues today.
The Liberal Arguments Against Racism: Substantiated or Not?
From a liberal perspective with God out of the equation, the arguments, as I briefly noted earlier, run something akin to saying that all of us are human regardless of skin color, that no one is superior to another on those grounds, and that we should all treat each other the way we want to be treated. Further, some would say, we do not need God to know right from wrong, and we do not hold to Darwin’s teachings on this matter because science has advanced enough to let us know that was wrong. Some would say that science has proven Darwin’s teachings and that it is not a religion or faith-based issue but is instead that Darwin discovered a scientific fact and was later proven right.
In some cases, I’ve heard from liberal acquaintances and friends that whether we have any purpose on the Earth or not, and whether we were created by God or evolved for no particular reason at all, should have no bearing on how we treat each other.
These are real responses I have received upon asking liberals why they think racism is so bad when God is taken out of the equation. I asked because I did not want to get the answers wrong, misrepresent their viewpoints, or unfairly accuse them of saying things they would never say. I also asked because I was curious and had never heard a sound argument that is logically consistent with the premise that liberals typically reason from.
Breaking It Down
I agree with the liberal answers on the first three points. Let us start with those since they are points of common ground. While they are correct to state we are all human regardless of color, that no one is superior to another based on skin color, and that we should treat others as we want to be treated, what is the reasoning point for this? I have heard no good explanations of the grounds for these statements from any liberal who removes God from the equation. This is entirely due to the discussion on morality I gave above. Evolution does not give them any grounds to claim this because evolution says, hey, we are all random chance, products of natural selection, and more evolved animals. A viewpoint like that results in the following logical conclusions:
- Nothing actually matters that much because it is all random chance and there is not much to live for except, depending on who you ask, furthering the survival of the human race. But what is the purpose for it? Why bother if there is no reward or benefit in it? I am going to die eventually, and so will my children. So why not live in whatever way most pleases me? I have no reason, from this viewpoint, to care what happens to other people around me unless I happen to have some sort of emotional concern for them because they are friends or family. We see exactly this attitude in those who are stealing, looting, rioting, and burning the homes or businesses of individuals who have not done anything wrong. It is entirely a me-focused mentality, and why should it not be if it benefits your survival and your needs? At best, you might be concerned about the survival of those around you simply because they are central to your preferred existence or because you have feelings of affection toward them. But any altruism that does not in some way benefit us? Evolution gives us no reason for that. It is a good thing from a Christian point of view to serve others and to be self-sacrificing. From an evolutionary perspective, who cares? We are random chance and animals anyway, so why bother to act like we are not?
- We are all animals. Animals do not care who gets hurt when they do something. One monkey who dukes it out with another over a female does not care if it kills the other male who lost. One group of lions who fight another over turf do not feel remorse over killing their own kind. So if we are no different than animals, why do we care if we kill someone else? There is nothing special about us, no inherent aspect that goes beyond simple matter or neurons firing in the brain. Just like animals, we simply live and work off emotions, the drive to survive, and the drive to reproduce. We do not have a soul or something called a conscience because animals do not possess it, and if we are animals, neither can we. We are capable of more thought than a dog, say, but at the base of it all, we are still no more than highly-advanced animals. Therefore, it does not matter if what I do hurts someone else. I am just acting on my instinct to survive and on my baser instincts to fight when challenged. If I happen to have the pack mentality some animals possess, great. If not and I am more of a loner type of animal that will attack anything that comes onto its territory, why should anyone care? Whichever of us is superior will win, and natural selection will have strengthened the winner’s group by weeding out the losing party, who was too weak to make it anyway.
- Nothing can actually be morally right or wrong if you are going to be both logical and honest. We went over this one before in detail, but to review, if there is no standard that is unchanging outside of societal pressures or our own changeable, fickle natures, then we cannot have morality. So an honest evolutionist would also have to say that, while some things might not be their preference, it is all permissible because, really, it is all about what you or what your society wants to do.
- I have a right to be prideful and think I am better than everyone not like me if I am the superior race. After all, survival of the fittest dictates that whoever is best equipped for survival survives. They were not fit for survival or are not currently and are in the process of dying out, so it is only natural that my expansion and my upward movement on the evolutionary totem pole may result in their diminishment or perhaps even their complete destruction, and there is nothing wrong with that because it is just natural selection/survival of the fittest at work. I have not done anything wrong in helping it along either because that is just naturally what the superior race does as it expands in its quest to survive. (This, by the way, is exactly what Darwin believed and found integral to his evolutionary theories. His contemporaries Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus saw this in his theories, though Darwin himself spoke of it rarely and mostly contained it to his personal writings, and they ran with it. From this viewpoint came the idea of laizzes-faire capitalism, or in layman’s terms, unrestrained capitalism. Spencer applied survival of the fittest to economics, and unrestrained capitalism during the Industrial Revolution was the result, much to our detriment in America today. This “social Darwinism” was used down through history to justify many horrific acts of racism, imperialism, eugenics, and social inequality. —History.com)
An Unacceptable Conclusion
There are, of course, other issues that evolution can lead to in terms of philosophy and reasoning. However, these are the ones relevant to our discussion here. You can see that, if you think through what evolution actually says and apply it logically with no rose-tinted glasses and without any inconsistencies or conflict of your beliefs, you must come to a conclusion that is at best untenable to most but, in reality, is repugnant and horrifying to nearly everyone.
Held by Faith
To those who object that evolution is science, not faith, and does not have anything to do with what religion you choose to hold… Believing that evolution is true is as much a belief as believing that you are a good person or believing that one person would be a better president than another. Furthermore, it is in fact as more faith-based than believing there is a God because it does not appeal to any reasoning mind looking on creation–let alone anything else in our world–and has fewer answers with more logical holes and fallacies than any belief in a Creator has.
We all hold beliefs, and evolution is one of them that people hold by faith since, though we teach it as fact in school, the very scientists who once thought it true have admitted they have no idea how it happened, have been unable to repeat it or observe it–something absolutely necessary to make something scientific fact per the scientific method–and do not know how they might prove it to be true beyond the simple belief that it must be true because how else could we come to be? If that is not enough, their “scientific fact” has ignored the clear display of intelligent, intentional design in everything from the plants around us to the very eyes we use to see those plants. Intelligent, intentional design requires an intelligent origin!
We would never look at a car and say, How amazing that particles randomly smashed together to create parts, which randomly organized and evolved into this vehicle that I am going to drive. That is ridiculous and a conclusion that the thinking mind must reject. We know when we look at that car that someone had to create the design that others would then build.
How much more inane is it to say that the incredible work we see in the way our own bodies function, in the way the world around us functions so well together in nature, is somehow the result of random chance? We have brains, and those brains, if they were not taught to believe the philosophies we have been fed since birth, if they were not sinfully insistent on denying any Creator’s existence, would never reasonably come to the conclusion that we are no different than animals, that the world is random chance, and that such intentional design could randomly evolve somehow in a way we cannot even replicate.
Who Would Ever Agree With The Above Conclusions?
To be clear, only the truly crazed individual or someone with no love on any level within their darkened heart could say the things I have just laid out as the logical conclusions that must be held by a rational individual claiming to believe in the evolutionary theory in full. I have not yet met an evolutionist or a liberal evolutionist who was willing to say these things because they are too unpalatable and disgusting to beings with a moral compass in the form of a God-given conscience. No matter how insistently they refuse to acknowledge God or His law, they still use it in determining how they should interact with their fellow man even when their worldview gives them no reason to turn to love, kindness, and respect for those not like them.
Unfortunately, that crazed individual or person without any love at all in their hearts would be more honest about the conclusions they must draw from their evolutionary belief than any other individual who chooses not to acknowledge these things and instead reasons from a Christian moral system while denying the very God who gave it. Is it any wonder our world is so messed up on moral good and evil?
The Conclusion on the Matter? Substantiated or Not?
So then, liberals are correct to argue that we are all human regardless of color, that we should do unto other as we want done to us, and that we should not hate someone based on something like skin color. However, they have rendered their own argument invalid and unsupported by removing God from the equation.
Another similarly godless individual might well look at them and say, “That’s nice and all, but you have yet to give me anything that makes your opinion better than mine. So I think genocide is good, and that’s what I’m sticking to.” Another similarly godless person would argue just as validly that racism, hatred, murder, and mass slaughter is all perfectly acceptable because a liberal arguing these things from their worldview invalidates their own message, even if it is in fact the right one.
That liberal has nothing to point to that demands respect for human life, the sanctity of that life, or the importance of behaving with love towards those different than us. In fact, they often fail to protect it in the form of laws allowing abortion of clearly living beings (even if you do not believe conception is the point that there is a baby, you can clearly tell it is a baby early on in the development, so if you choose to kill it, then you fail to protect life, its sanctity, or the love of something different than yourself).
The Valid Response from Those with Logically-Sound Premises
Liberals who reject God in favor of evolution can shout about it all they want, but they do not have any valid reason not to look at the individual who thinks killing others unlike them is acceptable and say: “That’s not my preference, but you do you, I guess.” They cannot argue from any moral ground because their viewpoint must logically remove any validity on the basis of morals entirely from the equation. Those of us who do have the validity of morality behind our arguments on the basis of our premises can validly look at them and demand to know why they believe what they do.
Do not allow them the contradiction they seem determined to demand we live by. They may remain blind if they wish, but we must not help a fellow human being to give validity to an unsound, inaccurate belief such as they hold. The contradictions will do nothing but destroy what otherwise would have been an accurate message. Furthermore, they have asked us to abandon the only premise that gives us a valid reason to say racism or anything else is wrong: the existence of just, holy God. Therefore, if we are going to do what is right as well as what is rational, we must refuse and vehemently reject any attempts to sway us to what we know to be an inaccurate perspective. Truth is truth, whether they like it or not. A equals A, and 2+2=4 even if they would like to deny it or change it.
So if they are going to try to reason from a moral perspective, they have to use God’s Word and His law to reason against the wrong belief that killing an entire people group (or anyone, for that matter) is acceptable. So, then, it is valid of those with the rational, consistent, Biblical worldview to speak up and to refuse to allow them the luxury of our approval of their flawed reasoning in the form of silence or unconditional assent.
How Deep Evolution’s Roots Go
In response to their last two points, I point back to our discussions on morality and to what modern evolution still has to say about the human race. The fact that we call someone of a different color than us another race in the first place is evidence to just how deep evolution’s roots go in the issue of racism. Had science truly developed, we would not use that terminology. Even though science may clearly show that our DNA does not differ by much at all (certainly not enough to make us separate species), we are still wrongly dividing people up by race and using Darwin’s system even as we argue that racism is bad.
If science has developed so much, we would see evolutionists firmly disputing Darwin’s claims on the whole because they were motivated and rooted in racist opinions and even those views which are not tainted by it are questionable as we cannot repeat them. Further, we would not call the issue of hating those of other colors in our population racism at all. Rather, we would more accurately call it discrimination (which to be fair many do, but they use it interchangeably with racism).
We would call it that because we would recognize what so many liberals I have met do not seem to: hatred of another on the basis of color or any other factor is not restricted to only those in one group or “race”. If it were, you would not see BLM reps calling for undeserved, unearned recompense from whites who have not participated in active racism, have not owned slaves, and (in so many cases) have only immigrant ancestors who never once owned a slave and were often equally discriminated against in the North.
So, on all points, their argument’s basis renders itself logically and reasonably invalid. Does this mean we should discard everything they are saying? No! So let us take a look at that next.
Racism in Light of the Bible
When it comes to a proper view of the wickedness of racism, the Christian man or woman rooted in God and His Word can confidently say it is wrong, and when asked why, we can give a logical, sound reason for it! Granted, liberals and others who refuse to acknowledge the existence of an all powerful, entirely holy, unchanging God will say this is not valid.
But as we have already proven, they are going to take a stance on it that, while lighter than the one I believe we as Christians should be taking, is still entirely rooted in Scripture even as they deny the God that makes their argument in any way valid or accurate. Let us review now why we can make a valid, logical, and substantiated claim that racism is wicked from a Biblical worldview.
Points Against Racism from a Biblical Worldview
- The Bible does not recognize any “race” but the human race. It has plenty of nations and tribes or peoples, as they are sometimes called, but race does not enter the equation. Anyone who says that a person who looks different them on the grounds of skin color or appearance is a different race? They are patently wrong and ignoring the fact that God did not make more than one human race. He made Adam and Eve as the father and mother of the human race, and we all descend from them. (Genesis 3:20)
- Christ was inclusive of people of all colors, tribes, and nations. In Jewish society, outsiders (or Gentiles) were looked down on. People like the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip spoke to and baptized in Acts would be considered lesser than a Jew. Worse than that, anyone who was of mixed Jewish and Gentile heritage was hated or despised more than a Gentile would be. And yet, Jesus came to die for all peoples, tribes, and nations. He did not die for just Jews, and He makes that clear time and again, even though the Jews did not understand it. More than that, lest anyone miss that point, Paul and others, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote to the Jews and Gentiles both and reminded them that Christ died for men of all types, not just for their group and no other. (Acts 10:34-43; Acts 15:7-11; John 4:1-41; Romans 3:21-30)
- The Bible is very clear we should do unto others as we would have done unto us (the same argument liberals use while denying that it was God that said it!), and so if we would not want our friends in another color group to attack us, enslave us, hurt us, or deride us simply because of what color we are, then we had best not do it to them. (Matthew 7:12)
These are all very good reasons why we should not have a mentality that divides people into other races just because they are not the same color as we are. But there are some even bigger problems with a Christian who endorses anything like the American or British versions of slavery or who has a racist mentality. So here are some clear sins we would be committing if we did approve of racism.
The Ugly Reality of the Sins Behind Racism
- The sin of hatred. Jesus calls hatred committing murder in our hearts. It is the inward attitude or heart problem that may, in some cases lead to committing the physical act of murder, and the Bible takes it very, very seriously. A Christian who commits this act of inward murder in the mind and heart is a Christian who is not obeying the command to love those around them. So in hating someone else because of skin color, we would then be committing sins of both commission (hating when we are told not to) and omission (failing to love when we are told to). (Matthew 5:21-26)
- The sin of pride. Proverbs has all kinds of things to say about this, all of them negative! Most notable are the verses where God says he resists the proud and gives grace to the humble or the point in Proverbs where Solomon through God’s inspiration writes that there is more hope of a fool than a man wise in his own eyes. God hates pride. Pride was the sin that ultimately got Satan kicked out of heaven along with all the angels who joined him in it. It is deadly, it is destructive, and it is ugly. In the case of discriminating against another because of their skin color, pride yet again rears its ugly head as the individual doing the discrimination is literally saying, I’m better than you because I’m part of this group and not your group. It says, you do not deserve to be treated with respect and dignity or with love and kindness because you are beneath me. What a wicked attitude to have! (Psalm 10:4; Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 11:12; Proverbs 8:13; Proverbs 16:5; Proverbs 26:12; Isaiah 14: 12-15; Daniel 5:20; Obadiah 1:3; Mark 7:20-23; Luke 14:11)
- The sin of blasphemy. When I first saw this connected to racism, I admit I was a bit confused. How is being racist blasphemous against God? Blasphemy is when we talk about God in an irreverent or sacrilegious way. When we look at another human being in disgust, we are in essence telling the world and God that He had it wrong. We are maligning His character, if you want to think of it that way, because we are looking at the amazing creativity God had in creating us with so many variations and beautiful differences in appearance and saying, God, if I were you, I wouldn’t have done it like this. We are now turning our pride on God and saying, I could’ve done it better than You did, so let me tell you how it should’ve been done. What a dangerous place to be! Even if we don’t recognize it as such, looking at another of God’s creatures with such contempt and disgust solely on the grounds of color and appearance they were given from birth, which they had no control over, requires us then to make a statement on God’s design. Because if the human beings we hate for being black, white, red, yellow, or any other skin color under the sun had no control over how they were made, then our statement of poor design can only reflect upon the designer, not the work of art. God’s design was always for us to dwell in peace with Him and our fellow men. Sin has broken that fellowship and peace between all parties, but we are still called to live peaceably with all men as much as lies within us (Romans 12:18). While no specific Bible verse is going to tell you it is blasphemy, an attitude that says God got it wrong denies the very nature of God, His plan, and His Word, all of which is blasphemy for a believer to say.
So we see that there are three very insidious sins involved in the actions and attitudes of a person who is truly racist. Those attitudes of hate, blasphemy, and pride are all sins, and they should be addressed as such.
The Practical Use of This
When next you are speaking to a non-Christian on the topic of racism, I challenge you to present it from this light. This is an opportunity to take a stand against sin. In this case, while the world may hate us and shame us for not condoning more sin in response to individuals’ sins already committed (by which I refer to the growing push to punish/demand restitution from all whites across the board, even if they genuinely have done nothing wrong, under the belief that they are at fault for everything wrong with the Black community as a result of their ancestry), we still have an incredible opportunity to stand up and speak out.
We can stop applauding the wrong philosophies of the world around us while still affirming that God has called His people to love those around us, even if they hate us and spitefully abuse us. We can stop applauding an attitude of hatred on both sides while still affirming that racism is wicked and wrong.
But more than that, this provides an amazing opportunity to challenge an unbeliever to reconsider their views on God. As we have seen, the belief in evolution has contributed in so many ways to an worldview that logically would promote racism and offers those who already desire to engage in that heinous attitude an excuse to do so without guilt.
So this is an opportunity to both find common ground and also to challenge them. You can agree with them that racism is wrong, but then ask them why they think so. Ask them what the reasoning behind this is. Listen to them. Be thoughtful, respectful, and considerate. But push for answers. It is always acceptable to keep asking “But why” or to say “But if you believe this, then why don’t you believe this is/isn’t okay?”.
Making People Angry
These questions will probably make people mad, even if you ask it as kindly and gently as possible. I have been told many times that reasoning in this way and asking the question “Why is racism wrong” after having done so makes my question invalid and undeserving of an answer. But despite what the culture might wish to say or insist on, they are valid questions to ask and do deserve an answer.
The culture around us demands an answer of us. Why can we not also ask an answer of them, especially if we do it far more kindly and gently than they often have? There is a double standard, and if we play by their rules instead of using the brains and the tools God gave us to combat philosophies that are stealing our young people and deceiving those around us, we are going to lose. Stop playing by their rules! They do not want to be held to their own standards of reasoning, but they should be, and it is time we started to do so respectfully but firmly while refusing to reason from a faulty premise to satisfy those who wish to walk in darkness.
In many cases, these questions can open the door for you to witness to people who otherwise never would have considered listening to a Christian, as well. If you are able to have an honest conversation, help them to understand you aren’t approaching them in pride (if that is not true, it is better you do not approach them at all), and point out the problems with their perspectives, the chances are much greater that they will be open to hearing you out, and in the process, God can use you to work on their hearts. He cannot do that if you are rude, combative, and entirely un-Christian even as you may be factually correct.
Pray
Most importantly, pray. Pray for those that God gives you chances to be a light to. Ask Him to work on their hearts. It is not for us to save, only to take every opportunity God brings to us to be the salt and the light to a dying, lost world. Let us do that by taking the truth to that dying, lost world in love and refusing to let go of them. They may scream, they may rage, they may call us names or refuse to listen. Perhaps when you ask if you can pray for them, they will say no.
Pray anyway. Ultimately, while we need to understand the truths I have gone through above, and we need to have an answer to give for the hope that is in us and the things that we believe, prayer is our greatest weapon. We can speak the truth in love until we are blue in the face, but if God does not change the hearts to receive that truth, then we will still see no fruit. So while we are doing the active part God has called us to play, let us not forget that prayer is also an action and must not be ignored.
Taking Their Claims Head On
I hope this has been an encouragement and, perhaps even, an eye-opener for those of you who are believers. We do have answers for the lost, dying world around us. We do have answers for our young people if we will only live the way we are asking them to. If we will address our culture’s false claims and Satan’s lures on our young people with Scripture and guide them to see the beauty in a life surrendered totally to God, we are going to lose far fewer of them to the temporary pleasures of sin and the world’s system.
Furthermore, at times, those around us who are condemning us so roundly for what we believe are actually in agreement with us without even knowing it. This includes both children who have already begun to reject our message in favor of what they are hearing at school, from peers, or from society as well as others around us who are part of that society and culture. We can find incredible opportunities to use that common ground, where it may exist, as a way to be the light God may use to open their eyes.
No Quarter for Compromise on Scripture
This is not to say we should conform to the world or create common ground by compromising on Scripture. That is unacceptable if we are to live a set-apart life, holy in the eyes of God. However, if that agreement or common ground already exists beforehand when you are simply following what Scripture says, take advantage of that to show them the why behind what they are claiming to believe. Most probably have no idea that the moral values they hold have Scriptural backing but no backing in the socially acceptable, evolutionary viewpoint of today’s society.
But even if we are unable to stand on any common ground in our witnessing to individuals around us, we still can rest secure in the fact that we have a sovereign God who is still on the throne and that our God has not asked us to do the impossible but only to go to those around us with the hand of love extended and the truth on our lips.
Conclusion
It is time for us to reclaim the Church for God, to see a revival like we see in history’s pages happen today, and to stop letting the culture inform us on how we can be Christians in name without offending anyone by being Christians in reality. We please God, not man. He has given us the answers for a morally bankrupt society if we will only stand on those truths, exemplify them in our lives, and pass them along to the next generation. God help us all, in whatever stage of life we may be in, to do our part in achieving that God-focused goal in our life.
