Review and lnteiaction ovei Black and Tan

Te following posts aie the ielevant contiibutions to a discussion between Douglas

Wilson and Tabiti Anyabwile iegaiding Wilson`s book Black and Tan, addiessing topics
ianging fiom slaveiy in the Ameiican South, the Civil Wai, iacism, and ieconciliation.
Mateiials peitinent to the conveisation but not within the fow of discussion have
been put in to the Appendix as supplemental ieading.
Blog comments have not been included (except one) simply due to the volume of ma-
teiial that would pioduce. Te conveisation in the comments was helpful and meaningful
at times, but this editoi did not judge them to be essential to the piogiess of discussion.
1
Contents
1 e Other 4
2 Bryan Loritts Critiques Doug Wilson 6
3 With a Bit of Menthol 7
4 What? 2013 Already? 10
5 Why Respond Publicly to Douglas Wilsons Black and Tan? 14
6 All in the Original Hebrew 16
7 Douglas Wilsons View on Race, Racism, Slavery and the Bible 17
8 Does the Driving Logic of Black and Tan Hold Up? 21
9 Patrick Nostradamus Henry 25
10 Slavery and the Bible: e Perspective of is Abolitionist 30
11 Love Is Never Later 36
12 Sometimes the Exceptions Reveal How Far Weve Gone with the Rule 39
13 Adoni-bezeks umbs and Toes 43
14 e Cost of Our Chosen Entanglements 48
15 Water is icker an Blood 51
16 Resisting the Slavers 54
17 e Histories of the American South: A Caution against Hegemonies 55
18 With Jello in My Hair 60
19 Another Point Where Wilson and I Almost Entirely Agree: On Doing His-
tory and Multiculturalism 63
20 A Good Luck Wave Wont Cut It 68
21 Illustrating Racial Insensitivity in Black and Tan 71
22 Harder an It Looks 79
2
23 A eology of Apology 84
24 I Can Be Insensitive, Too 87
25 Once More Into the Breach: Pushing Toward Reconciliation 88
26 Trigger Alert Study Bible 91
27 Oh, So Close And Yet So Far Away 94
28 Another Rose Hedge Awaits 97
29 Hecklers Gonna Heck 98
30 A Black and Tan Round-Up 102
31 What Do the Noseguard and the Center Talk About? 106
32 Nothing In My Experience Like It 113
33 A Final Wrap-Up: abiti Anyabwile and Douglas Wilson 114
A How Koinonia Conquers 118
B e Designated Ambition Pole 126
C e Current Battle for Richmond 128
D Blending of church cultures reects vision of God 130
Compiled and lightly foimaued voluntaiily by Jacob Young. Oiiginal foimauing is kept neaily ex-
actly as they weie posted. All Sciiptuie iefeiences have been footnoted foi convenience using the
ESV. lf theie aie editoiial issues needing coiiection, please contact me at JacobYoung84gmail.com.
All content issue aie to be diiected to the authois.
3
1 e Other
Bryan Crawford Loris
1
March 7th, 2013
Now l know how these things go. Raiely does anyone thiow up theii hands and
confess that they lost an intellectual spaiiing match, especially when the venue is oh so
peimanent like the inteinet. But l don`t plan on geuing into intellectual hst-a-cuns with
Pastoi Douglas Wilson ovei his book Black and Tan Essays and excuisions on slaveiy,
cultuie wai, and Sciiptuie in Ameiica. Tat`s not deep enough.
l was moved to teais as l consumed the pages of this book. My teais didn`t come
because l found Pastoi Wilson`s book to be insightful, oi a liteiaiy toui de foice. Rathei,
l was moved in gieat soiiow ovei the extieme insensitivity of not just a Chiistian, but
a well known pastoi whom God has allowed to have a national platfoim, speaking into
the lives of many. Suie l felt angei at hist when Pastoi Wilson desciibed himself as a
paleo-Confedeiate (p.80), and my heait iate only escalated fuithei when he iebuked the
19th centuiy iadical abolitionist`s" foi being wicked and staiting the Civil Wai, because
afei all what was needed was not iadical iefoimation, but patience, to simply let the seed
of the gospel subveisively dismantle the institution of slaveiy (p.4).
Patience` Really`
As l iead, my mind went back to my gieat-gieat giandfathei who woiked the planta-
tions of Asheville, Noith Caiolina. l`d love to know Petei`s thoughts on whethei oi not he
should`ve been patient, especially when the veiy context of those who owned slaves took
place among those who claimed to have embiaced the gospel. Be patient with those who
iape youi wife and dignity` Patient with those who beat youi backs, shackle youi feet,
cut on limbs, divide youi family and at times even lynch youi body leaving it to hang as
Stiange Fiuit" fiom southein tiees with a ceitain pait of youi anatomy shoved in youi
mouth because you daied to look at oi talk to a white woman`
l should hope Pastoi Wilson doesn`t do the bulk of pastoial counseling at his chuich.
He may want to engage me in an intellectual debate ovei how evil the institution of
slaveiy actually was and whethei oi not the atiocities l just cited weie the noim, but that`s
not my point. Let`s say he`s iight, and that we`ve been fed a bunch of lies, that slaveiy
wasn`t as bad as we`ve been told. Okay, you`ve got the coinei maiked on tiuth (which l
don`t believe), but you may be cognitively iight, yet emotionally wiong at the same time.
Any husband who`s been maiiied foi any peiiod of time knows this. You can win and
lose the aigument all at once. As one who`s won his shaie of debates with his wife, l can
tell you that lawyei mode doesn`t woik too well in maiiiage, because what Koiie needs
to feel is that l caie foi hei.
Tat`s what Black and Tan is missing. And heie`s wheie l want to lif the conveisation
fiomPastoi Wilson to the bioadei community. Wheie does such insensitivity come fiom`
What`s the bieeding giound that gives biith to villainizing the abolitionist`s who fought
1
hup//www.fellowshipmemphis.oig/biyanloiius/`p213
4
foi and haiboied us` What leads one to say that Abiaham Lincoln (as impeifect as he
was), was the most famous white supiemacist" of the 19th centuiy (he was not squeaky
clean when it came to his peisonal thoughts and statements on iace, but l think you see
my point- Wilson goes a bit fai, p.8)` And how does Pastoi Wilson get away with saying
that we should considei whethei oi not it`s safei to be a black child in the womb in 188
oi in 200`
l was pieaching on foigiveness at a well known white chuich iecently. l happened
to use an illustiation that centeied on iace, but made the bioadei point of foigiveness.
At the end of my message l was shaking hands, and an oldei white man came foiwaid
and said to me, When will black people just get ovei it`" l simply iesponded by saying,
Sii, you don`t have any ieally close black fiiends do you`" He looked at me foi a few
seconds and ieluctantly agieed. l then went onto tell him that while he maybe iight-
and many of my biotheis and sisteis fiom the Afiican Diaspoia do need to confess theii
biueiness and leain to foigive- his insensitivity betiayed an unseuling tiuth- he didn`t
have ielationships, meaningful ones with the Othei. You can always tell those who do,
foi while they don`t shy away fiom the tiuth, they say it in ways that aie diipping with
compassion and giace, auiibutes missing fiom Pastoi Wilson`s book.
Down the stieet fiom Memphis sits Ole Miss. Recently, a bit of a iuckus took place
theie ovei the issue of theii mascot, and the Rebel Flag. ln the middle of the stoim" l
happened to be playing golf with an alumnus of the school, who`s a iaving fan who also
happens to be white. Dumbfounded he exhaled, l don`t see what the big deal is, it`s just a
name, a fag." lt`s no suipiise that he doesn`t have any meaningful ielationships with the
othei eithei. He just sees things fiom his side of the tiacks, and has nevei botheied to get
into the skin of the Othei. lf he did, he would see the big deal, because to the descendants
of slaves that fag incites angei and huit.
l`m going to go out on a limb and guess that again this is Pastoi Wilson`s pioblem.
Moscow, ldaho, in the woids of Eddie Muiphy, doesn`t seem to be a ieal populai place
with the biuthas". l could be wiong. But something tells me that if he would have sent his
manusciipt out to close and tiusted Afiican Ameiican fiiends of his, the hnished pioduct
would have felt a lot dineient, if it would have made it to piint afei all.
How does iacial insensitivity continue to fouiish, especially in the evangelical woild`
We just iefuse to get to know the Othei.
You know what saddens me as l wiite these woids` Once again, it`s a black man who
is ciying foi help heie, wondeiing wheie my white evangelical advocates aie` Maybe
conveisations have alieady taken place and Pastoi Wilson has been confionted. Maybe,
the ciicles that he iuns in- veiy piominent ones l might add- those who sit on those boaids
have told him to knock it on. But the fact that l don`t know these things, that l as a black
man in 2013 am wondeiing wheie my white biotheis aie who will have my back heie tells
me we haven`t come as fai as we can.
l just.l just want someone to caie enough to stick up foi me. Someone who doesn`t
look like me.

2 Bryan Loritts Critiques Doug Wilson

Phillip Holmes
2
March 8, 2013
Recently Biyan Loiius, pastoi of Fellowship Memphis, ieleased a blog entitled Te
Othei" wheie he shaie his thoughts on Doug Wilson`s book Black and Tan. Heie is the
opening paiagiaph
Now l know how these things go. Raiely does anyone thiow up theii hands
and confess that they lost an intellectual spaiiing match, especially when the
venue is oh so peimanent like the inteinet. But l don`t plan on geuing into
intellectual hst-a-cuns with Pastoi Douglas Wilson ovei his book Black and
Tan Essays and excuisions on slaveiy, cultuie wai, and Sciiptuie in Ameiica.
Tat`s not deep enough.
l was moved to teais as l consumed the pages of this book. My teais didn`t
come because l found Pastoi Wilson`s book to be insightful, oi a liteiaiy toui
de foice. Rathei, l was moved in gieat soiiowovei the extieme insensitivity of
not just a Chiistian, but a well known pastoi whom God has allowed to have
a national platfoim, speaking into the lives of many. Suie l felt angei at hist
when Pastoi Wilson desciibed himself as a paleo-Confedeiate (p.80), and my
heait iate only escalated fuithei when he iebuked the 19th centuiy iadical
abolitionist`s" foi being wicked and staiting the Civil Wai, because afei all
what was needed was not iadical iefoimation, but patience, to simply let the
seed of the gospel subveisively dismantle the institution of slaveiy (p.4).
Loiius latei wiites
He may want to engage me in an intellectual debate ovei how evil the insti-
tution of slaveiy actually was and whethei oi not the atiocities l just cited
weie the noim, but that`s not my point. Let`s say he`s iight, and that we`ve
been fed a bunch of lies, that slaveiy wasn`t as bad as we`ve been told. Okay,
you`ve got the coinei maiked on tiuth (which l don`t believe), but you may
be cognitively iight, yet emotionally wiong at the same time. Any husband
who`s been maiiied foi any peiiod of time knows this. You can win and lose
the aigument all at once. As one who`s won his shaie of debates with his wife,
l can tell you that lawyei mode doesn`t woik too well in maiiiage, because
what Koiie needs to feel is that l caie foi hei.
You can iead the iest of the aiticle heie.
l was moved by Loiiu`s pastoial ciitique of Wilson. He assessed that the coldness oi
lack of concein foi the othei" piobably lies in the fact that ieal ielationships with Blacks
2
hup//www.iaanetwoik.oig/2013/03/biyan-loiius-ciitiques-doug-wilson/

don`t exist foi Wilson. l`m tempted to agiee with Loiius. l know a few people (who
happen to love Wilson) who lack deep ielationships with Blacks yet speak haishly and
quickly with bioad geneializations about Black people. Most of the time, the content of
theii iemaiks weie not necessaiily what got to me, but the tone. Tey simply wanted it
to be known that Black people had pioblems and White people weie not to blame foi all
of them. l felt like they ieally did not caie about my biotheis, my kinsmen accoiding to
the fesh (Romans 93).
We aie all guilty of this. lt is easy foi us to speak haishly of those with whom we
have no ielationship. And Blacks do it to Whites just as much as Whites do it to Blacks.
As l alluded to yesteiday, this tension between dineient iaces and classes hnds its ioots
deep in the cievices of the heait. We feai and think the woist of those of whom we aie
ignoiant.
But now we aie called to wage wai against those evil thoughts and judgments that
cause us to act with piejudice towaid those who aie dineient. How` We must embiace
the Gospel.
ln the Gospel, we hnd Jesus, who enteis into ielationship with the sinful human iace
and saves the Chuich fiomwiath and destiuction. He doesn`t distance Himself and thiow
tiuth bombs at us. No, He is a sympathetic high piiest who inteicedes on oui behalf
(Hebiews 41). Te Gospel demands that we entei into ielationship with the othei."
Why` Jesus enteied into ielationship with us and He calls us to no less.
3 With a Bit of Menthol
Douglas Wilson
3
March 8, 2013
As eveiyone knows by now, one of my veiy favoiite activities is defending myself
against chaiges of iacism and/oi iacial insensitivity on the lnteinet. l have decided that
this will be peiiodically necessaiy, at least until l die, but l auiibute this moie to cosmic
foices than to any nefaiious plot on the pait of anyone. Te kaimic kickback appeais to
involve the ongoing cultuie wai debate about homosexuality somehow. My last go-iound
was with Anthony Biadley, aiound the time of the Bloomington showdown, and this liule
fandango
4
was iight afei my debate with Andiew Sullivan.
Since the homosexual thing isn`t going anywheie, and since l do not intend to shut up
about it, l anticipate that l will also be explaining that l believe iacism to be a giievous,
gospel-denying sin, iight up until the wateis of the iivei Joidan aie lapping at the toes of
my boots. lf you want to get Chiistians to apologize foi ceitain veises in Leviticus, what
beuei way than to stait by geuing them to apologize foi other veises in Leviticus` But l
digiess.
3
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/with-a-bit-of-menthol.html
4
Biyan Ciawfoid Loiius, Te Othei".

So theie aie ieasonable and good ieasons why l will have to give this explanation fiom
heie on out, and l do not iesent it. lt is spiiitually healthy foi one, at least foi one such as
myself, to be ieminded fiom time to time that a numbei of the saints out theie think l am
a blockhead. lt is soit of biacing, with a bit of menthol in it.
l was iecently involved in an exchange with a South Afiican fiiend, who had explained
that, in his ciicles, as soon as he acknowledged that blacks should be able to come to the
Loid`s Table in an all-white chuich, he would be immediately tagged. "l am a libeial."
To which anothei fiiend iesponded, "Be a libeial then." Tis is a sentiment with which l
enthusiastically agiee, piovided we aie also willing to say, in a libeial seuing, that as soon
as he expiesses opposition to the oidination of piacticing homosexuals, and the inevitable
accusation comes that "he is a iacist," the godly exhoitation to him will be, "Be a iacist
then."
Of couise, in the sight of God, we should be neithei. But we aie not talking about
what we aie willing to be, but iathei what we aie willing to be called. lf we aie seeking
to be faithful to God and His Woid, we should not give a iip about what aibitiaiy labels
and values aie auached to us by anybody else. As my fathei iecently said at oui Sabbath
dinnei, " No sense dying with a good ieputation." My daughtei asked him, "You think you
have a good ieputation, giandpa`" "Beuei than it ought to be," he said.
l have said foi some time that Ameiica is long oveidue foi an adult conveisation about
iace. And by adult conveisation, l do not mean white people being pationizing and telling
blacks to "get ovei it," and l do not mean piivileged blacks playing the victim caid a lot
moie pooily than did theii giandpaients, who weie the actual victims of a lot moie stupid
gunk. Please note that this is not a stiident defense of any contempoiaiy gunk.
l giew up in a segiegated city, one that had one school system foi blacks and one foi
whites. Te 194 Civil Rights case came down when l was eleven yeais old. l went to
the white elementaiy school, and to the old black high school as a middle school afei
integiation. A numbei of white families bailed as pait of the "white fight" towaid piivate
education. My fathei iefused to have anything to do that, a stand foi which oui family
has always been the iight kind of pioud. We lived iight smack in the middle of that
potboilei called sixties iace ielations, and we weie with the good guys. l went to the white
elementaiy school a mile oi two away, and my sistei, thiee yeais youngei, was viitually
the only white kid in hei elementaiy school just down the hill fiom us. l theiefoie don`t
appieciate men who make a point of telling us they know about the damage that can be
caused by supeihcial judgments, but who go ahead and make them anyway because the
colois aie dineient, but eveiy bit as supeihcial.
Unfoitunately, the moie we have a need foi an adult conveisation, the less capable
we seem to be of actually having one. Foi a conveisation needs to have moie involved
in it than one side venting giievances, oi the othei side blithely pietending that nothing
bad evei happened. Teie aie whites who do that, but l have not been in theii numbei.
A conveisation needs to have both sides able to talk, it needs both sides to speak with
iespect, and it needs both sides to listen with iespect. Te only way this is possible is
thiough the blood of Jesus Chiist, in whom all iacial bigotiies and iesentments must die.
8
So, speaking of having such a conveisation, let me ieiteiate the invitation that l gave
to Anthony Biadley when this issue suifaced the last time. Tis invitation goes to Biyan
Loiius, Tabiti Anyabwile, and Eiic Mason, and is ieissued to Anthony Biadley. You aie
welcome to fy to Moscowat anytime, on oui dime, in oidei to have that conveisation. We
can have it in public oi in piivate, and it will be a conveisation, not a biawl. lf you come
out we will hnd oi cieate a venue foi you to ministei to us, and that will be in addition
to oui conveisation. lf that won`t woik out, then why don`t you issue me an invitation to
come have that conveisation wheie you aie` l will do what l can to make it.
Te conveisation should centei on the blood of Chiist. Te blood of Jesus makes it
possible foi the white bigot to iepent of his idiotic sense of supeiioiity. One of the things
that the cioss of Jesus ciucihes is eveiy foim of pieening iacial conceit. lt astounds me
that theie aie people who think that l don`t believe that.
Te blood of Jesus also makes it possible foi the white libeial to iepent of his exas-
peiating and cloying insistence on a sof bigotiy of low expectations, coupled with his
destiuctive subsidies of all the wiong things in the black community. But the blood of
Jesus makes it possible foi the libeial to iepent of Maigaiet Sangei`s wai on black chil-
dien in utero. ln addition, it iequiies that he iepent of celebiating, and giving awaids to,
those iap thugs who want to teach Ameiica`s next geneiation to think of black women
as bitches and ho`s who aie supposed to be beneath contempt. ln the face of this demoli-
tion job being iun on the black family by piogiessivism, with black childien killed by the
million, and black women publicly degiaded by black men, and othei black men standing
by leuing them, let`s get out theie and iebuke the thiee iemaining people who think that
Robeit E. Lee was an honoiable man. Way to keep the piioiities stiaight.
Biotheis, l don`t have a pioblem with you standing up foi and piotecting youi people.
l do have a pioblem with youi failure to do so.
Te blood of Jesus makes it possible foi those many blacks who have expeiienced
genuine hostility, animosity, mistieatment, and injustice at the hands of whites to foigive
theii enemies as Jesus taught all Chiistians to do. Teie has been much to foigive, and
may God iichly bless eveiy saint who has been enabled by the giace of God to do so.
Te blood of Jesus enables ceitain othei blacks to iepent of theii oppoitunism. l speak
of those who play the peipetual victimeven though they have nevei expeiienced anything
woise than a two-day delay in theii most iecent amimative action piomotion. Tese aie
blacks who yell at those who judge them foi the content of theii chaiactei iathei than the
coloi of theii skin, like somebody is supposed to have said once. l think it was supposed
to have been impoitant, but l am not suie anymoie. Oppoitunism is a sin to iepent of,
and it is one of those things that makes an adult conveisation about iace so dimcult. But
the fact that many people can`t anoid to say anything about it doesn`t mean they can`t
see it.
And incidentally, if someone takes the fact that l wiote the pievious paiagiaph as cleai
evidence that l could not have wiiuen the one befoie that, then that someone is being a
big demonstiation of the kind of pioblemwe have. Such folks aie not inteiested in histoiy
as it happened, but aie big fans of histoiy that "huits theii feelings."
9
And this shows the shif fiom an eailiei chaige that l am a iacist to this iecent chaige
that l am iacially insensitive. Te chaige of iacism is haidei to piove because theie aie
still some people out theie who think that such a chaige should be backed up with some
soit of objective veiihcation. But iacial insensitivity can easily be demonstiated, simple
pimple, by the one making the chaige being huit oi giieved, and who aie we to say he
isn`t`
But l would nonetheless like to take this oppoitunity to ieply something along the
lines of ha! to both chaiges. lf chaiged with iacial felonies, oi iacial misdemeanois, l
don`t have to woiiy about it. l can go to bed tonight, as l will do, with my conscience
functioning as one of those new pillows that stay funed up all night, enveloped in a ciisp,
white pillow case, iight out of the diyei. And lest anybody make anything of the fact that
l said white pillow case, l will simply obseive that this what coloi they usually aie.
So then, theie is the backdiop. l took as long to iespond to Biyan Loiius` post ieview-
ing my book Black & Tan because l was on the ioad, and the place we weie staying had
lnteinet that was down among the wines and spiiits. When it comes to inteiacting with
how he misiepiesented my statements and position, l will be biief. lf you want to iead at
length, the book is heie. lf you just want to know what l think about iacism, iacial malice
oi iacial vaingloiy, this one quote will give you a taste. Teie aie many otheis thioughout
the book.
"All sin, if it is indeed sin, is sin against God. lt is God`s chaiactei and law
which aie onended by sin. We maintain that iacism is a sin against God, and
that it will be judged in the light of His holiness at the last day . . . God
hates it and He always will . . . Tis means that iegeneiation, in the sense
l am speaking of heie, must include iejection of eveiy foim of iacial hatied,
animosity oi vaingloiy" (Black & Tan, location 23n).
To hnish, let me state that my eailiei invitation to meet and conveise was sinceie and
genuine. No guile. lf someone thinks l have grace and race mixed up, l invite them to tell
me they think that. But l would like them to look me stiaight in the eye when they do.
4 What? 2013 Already?
Douglas Wilson

March 10 2013
Agood question aiose in the comments of my pievious post, and l thought an adequate
ieply to it needed some ioom to spiead out. lt is a gieat question, and it illustiates why
this discussion is not equivalent to an iiielevant auempt to get a do-ovei of some ancient
baule oi othei.

hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/what-2013-alieady.html
10
Tis whole issue is impoitant, and it is impoitant because it has to do with whethei
evangelical Chiistians aie going to be honest with the Woid of God, which is oui only
weapon and oui only hope. Whenevei we play cute liule mind games with the Sciiptuies,
we aie not going to be able to do anything authoiitative with it in the next moment. Te
Bible is the swoid of the Spiiit, but that is no ieason foi us to tiy to hght with it still in
the scabbaid. l hope my meaning will become cleaiei in a few moments.
So heie is the question fiom David Bayly
"A question ielated to this occuiied to me in ieading about youi debate ovei
homosexual maiiiage. lf slaveiy is ofen used as a wedge auack against Chiis-
tianity by atheists and theie is a need to be tiue to Sciiptuie on the issue,
wouldn`t polygamy fall into a similai categoiy` l iealize these aie piudential
cases, but l wondei if it might not be wise to take the same tack in both cases`"
Te answei is yes, it does fall into the same geneial categoiy, and l do want to take the
same tack. But if l might hll in the question somewhat, wheie do l get on using the
polygamy-is-coming aigument on someone like Andiew Sullivan, when the Bible deals
with polygamy in much the same way that it dealt with slaveiy` Why do l use polygamy
as the unthinkable, scaiy option when debating homosexuals, and not do the same kind
of thing with the slaveiy texts`
And the iesponse is that l am tieating them the same way. Tis question piesents
us with a gieat way of undeistanding what is going on in the cultuie aiound us. Teie
is a distinction between undeistanding what the Bible says to those who aie boin into a
society alieady chaiacteiized by slaveiy and polygamy, and what it says to societies that
aie fiee of them.
Asociety chaiacteiized by polygamy can only be biought out of that condition slowly.
Te leaven woiks thiough the loaf giadually. Once fiee of that condition, nothing but a
gieat apostasy can take a cultuie back to that unfoitunate condition. ln a similai way, a
society chaiacteiized by slaveiy can only be biought out of that condition by that same
leaven. Once out of it, nothing but a gieat apostasy can take that cultuie back into a
condition wheie slaveiy is common.
What my adveisaiies have wanted to do is dishonestly equate my insistence on a
biblical way of geuing out of a sinful situation with a peiveise desiie to get us all back
into it.
lf you aie the hist missionaiy to a village, and you lead the chief and his thiee wives
to the Loid and baptize them all, what do you do then` Te utopian peifectionist would
have the two youngest wives shot, but even though it hxes the polygamy pioblem it still
doesn`t seem iight somehow. So what do you do` You exclude the chief fiom chuich
leadeiship, tell him to piovide foi his thiee wives, teach him not to add any moie to the
numbei, and you addiess the cultuial pioblem this piesents by means of auiition, ovei
the couise of time. Refoimation, not ievolution. Refoimation, not acquiescence.
lf you aie the hist missionaiy to Ephesus, what do you do when some slave-owneis
and theii slaves aie both conveited` Nowheie is the amazing thing we dont have to guess.
11
Te Bible teaches us what to do, ovei and ovei. Fuithei, if we aie unable oi unwilling to
acknowledge what the Bible teaches on this social pioblem, then we will be absolutely
impotent when it comes to addiessing any other social pioblem. And why` Because
the pioblem is not pagans doing what pagans do, it is iathei Chiistians iefusing to do
what God tells us to do. Oui pioblem is Chiistians who aie sheepish about the Bible.
And Chiistians who aie sheepish about the Bible do not hx any pioblems; they are the
pioblem.
When we aie confionted with a dispaiity between the way a society is and the way
a society ought to be, and if we undeitake the task of geuing fiom the piesent condition
to a beuei condition, we had beuei do it in just the way Sciiptuie says to do it. lt is not
enough to point to some utopian futuie with Bible veises amxed to it, and claimthat that`s
what you aie biinging in. Bible-quoting fanatics have made moie than one hellhole on
eaith that way. ln oidei to ushei the kingdom in, the ieal one that Jesus talked about, we
have to do it the way we weie instiucted. We have to be obedient. We have to caie moie
about what Sciiptuie teaches than we do about what otheis say about us. We have to
be ieady to iejoice when men (who, speaking fiankly, ought to know beuei) say teiiible
things about us.
So what does it say` Te gospel came into a pagan woild full of slaves. Te Bible also
desciibes a futuie foi that woild in which all such slaveiy would be eiadicated. But the
Sciiptuies do not give us two x`s on the map, and then tell us to make oui way fiom one
place to anothei in "whatevei mannei" seems best to us. Te gospel came into a woild
full of slaves, and within that hist geneiation, the chuich was alieady dealing with slaves
and slave-owneis as communicant membeis of the same church. Gieat. Now what`
Unfoitunately foi those people who want the Bible to be coy about such social issues,
the Bible is nothing of the kind. We aie taught, in plain Gieek, what to do about slaves
and masteis (doulos and kurios). And iunning any of them out of the chuich was not one
of the options.
"Let as many seivants as aie undei the yoke count theii own masteis woithy
of all honoui, that the name of God and his doctiine be not blasphemed. And
they that have believing masteis, let them not despise them, because they aie
biethien; but iathei do them seivice, because they aie faithful and beloved,
paitakeis of the beneht" (1 Tim. 1-2).
"Seivants, be obedient to them that aie youi masteis accoiding to the fesh,
with feai and tiembling, in singleness of youi heait, as unto Chiist; Not with
eyeseivice, as menpleaseis; but as the seivants of Chiist, doing the will of God
fiom the heait; With good will doing seivice, as to the Loid, and not to men
. . . And, ye masteis, do the same things unto them, foibeaiing thieatening
knowing that youi Mastei also is in heaven; neithei is theie iespect of peisons
with him" (Eph. -,9).
"Seivants, obey in all things youi masteis accoiding to the fesh; not with eye-
seivice, as menpleaseis; but in singleness of heait, feaiing God And whatso-
12
evei ye do, do it heaitily, as to the Loid, and not unto men; Knowing that of
the Loid ye shall ieceive the iewaid of the inheiitance foi ye seive the Loid
Chiist. But he that doeth wiong shall ieceive foi the wiong which he hath
done and theie is no iespect of peisons. Masteis, give unto youi seivants
that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Mastei in heaven"
(Col. 322-41).
lf anyone would like to iead a gloiious and detailed tieatment of the Pauline stiategy
foi dealing with slaveiy, l commend N.T. Wiight`s commentaiy on the book of Philemon
in the Tyndale seiies. Waining Paul`s stiategy played out in slow motion, and did not
iequiie slaughteiing 00,000 people to do it. But that`s not a bug; it`s a featuie.
And we can`t tiy to get away fiomthe Woid of God by claiming that slaveiy in Ameiica
was somehowacioss-the-boaid woise than ancient slaveiy. Te oveiall claimis laughable,
but human natuie being what it is, l do know that in some places it was much woise,
depending on the situation and on the mastei. Bell cuives aie haid to manage, and so
theie can be a lot of swing between one situation and anothei. Shoot, some ancient slaves
and some Ameiican slaves had it much beuei than that Chinese kid cuiiently locked up
in the factoiy that makes ieusable gioceiy bags foi the hipsteis at Whole Foods.
Te giound foi slaveiy in oui seuing was moie capiicious (being iacially-based), but
the legal piotections foi slaves in the ancient woild weie viitually non-existent. Let`s
just giant it was bad in both seuings, and that the Sciiptuies aie ielevant as we seek
to undeistand what to do about it. Te New Testament wiiteis instiuct Chiistians on
how to deal with this gieat social dilemma, and they do so plainly. My cential point is
simply that such instiuctions aie authoiitative foi any Chiistians who hnd themselves in
a compaiable ciicumstance. And if you ignoie what the Bible says to Chiistians in such
ciicumstances, when the teaching is big-E-on-the-eye-chait-plain, you may depend upon
it . . . you will ignoie the Bible elsewheie. You will ignoie it on aboition, on women`s
oidination, on homosexual maiiiage . . . why look at this! ls it 2013 alieady`
Te ignoiant and the malevolent tiy to twist this view of mine into a desiie to get back
to those halcyon days when slaves weie cheap, but slandei iemains slandei whethei it
pioceeds fiom ignoiance oi malice. lf l am a missionaiy dealing with a newly-conveited
polygamist who wants to divoice his most iecent wife, l can (and would) point him to
Ex.2110 without in any way wanting to ieintioduce polygamy in a cultuie which has
been monogamous (thanks to the gospel) foi centuiies. Teie is no way to ieintioduce
polygamy heie now without, as l said, a gieat cultuial apostasy taking place. Te same
goes foi slaveiy. So l want to hght disobedience with obedience, not with a dineient favoi
of disobedience, and obedience begins with ieading the text accurately.
lf you want to tuin Ephesian slaves into employees who get a livable wage because
that doesn`t huit youi feelings so much, suie, go ahead. Make them Hispanic if you want.
Just quit calling it exegesis. Calling it exegesis is what huits my feelings.
So all this is scieamingly ielevant to oui cuiient contioveisies. How` We aie having
to iun with cultuial hoises in oui cuiient cultuie wai debates and most of oui pieach-
eis, tianslatois, piophets, theologians, pundits, sciibes, and bloggeis aie having tiouble
13
keeping up with cultuial old ladies with theii walkeis. ln the cuiient baules, we need to
iecognize that we aie losing them for a reason.
5 Why Respond Publicly to Douglas Wilsons Black
and Tan?
abiti Anyabwile

March 12, 2013

lt`s been a while since l`ve wiiuen anything on the blog. Afei neaily two weeks in
lsiael and a few days at Cedai Spiings Piesbyteiian Chuich foi theii annual missions
confeience, l`m hnally coming out of a biief inteinet hiatus.
l wish l weie ietuining to the blogospheie undei dineient ciicumstances. But last
week l got myself involved in one of the peiiodic inteinet spats that happens among God`s
people. Someone on twiuei asked me what l thought about Biyan Loiiits` lament

ovei
Douglas Wilson`s book Black and Tan, and l iesponded honestly. Heie`s the exchange
DJ Jenkins (DJJenkins) TabitiAnyabwil Have you seen ciitiques of Dou-
glas Wilson`s Black &Tan book by bcloiius &diantbiadley` Any thoughts`
Tabiti Anyabwile (TabitiAnyabwil)
DJJenkins bcloiius diantbiadley l have. l think they`ie both coiiect to
diop the heaviest hammei on such foolishness. l don`t think(1/2)
DJJenkins bcloiius diantbiadley a ciedible way to defend slaveiy ex-
ists. Enoits to do so ieally aie "paleo," as in piimitive. (2/2)
ln ietuin, Doug Wilson iesponded to Biyan Loiius, Anthony Biadley, Eiic Mason and
myself with this post
8
. So, my 280-chaiactei tweet with thiee ietweets has tiiggeied
anothei iound of comments iegaiding Wilson`s Black and Tan.
Now, it`s almost a mauei of evangelical oithodoxy that disagieements ought to be
handled piivately and that ciitics should contact the folks they`ie ciitiquing before they
say anything publicly. No doubt some ieadei has alieady thought that peihaps Loiius`
and my tweets should have nevei occuiied without the pieiequisite piivate confab. Since
that sentiment seems populai in inteinet evangelical ciicles, let me biiefy explain why
l think it`s wiong and why l`m wiiting publicly in this and 3-4 subsequent posts, Loid
willing.

hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/12/why-iespond-publicly-to-douglas-
wilsons-black-and-tan/

Te Othei".
8
With a Bit of Menthol".
14
1. Im writing publicly because Wilsons book is in the public domain, in fact,
freely oered to anyone who wishes to download it. Weie these piivately held opin-
ions, peihaps expiessed in conveisation with a fiiend oi a few acquaintances at a dinnei
paity, they would not be (oi at least should not be) subject mauei in public dialogue. But
theie`s a iathei simple iule in academic and publishing ciicles that l`m suie eveiyone
involved in this undeistands lf you publish something as a mauei of public iecoid, it
then becomes faii game" to ciitique it in public. Public opinions aie subject to public
iesponses. l`m simply keeping with that widely accepted piactice.
2. As far as I know, Wilson has not retracted his book or anything in his book
Black and Tan. Te book itself is a claiihcation and fuithei defense of an eailiei publi-
cation, Southern Slavery: As It Was, which due to some oveisights in piopei citation and
some pioblematic data was pulled fiom ciiculation. So, what we have is a publicly-stated
position defended and maintained, making it an ongoing issue.
3. Im writing publicly to counter, as best I can, what might be called the rot-
ten egg eect in these matters. You piobably became familiai with this enect as a
child. Evei say something like, Te last one to the cai is a iouen egg"` We have an intei-
net veision of this. Te last one to comment publicly is a iouen egg." Tat is, l undeistand
that some people view the hist opinion as unfoitunate" at woist but hold anyone who
ieplies guilty of a moie foul onense (iouen egg). But this inveits the Bible`s teaching,
which says, Te one who states his case hist seems iight, until the othei comes and ex-
amines him" (Piov.181). By silencing the cioss-examination, we leave ouiselves with
only the hist-stated case, which is not always the coiiect position. So, like some oth-
eis, l`m wiiting publicly because it seems to me some haimful positions need addiessing
chaiitably and cleaily, with God`s help.
4. Im writing publicly because I have a pastoral concern for anyone that may
read the book and treat it either as sound in reasoning or an acceptable model for
dealing with controversial subjects and the fallout they inspire. ln my opinion, the
book and iesultant exchanges iepiesent neithei. l`m as liable as anyone to put my foot in
my mouthand l have on numeious occasions. But l hope these posts onei a beuei way
of thinking about some of the issues and a beuei tone while doing so.
5. Finally, Im writing because I need to account for my public statementsin-
cluding tweets, which I know to be a medium far too simplistic for issues this
volatile. Mi. Wilson isn`t the only one needing to give an account. l do, too. And l have
ofen found the demociatic medium of blogs to have a helpful enect to that endit`s othei
pioblems notwithstanding.
So, Loid willing, this week l`ll onei (1) a summaiy of Wilson`s Black and Tan as l
undeistand it; (2) a ciitique of the aigument and methodology; (3) an auempt to explain
why Wilson continues to be liable to the chaige of iacial insensitivity" (at least); and, (4)
1
a shoit ieply to Mi. Wilson`s onei of a meeting. l`m not looking to be sensational oi to
engage in a ihetoiical alley hght. l`m ceitain l`m not Mi. Wilson`s equal when it comes to
ihetoiical jabs and hooks, and l don`t think oui dukin` it out" will actually advance any
undeistanding oi dialogue. l welcome you to the dialogue as well, and hope you`ll join
me in tiying to iaise it in ways that edify.
6 All in the Original Hebrew
Douglas Wilson
9
March 13, 2013
One of the conceins that has been iaised about moi, as Miss Piggy might say, is that l
might be iacially insensitive. Tat is actually a seiious concein, which l hope to addiess
seiiously latei, but l do need to acknowledge at the fiont end that theie aie some senses
and some ways in which l am quite capable of it.
Foi example, l think Cietans aie slowbellies, and need to get a job. And by "get a job"
l mean geuing on theii Caucasian buus and giving Epimenides something else to wiite
about. And l believe that Nietzsche, that pencil-necked white champion of the Man of
Destiny, was afiaid of giils. And if you don`t think his whiteness had a gieat deal to do
with it, then just look at that compensatoiy mustache. l mean, come on. And Heideggei
was a tangled bit of Aiyan nonsense, and scads of white giaduate students with soul
patches aie still quoting him.
What has modein Euiope given the woild` Besides atheism, evolution, opaque pomo
philosopheis, Jew-hatied, bankiupt socialism, holocausts, and woild wais` What is it
with these people`
And they aie such busybodies. Just tiy siuing quietly on youi fiont poich foi a minute,
to smoke a pipe oi something, and they stait bustling aiound like a cheeiy junioi high
camp counseloi ieciuiting people foi Activities. But l don`t want to weave coloiful plastic
biacelets.
Tey aie invisible to themselves. Teii hipstei iionies always go one layei deepei than
they thought it would go. Stun White People like is one of the things that white people
like. Tink about that foi a minute.
But let us not go too fai. Simply being white is a fact of cieation, and we must ac-
knowledge that a benehcent Cieatoi was the one who did it. We may not know why,
and so we must bow in humble acceptance of His insciutable ways. But whiteness is a
function of the Fall. Whiteness is a state of mind. Whiteness is lepiosy of the biain.
Noah`s gieat, gieat giandson was the hist white peison, but it was his gieat giandson
that staited doing the whiteness thing. Te hist indicatoi was the plaid golhng pants, a
dead giveaway evei since. All in the oiiginal Hebiew.
9
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/all-in-the-oiiginal-hebiew.html
1
7 Douglas Wilsons Viewon Race, Racism, Slavery and
the Bible
abiti Anyabwile
10
March 13, 2013
Yesteiday l expiessed my intention to engage Doug Wilson`s views on iace, iacism,
slaveiy and the Bible as expiessed in his book, Black and Tan. l think the hist iesponsibility
of chaiitable engagement is to auempt undeistanding the othei peison`s point-of-view
and to accuiately ielate it to otheis. Without that step, theie can be no ieal exchange. So,
heie is my auempt at seuing foith Wilson`s positions on these subjects, quoting heavily
fiom Wilson himself.
Wilson on Racism
Te hist thing to state, because it has ofen been denied, is that Wilson categoiically
denounces iacism. Te book is ieplete with such denunciations. Heie aie a couple
God cieated the human iace in Adam and Eve, and all of us aie descended fiom them,
and aie theiefoie cousins. Lest the point be missed, we aie also all descended fiom Noah
and his wife (again), and it tuins out we aie all still cousins. Racial vanity and iacial
animosity can hnd no foundation in Sciiptuie" (p. 2).
Ameiican slaveiy had the additional complication of its iacial basis. And so we as
Chiistians, especially as Ameiican Chiistians, must denounce as a mauei of biblical piin-
ciple eveiy foim of iacism, iacial animosity, oi iacial vaingloiy" (p. 38).
l have no inteiest in defending the iacism (in both the Noith and the South) which
was ofen seen as the basic justihcation foi the system, and l do in fact condemn it most
heaitily" (p. 42).
Like iadical abolitionism, all foims of iace hatied oi iacial vaingloiy aie foims of
iebellion against God. Such things aie to be vigoiously opposed because the Woid of God
opposes them. ln biief, God has iaised up all nations fiom one man (Acts 12). We aie
all cousins. And not only aie the iaces connected thiough God`s cieation of Adam, we
aie united (this time in haimony) in the iedemption puichased by the Son of God. `You
aie woithy to take the scioll, and to open its seals; foi You weie slain, and have iedeemed
us to God by youi blood out of eveiy tiibe and tongue and people and nation, and have
made us kings and piiests to oui God; and we shall ieign on the eaith` (Rev. 9-10)" (p.
49).
We shall leave foi a subsequent post why many people still chaige Wilson with being
a iacist. But foi now, in tiying to let Wilson speak foi himself and considei the leuei of
what he wiites, we should let these statements stand as iepiesentative of his position on
10
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/13/doug-wilsons-views-on-iace-iacism-
slaveiy-and-the-bible/
1
iacism.
Wilson on Slavery As a System
Wilson`s views on slaveiy aie moie complex than his stiaight denunciations of iacism.
Let me tiy to sketch his biblical exegesis and then add a few quotes to fuithei document
his aitude on slaveiy.
To iead Wilson`s view of the Bible`s teaching on slaveiy in moie detail, see chaptei 3,
Sciiptuie and Slaveiy," in Black and Tan. Wilson`s exegesis of the Bible iegaiding slaveiy
might be summaiized in seveial points.
1. e Bible speaks authoritatively about slavery and Christians are duty-bound to obey
its teaching (p. 14, 3). ln some ways, this is ieally at the heait of this entiie issue. Wilson
wiites to piotect the Bible fiomits Chiistian cultuied despiseis, oi at least those Chiistians
who might be stumped and embaiiassed when an antagonist points to the unpleasant
subject of slaveiy in the Bible as a means of iejecting the Bible`s teaching at some othei
disputed points (homosexuality, foi example).
2. e slave trade was an abomination and is clearly rejected in the Bible (1 Tim. 110;
Exod. 211). Heie, Wilson has in view man stealing" and the tiamcking of human pei-
sons. He insists that Chiistian paiticipation at any point in man stealing was inconsistent
with biblical teaching (p. 4). But he distinguishes man stealing fiom the system of slav-
eiy itself. Latei, Wilson maintains that slaveiy itself was not an inheient evil and that
godly Chiistians could be membeis in good standing in Chiistian chuiches while owning
slaves (p. 44).
3. e slavery regulated in the Mosaic law diers from slavery in pagan empires like
Rome. Slaveiy iegulated by the Mosaic law was liule moie than an indentuied seivant-
hood (bond appienticeship foi a time)" (p. 3) and include laws foi manumission and
ielease. lt was tempoiaiy. Howevei, these OT piovisions foi manumission and iepatii-
ation weie being ignoied by slave tiadeis, who ignoied the piohibitions of man-stealing
as well, and accoiding to Wilson this meant the vast majoiity of the slaves had alieady
been enslaved in Africa by othei blacks", iestoiation of these slaves to theii foimei con-
dition was a physical impossibility" (p. ), and many of the slaves in the South weie
descendants of men and women who had been biought ovei generations befoie" (p. ).
Chiistians living undei pagan goveinments that allowed slaveiy had a duty to follow the
biblical instiuctions foi iesisting the paganism of this slaveiy carefully so that the Woid
of God would not be blasphemed (1 Tim. 1)." Wilson sees a distinction between slaveiy
iegulated by God and slaveiy instituted by pagan goveinment, which was theiefoie to
be subveited by faithful Chiistians living in accoidance with the gospel" (p. 38). Despite
such subveision thiough biblical obedience, Wilson undeistands that Te Bible peimits
Chiistians in slave-owning cultuies to own slaves, piovided they aie tieated well" (p. 4).
Nothing can be plainei than the fact that a Chiistian could simultaneously be a slave
ownei and a membei in good standing in a Chiistian chuich" (p. 3).
4. Christians must denounce as a maer of biblical principle any racism, racial animosity,
18
or racial vainglory involved in American slavery or any other race-based system of slavery.
Wilson calls foi the denouncement of iacism, but he does not see a biblical mandate foi
denouncing slaveiy as such.
5. e gospel is antithetical to slavery as a system and would, over time, lead to the
eradication of slavery everywhere. Te fact that Chiistian slaves could puisue eveiy lawful
oppoitunity foi fieedom ieveals that slaveiy is inconsistent with the fundamental Spiiit
of the gospel, who is the Spiiit of libeity" (1 Coi. 20-24; 2 Coi. 31).
6. e best subversion of slavery occurs when Christian slaves and slave owners carefully
obey the dictates of Scripture. lf the Bible`s teaching weie followed closely, the peaceful
elimination of Roman slaveiy and Ameiican slaveiy would have iesulted in time.
7. Godly social renewal is never bloodthirsty. Te iadical abolitionists` insistence on
immediate action, foice and coeicion shoit-ciicuited the gospel`s slow, leavening woik
and iesulted in the hoiiendous loss of life duiing the Civil Wai, oi Wai Between the
States, as Wilson piefeis. Points - iepiesent the conclusion towaid which the Bible
points, accoiding to Wilson. He wiites latei in the book, the gospel ovei time necessaiily
subverts the institution of slaveiy geneially. But this giadual subveision would have been
iefoimational and giadual, and not ievolutionaiy and bloodthiisty, as iadical abolitionism
was" (p. 4). Wilson sees the iemedy of wai as iesulting in pioblems eveiy bit as bad as
the oiiginal disease evei was" (p. 0).
Wilson opines that the system of slave-holding in the South was fai moie humane
than that of ancient Rome, although it still fell shoit of the biblical iequiiements foi it."
He pictuies the South as a thoiough-going Chiistian countiy, wiiting
Te discipleship of the nations is a piocess. Tis means that the South was
(along with all othei nations) in tiansition fiom a state of pagan autonomy
to one of full submission to the Loidship of Chiist. Chiistian infuence in the
South was consideiable and extensive, but the laws of the South still fell shoit
of the biblical pauein. ln spite of this, the Chiistian infuence on antebellum
Southein cultuie suipassed most othei nations in the woild of that time (p.
1-2).
ln Wilson`s view, the South should have been sumciently Chiistian" to piactice slaveiy
as the Bible iegulates it. Te southein situation, being beuei than the Roman situation in
which Paul wiote, was subject to NT teaching. He undeistands that the Chiistians who
owned slaves in the South weie on him sciiptuial giound" (p. 2). But failing to tieat
them in a biblical mannei, God seveiely judged both the South and the Noith (judging the
South with the Noith).
Beyond this basic exegetical appioach, Wilson also communicates his peisonal aitude
towaid slaveiy. Tat aitude might be summaiized with the following quotes
l am ceitainly not wishing foi a ietuin to slaveiy. l am piofoundly giateful
that chauel slaveiy no longei exists in oui nation. Let theie be no mistake
heiethe logic of the Chiistian gospel is contiadictoiy to the institution of
19
slaveiy geneially, and as the gospel of salvation piogiesses thiough histoiy,
one of the necessaiy iesults is the giadual eiadication of all slaveiy. Jesus
Chiist ieally is the ultimate Jubilee" (p. 4).
Te seveie judgment that befell the South fiom the hand of God was tiue
justice in pait because of how the South had tieated hei slaves" (p. 49).
Why Bother?
Now all of this aigumentation, in Wilson`s view, seives two majoi issues of impoi-
tance defense of the Bible and couise coiiection foi evangelical Chiistians in today`s
cultuie wais. Wilson himself puts this in a nutshell when he wiites
Chiistians must live oi die by the Sciiptuies, as they stand. Compiomise on
what the Bible teaches about slaveiy is diiectly ielated to the cuiient pies-
suies to compiomise on aboition and sodomy. Southein slaveiy was an ex-
ample of the kind of sinful human situation that called foi diligent obedience
to St. Paul`s diiectives, on the pait of both masteis and slaves. Because this
did not happen, and because of the way slaveiy ended, the fedeial goveinment
acquiied the powei to impose things on the states that it did not have befoie.
Teiefoie, foi all these ieasons, iadicalism is to be iejected by Chiistians.
Foi Wilson, caieful exposition of the Bible`s teaching about slaveiy iemains ciitical foi
undeistanding contempoiaiy evangelical engagement with cultuial issues. Because, as
Wilson aigues, slaveiy was ended in an impiopei way, it enlaiged the iole of the fedeial
goveinment and has placed the Chiistian woildview and society in a weakened position
against anti-biblical opponents. Foi Wilson, seuing the stoiy stiaight about slaveiy en-
ables a moie enective adheience to all the Bible`s teaching and a moie enective engage-
ment with the cultuie.
Conclusion
l hope this accuiately iepiesents Wilson`s views. l have tiied not to editoiialize but
simply piesent Wilson`s positions as l undeistand them fiom Black and Tan.
But what aie we to think of Wilson`s appioach to all these issues` Aie theie any weak-
nesses in his exegesis of the appiopiiate biblical texts` ls his analysis of Ameiican slaveiy
histoiically accuiate` Why might some continue to see this book as iacially insensitive if
not iacist`
We tuin to these questions in the next couple of posts.
20
Important Comment
Douglas Wilson
11
March 13, 2013
Tabiti, l am tiuly giateful. When l teach students how to engage in debate, one of
the basic things they must be able to do is state theii opponent`s position in teims that
the opponent himself would own and accept. You have done that heie. Not only that, but
in ovei a decade of contioveisy, you aie the hist ciitic to have done so. Tank you.
So, foi the iecoid, and foi the sake of keeping this discussion edifying, what Tabiti
has summaiized above is a faithful iepiesentation of my views. l would also like to add
that the element mentioned by Jim Upchuich, my postmill theology, is on point and a
helpful iemindei. Tanks again.
8 Does the Driving Logic of Black and Tan Hold Up?
abiti Anyabwile
12
March 14, 2013
ln his epilogue, Wilson chaiacteiizes Black and Tan as a collection of dispaiate ele-
ments oiganized aiound a set of common themes" which may feel ad-hoc, iagtaggy" at
places because the wiiting and iewiiting occuiied at vaiious occasions (p. 119). ln onei-
ing a iesponse to Black and Tan, then, the hist thing one must decide is what to iespond
to. Te issues tend to be inteilocked both conceptually and in the wiiting itself. Second,
we need to considei in what oidei to ieply. Again, as l exceipt and inteiact with vaiious
poitions of the text, l hope with God`s help to be chaiitable and accuiate. Having stated
Wilson`s case in a mannei Wilson himself judged accuiate and faii
13
, l want to onei some
ciitique with those summations in mind.
As l see it, thiee basic aspects of the book need addiessing (1) the undeilying logic
guiding the entiie book, (2) the exegetical case foi slaveiy as a peimissible institution,
and (3) the histoiical claim that the South as a nation and the slaveiy it piacticed was
compaiable to the Roman piactice the apostle Paul addiessed. As l see it, the book stands
oi falls with Wilson`s positions in these thiee aieas. Tis is not to say that othei aieas of
the book aie unimpoitant, just that these issues get to the heait of the mauei" fiom my
peispective. With God`s help, l would like to take up each issue in sepaiate posts.
e Logic of Black and Tan
11
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/13/doug-wilsons-views-on-iace-iacism-
slaveiy-and-the-bible/`comments-comment-10431
12
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/14/does-the-diiving-logic-of-black-and-
tan-hold-up/
13
Linked to pievious post.
21
At a couple points in Black and Tan, Wilson outlines the diiving logic of the book. On
page 4 he wiites
lf we want to undeistand the cultuie wais of the twentieth and twenty-hist
centuiies, we must come to giips with the cultuie wais of the nineteenth cen-
tuiy. ln oidei to do this, it is necessaiy to get cleai on the natuie of Ameiican
slaveiy, which was not what its abolitionist opponents claimed foi it. lf it
had been, it is haid to see how the biblical instiuctions could have been ap-
plicablefoi example, l would not cite 1 Timothy 1-4 to a peison tiying to
escape fiom a Nazi death camp. Obey the authoiities!" But if antebellum
slaveiy was the noimal kind of sinful situation that Chiistians have had to
deal with iegulaily down thiough histoiy (e.g., one compaiable to what Paul,
Philemon, and Onesimus had to addiess), then the instiuctions in 1 Timothy
make peifect sense. We need to leain that the antebellum situation was one
of Noimal Sin, not one of Apocalyptic Evil.
Tat oui nation did not iemove slaveiy in the way it ought to have been
iemoved helps explain many of oui nation`s pioblems in dealing with con-
tempoiaiy social evils. Tose evils include aboition-on-demand, iadical fem-
inism, and iampant sodomy.
A few pages latei, making iefeience to the undeilying aigument of Southern Slavery as It
Was, an aigument being iestated in Black and Tan, Wilson contends
lt was the contention of this booklet that the way in which slaveiy ended has
had ongoing deleteiious consequences foi modein Chiistians in oui cuiient
cultuie wais, and that slaveiy was fai moie benign in piactice than it was
made to appeai in the liteiatuie of the abolitionists. We weie not tiying to
maintain that slaveiy in itself was a positive good, like food, aii, oi sunlight.
Oui cential inteiest was in defending the integiity and applicability of the
Sciiptuies to oui cuiient cultuial contioveisies, and we amimed that Chiis-
tians who apologize foi what the Bible teaches on slaveiy will soon be apolo-
gizing foi what it teaches on maiiiage. We wiote as Chiistian apologists, but
not the kind who apologize foi being Chiistian (p. 14).
Obviously the appioach Wilson takes, his diiving aigument, is bound up with the natuie
of Southein slaveiy. But foi the moment, let me leave aside slaveiy`s natuie foi a futuie
post so that we can give undivided auention to the logic itself.
Essentially, Wilson walks backwaids fiom
1. Oui cuiient cultuial divisions ovei homosexuality, aboition, and feminism, to.
22
2. Te Chiistians` hdelity to and application of the Bible in such contioveisies (oi lack
theieof), to.
3. What he iegaids as a similai cultuial confict (slaveiy and the Civil Wai) that (a)
featuied the same ciucial issue of the authoiity of Sciiptuie and (b) in his opinion gave
iise to an expanded fedeial goveinment that aiiests oi opposes biblical iesolutions foi
such pioblems.
Slaveiy gets a lot of aii play, but it`s ieally a similaiity heuiistic foi contempoiaiy
cultuial engagement. Which biings us to my question..
Is is an Appropriate Strategy for Either Discussing Slavery or Informing
Our Contemporary Battles?
Does this chain of ieasoning ieally hold` Peisonally, l don`t think so. lt fails on at
least two giounds.
First, the authority of the Bible was not widely in question during the coun-
trys long dispute over slavery and its end. Teie ceitainly weie iadical abolitionists
like William Lloyd Gaiiison who believed that To discaid a poition of sciiptuie is not
necessaiily to ieject the tiuth, but may be the highest evidence that one can give of his
love of tiuth" (quoted in Noll, Civil War as a eological Crisis, p. 32). Wilson is coiiect to
note the histoiical instances and contempoiaiy possibility of Chiistians losing theii giip
on the authoiity, sumciency and ieliability of the Bible. lndeed, Wilson`s concein foi the
iejection of the Bible was a concein among pio-slaveiy advocates in the Old South. But,
in the Old South, accoiding to histoiian Maik Noll, the iejection of the Bible by iadical
abolitionists like Gaiiison actually strengthened biblical adheience among mainstieamob-
seiveis in the Noith and South. Noll explains Heightened abolitionist auacks on slaveiy,
slaveholdeis, and slave society angeied those who weie undei assault. Especially when
such auacks weie expiessed with the antibiblical ihetoiic that WilliamLloyd Gaiiison em-
ployed, they deeply troubled religious believers of almost all sorts. By dehning slaveholding
as a basic evil, whatevei the Bible might say about it, radical abolitionists frightened away
from antislavery many moderates who had also giown tioubled about Ameiica`s system
of chauel bondage, but who were not willing to give up loyalty to Scripture" (Noll, Civil
War, p. 3; emphasis added). Te iadicals who iejected the Bible huit theii own cause
and stiengthened the giip of those whose hands once loosely held the Bible.
We call people like Gaiiison iadicals" foi a ieasonthey lie outside the mainstream
opinion. ln fact, the mainstieam of both sides claimed to have the Bible`s authoiity on
its side. Wheie Wilson sees a shiinking away fiom biblical authoiity in antebellum aigu-
ments ovei slaveiy, l see in the main a theological debate about piecisely how to apply the
Sciiptuienot whether. At least that seems to be the case among piofessing Chiistians on
eithei side of the confict. Pio-slaveiy advocates ceitainly maishaled whatevei texts they
23
could in suppoit of the institution (see Fox-Genovese and Genovese, Mind of the Master
Class: History and Faith in the Southern Slaveholders Worldview, especially pait lV). But,
not to be outdone, anti-slaveiy advocates gaineied a full iange of texts to make its case foi
abolition (see, foi example, Noll, e Civil War as a eological Crisis, chaptei3, and Dil-
lon, Slavery Aacked: Southern Slaves and eir Allies, 119-18). Tat was especially the
case among Afiican Ameiicans as eaily as the mid-100s, when Afiican Ameiicans hist
began to publish. l`m thinking heie of men like Lemuel Haynes and his Libeity Fuithei
Extended," foi example, and even the iecently discoveied poem of Jupitei Hammon.
14
Te puipose of this post isn`t to iestate those aiguments heie. Te puipose is simply to
illustiate and substantiate the fact that the Bible`s authoiity was only being challenged in
the small iadical coineis of the debate. At best what we might say is that the mainstieam
of each side piivileged dierent biblical texts in theii aisenal of aigumentspio-slaveiy
advocates the plain sense statements in Pauline epistles and anti-slaveiy advocates the
anti-iacist texts of Sciiptuie. But both sides made theii appeal to the authoiity of the
Bible. Tat being the case, it seems to me that Black and Tan fails to accuiately poitiay
the scope and enect of any anti-Bible sentiments of the time. lf pieseiving the authoiity of
sciiptuie motivates Black and Tan, it seems to have chosen the wiong histoiical moment
as an analogy foi helping us in oui day. At the veiy least, the book fails to give us a iobust
and nuanced tieatment of vaiious views of biblical authoiity.
Second, the Federal action to end slavery in 1865 cant be causally connected to
Federal actions today. Wilson aigues that the Noith`s actions to end slaveiy, in contia-
vention of State`s iights, laid the foundation foi Fedeial ovei-ieach in things like homo-
sexual maiiiage" and the 193 Roe v. Wade decision. He wiites, Te point heie was that
the ievolution that made it possible foi the fedeial goveinment to impose an atiocity like
Roe v. Wade on the seveial states was a ievolution that began in eainest in 181 (p. 4).
While people continue to aigue about State`s iights and its place in the Civil Wai,
what cannot be denied is that eveiy paity wishes to use Fedeial powei to its beneht,
even if the use" is to limit that powei. Te simple fact that the national goveinment
took action seems a pooi basis foi diawing a daik line connecting slaveiy`s end and oui
cuiient cultuie wais. Afei all, at vaiious points along the countiy`s histoiy Fedeial action
achieved positive goods foi society. l fully iecognize Wilson disagiees, wiiting, Because
of the way slaveiy was ended, we aie dealing with atiocious consequences down to the
piesent" (p. 9) and l am foiced to say that, in many ways, the iemedy which has been
applied has iesulted in pioblems that aie eveiy bit as bad as the oiiginal disease evei
was" (p. 0). But if we`ie honest, most evangelical Chiistians would be quite happy to
see a decisive fedeial action to overturn Roe oi to prohibit same-sex maiiiage." lf l am
coiiect in saying this, then what we`ie ieally lamenting is seeing the powei of the fedeial
goveinment wielded by the wiong" hands, i.e., not our hands.
Rathei than lamenting the use of Fedeial powei, it seems to me we must evaluate
14
Tabiti linking to this NPR aiticle hup//www.npi.oig/2013/03/12/1410008/hist-afiican-ameiican-
poet-still-showing-new-woik. Poem to be published in June 2013.
24
the meiit and outcome of the Fedeial action taken. Foi instance, Fedeial action against
slaveiy and Fedeial action in Roe v. Wade dinei in at least one ciitical way Fedeial action
to end slaveiy was justihed, while Fedeial action to legalize aboition was not. One saved
lives; the othei destioys lives. One puisued justice; the othei denies justice. One achieved
fieedom; the othei peiveits fieedom. l`msuggesting we include the ends in oui evaluation
of the means, at least in part (theie aie othei things that need to be consideied in oidei
to avoid being iabid Machiavellians).
ln a South that had oppoitunity afei secession to voluntaiily iefoim oi end the in-
stitution but didn`t, in a nation that had come to think it impossible to end slaveiy (see
Millei, Arguing About Slavery: e Great Debate in the United States Senate), disenfian-
chised human beings had no iecouise but Fedeial action. lnsofai as goveinment saved
and impioved millions of lives, it seems to me the action was waiianted. Tat some nowa-
days want similai Fedeial action on issues contrary to a biblical position does not in itself
impeach the actions taken in the Civil Wai. l think Wilson commits a genetic fallacy.
Conclusion
Foi at least these two ieasons l think the innei logic diiving Black and Tan does not
woik. l ceitainly shaie Wilson`s concein that Chiistians of eveiy age leain to stand undei
the authoiity of the Bible and leain not to shiink back fiom dimcult and unpopulai paits
when ciitics auack. But that`s only the hist thing to leain. Te second thing to leain is
how to iightly inteipiet those dimcult paits. lf we aigue about what the Bible teaches,
we`ie then having the iight kind of aigument. Tat theie aie two sides to the aigument
does not necessaiily mean one side oi the othei has abandoned biblical authoiity. With
that, we hope to tuin to Black and Tan`s exegesis of biblical texts on the mauei of slaveiy.
9 Patrick Nostradamus Henry
Douglas Wilson
1
March 14, 2013
l know that some of you all have been following this, but in case you haven`t, let me
tiy to biing you up to speed. Last week Biyan Loiius posted on my book Black & Tan,
and you can iead him heie
1
. ln the couise of iesponding to my book, he also associated
me with some things that weie kind of outiageous, but that is also pai foi this couise.
l iesponded to Biyan heie
1
and heie
18
.
Someone then asked Tabiti Anyabwile on Twiuei what he thought of the whole thing,
and he iesponded by saying that the hammei ought to be diopped haid on any defense
1
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/patiickt-qnostiadamusq-heniy.html
1
Does the Diiving Logic of Black and Tan" Hold Up`"
1
With a Bit of Menthol"
18
What` 2013 Alieady`"
2
of slaveiy. Te pioblem with that is that l don`t want to defend slaveiy. Tis whole thing
has to do with what the most sciiptuial way of iesisting slaveiy would have been, not
whethei slaveiy ought to have been iesisted.
As a iesult of all this, l ieissued the invitation we had extended to Anthony Biadley
last yeai when this thing had faied up, and l also invited Biyan Loiius to visit us, along
with Eiic Mason and Tabiti. We would pay theii way out heie, oi l could go theie let`s
see what we can woik out. Tat clustei of invitations should be undeistood as a standing
invitation, indicating oui willingness and desiie to meet face-to-face.
As a iesult of all this, Tabiti and l have had some piivate communication, and he has
begun a blog seiies on Black & Tan. Te hist is a defense of pioceeding in this way, found
heie
19
. l have no disagieements with his iight (and iesponsibility) to discuss my book
publicly. So that was hne.
His second post, found heie
20
, was a summaiy of my views as he undeistood them. l
commented on his blog that he had undeistood them veiy well, and he was the hist ciitic
in ovei ten yeais of high piohle contioveisy to do so. My esteem foi him, alieady high,
went even highei. Tose inteiested might want to check out Tabiti`s nuanced view that
cultuial ethnicity is a biggei playei in all this than biological iace
21
. Tat said, Tabiti`s
summaiy of my view was veiy well done l iecognized myself in the summaiy, which is
not usually the case.
Tis moining he published his hist ciitical inteiaction, which you can iead heie
22
. As
a iesult of how he is appioaching all this, l considei it a piivilege to be inteiacting with
Tabiti on this subject, and l piay that God would use this exchange to edify His people.
ln the same spiiit Tabiti showed to me, let me hist summaiize his two basic aiguments
in this most iecent post (as l undeistand them), and then see wheie it goes. l would
appieciate it if Tabiti could let me knowif l have faithfully summaiized his two objections
to the undeilying logic of my book. lf not, l will seek to make any necessaiy adjustments.
Fiist, Tabiti says that the authoiity of Sciiptuie was not ieally in question in the
Civil Wai eia. Believeis, both Noith and South, had a veiy high view of Sciiptuie, and
made theii iespective cases fiom Sciiptuie. Teie weie ceitainly iadicals like Gaiiison,
who weie dismissive of sciiptuial authoiity, but they geneially had the enect of fieaking
eveiybody else out. Tis had the enect of causing mainstieambelieveis to double down on
theii allegiance to Sciiptuie. Tus, wheie l iepiesent the antebellum debates ovei slaveiy
as indicating a shiinking away fiom sciiptuial authoiity, Tabiti sees just the ieveise,
a high commitment to the inspiiation and authoiity of Sciiptuie. Tus, my tiajectoiy
aigument lack of submission to biblical authoiity then giowing into a much woise lack
of submission to biblical authoiity now fails. As he puts it, "the authoiity of the Bible
was not widely in question duiing the countiy`s long dispute ovei slaveiy and its end."
19
Anyabwile, Why Respond Publicly to Douglas Wilson`s `Black and Tan``"
20
Anyabwile, Doug Wilson`s Views on Race, Racism, Slaveiy and the Bible".
21
Link to Pioclaiming a Cioss-centeied Teology" fiom Togethei foi the Gospel, Anyabwile`s essay
Beaiing the lmage".
22
Anyabwile, Does the Diiving Logic of `Black and Tan` Hold Up`"
2
His second point was this "Te Fedeial action to end slaveiy in 18 can`t be causally
connected to Fedeial actions today." Tabiti aigues that the issue is not Fedeial powei so
much as whethei oi not that powei is being wielded in a iighteous oi an uniighteous way.
lf most Chiistians today would be happy with an exeicise of fedeial powei to piohibit
homosexual maiiiage, oi to extend fedeial piotection to the unboin, then how can we be
unhappy with fedeial powei doing a good thing like fieeing the slaves` Wheie l would see
an ominous fedeial aggiandizment of centialized powei, staiting in 181, Tabiti sees the
fedeial goveinment doing something iighteous in the mid-ninteenth centuiy, and at some
latei point they went ovei to the "othei side," which iesulted in them doing uniighteous
things in the lauei pait of the twentieth centuiy. So foi Tabiti the issue should be the
content of the fedeial goveinment`s decisions, and so it is impiopei foi me to diaw an
ominous line fiom an eailiei "iighteous decision" to latei "uniighteous decisions."
Tis is my undeistanding of why Tabiti does not believe the "diiving innei logic"
of my book woiks. On the assumption that this is a faii summaiy, heie would be my
iesponse.
Tabiti appeals to Maik Noll`s book, e Civil War as eological Crisis, and l would
iecommend that book highly as well. Tis is a point wheie we will be dehning teims, not
disputing facts. l agiee with Tabiti (and Noll) that Ameiicans both Noith and South at
the time of the wai had a veiy high allegiance to the formal authoiity of Sciiptuie. l also
agiee with Tabiti that one side tended to piivilege one set of texts while the othei side
tended to piivilege anothei set. Tis is a common phenomenon in viitually all theological
debates, and it was no dineient with this one. Two factions of Chiistians can collide ovei
a paiticulai doctiine, even if they aie ineiiantists on both sides sometimes, especially if
they aie all ineiiantists.
Wheie this objection to my position fails is that the kind of biblical authoiity l was
talking about in my book was a view of authoiity shown in obedience, and not just with
foimal willingness to appeal to Sciiptuie to justify what you alieady wanted to do. l giant
the foimal authoiity that Sciiptuie had at that time.
We can identify the piactical pioblem when someone oneis a time tiavel machine to
us, since we have just said in a seimon oi something that "the Bible has the answeis," and
he will send us back to 188 to explain to them what those answeis aie. We aie all being
Monday moining quaiteibacks heie, but if we aie ieconstiucting what the Bible "would
have said" back then, had eveiybody been listening, what would it have been` Tat is the
question. Now l believe that it should be possible to take all the passages and themes of
Sciiptuie into account. Tat is what l have been auempting to do. lf God had had meicy
on oui nation, and had sent a piophetic voice to explain to the people then the way of
obedience, what would that obedience have looked like?
We didn`t need such a voice to get them to amim theii allegiance to Sciiptuie. We all
agiee. We had that. But theie was something we didn`t have obedience.
Tiue views of biblical authoiity, iightly undeistood, iequiie obedience in application.
lt iequiies moie than obedience to the veises "youi side" picked out in oidei to defend.
Jesus said in the Gieat Commission that we weie to teach the nations to obey all that
2
He had commanded. We have substituted teaching what He commanded foi teaching
obedience to what He commanded.
So l do not dispute that oui foimal commitment to Sciiptuie was high. But as the blood
bath that iesulted illustiates, that is not the same thing as tiue obedience. Ameiicans
of the mid-ninteenth centuiy would have been able to sign a iobust statement of faith
when it came to the foimal authoiity of Sciiptuie. Unfoitunately, that didn`t keep us
fiom disobeying it. Not only did we disobey it, we pushed all the chips to the middle of
the table as we did so. Te stakes weie veiy high (00,000 dead), and in oui blindness we
went foi it anyway. Chiistians on both sides disobeyed the "othei side`s" veises, foigeuing
that all of them weie God`s veises.
So my ieply to Tabiti`s point heie is that we can agiee we went fiom high view of
Sciiptuie low view of Sciiptuie, but l would say the ieal issue is the line fiom theii
disobedience oui disobedience.
Te second point has to do with biblical stiuctuies of goveinance. ln oidei to diaw
suppoit fiom thoughtful Chiistians, l believe a biblical woildview appioach to godly iule
has to deal with stiuctuie as well as content. Biblical woildviewcivics has to include both.
How we aiiive at oui decisions is as impoitant (ovei the long iun) as what decisions we
make. Foi example, any poweis you give to the omce of the Auoiney-Geneial when a
Good Guy occupies that omce will be a powei that is still theie when a Bad Guy shows
up.
Teie is an impoitant point in iecognizing the dineience between good guys and bad
buys, and iighteous decisions and uniighteous ones. Suie enough. But theie is anothei
level, and that is the level of undeistanding that you aie cieating a political powei in a
woild wheie good guys and bad guys iotate thiough omce.
Te Foundeis wanted to cieate a foim of goveinance that famously utilized "checks
and balances." Tey weie afiaid that if those checks and balances eioded, the way was
opened to ungodly tyianny, and the natuie of man would ensuie that ungodly tyiants
would hnd that open way instanter and go stiaight thiough it. And heie we aie, watching
the gieat Tumoi of the Potomac metasticize befoie oui eyes.
Piioi to the Wai, the Bill of Rights iestiicted the powei of the fedeial goveinment
("Congress shall make no law . . ."), and the states weie the paitial guaiantois of that set
of iestiictions. As a iesult of the Wai, the Reconstiuction amendments, and how those
amendments came to be inteipieted in subsequent couit cases, the Bill of Rights was then
applied to the states, with the fedeial goveinment becoming the hnal aibitei of what was
"constitutional" oi not. An impoitant constitutional check on centialized tyianny had
been iemoved.
Tabiti says that fedeial actions today cannot be "causally connected" to fedeial ac-
tions two centuiies ago, but l believe a biblical view of why we need appiopiiate limits of
political powei does enable us to see such a causal connection. lndeed, l believe Patiick
"Nostiadamus" Heniy laid the whole thing out in fiont of us befoiehand, and in chilling
detail. l believe he even identihed the unlocked dooi of the judiciaiy as the place the
tyiants would get in.
28
So it has nowbeen deemed constitutional, foi example, foi going on half a centuiy, that
Ameiican babies can be chopped up into liule pieces. Te content of Roe was appalling,
of couise, but we need to ask how and when it came about that the fedeial goveinment
got the structural powei to tell almost all the states that weie piotecting unboin life that
they had to cease and desist with that piotection. lt didn`t come fiom a cleai blue sky, so
wheie did it come fiom`
l do not want to be seen as dismissing the impoitance of the content of a goveinment`s
decisions. l know that in a stiict fedeialist stiuctuie, as we had befoie the Wai, it was
logically possible foi one of the states to legalize aboition and homosexual maiiiage. What
then` Foi a iighteous nation, that would have been a constitutional ciisis of a dineient
kiind. l am of a mind that if a nation cannot suivive half slave and half fiee (as l believe
it cannot), then how much less can it suivive if some of the states allow foi summaiy
executions of hei smallest citizens` Such a set-up is not tenable, about which moie in a
minute. Te suivival of oui iepublic ieally is at stake in these issues.
At the least, theie should have been a piovision foi secession, as well as a piovision
foi involuntaiy secession expulsion. Why` As Madison put it, men aie not angels, but
puisuing that point now would take us too fai aheld.
And this biings me to my last point, one not iesponding to Tabiti at all. Tis ends
my iesponse to Tabiti but my biain was still full and so l kept typing.
Tis is why l believe that this whole issue is not a futile iehash of ancient histoiy. As
Dabney once said, be suie the old issues aie dead befoie you buiy them. Remembei that
we aie obligated to obey the Sciiptuies, and not just nod at them. lf we giant that we
aie confionted with social/cultuial/political evils today that aie eveiy bit as hoiiendous
as what was going down at the time of the Civil Wai, then what we think about the Wai
should shape and diive what we aie going to be doing next week about our evils. Tat is,
it will shape us if we aie men of integiity. lf we aie weathei-vane men, it won`t mauei
because in that case, we will easily hguie out the politically-coiiect diiection to point.
Easy and the wind piomises to help us.
ln shoit, be caieful what you piove in this debate because you aie now iesponsible to
live that way.
Why aie we back-seat-diiving foi the Viiginia plantation ownei, oi the Massachuseus
faimei, when theie is an aboition clinic just thiee miles fiom youi house` What aie we
going to do about that, and why` Anything you piaise a centuiy and a half ago is piaise-
woithy now, iight` Anything you condemn now should be condemned back then, iight`
lf you would shoot somebody foi doing "bad things" then, you should shoot somebody
foi doing woise now, iight`
Confionted with the piesent evils, we cannot deny that they aie evils. Te death toll
fiom aboition is approaching 100 times the death toll of the Civil Wai. And in this, futuie
black geneiations have been heavily and disproportionately taigeted. Does anybody deny
that` lf you allow Maigaiet Sangei to speak foi heiself, this taigeting of blacks was a
design featuie. We know what that white woman thought of hei "human weeds." Wheie
aie the black piophets`
29
Ten a bunch of othei white people, with that do-gooding giin on theii faces, got
out the bulldozei of the plantation state, fueled it up with the puiity of theii intentions,
and have been industiiously destioying the black family foi ovei a geneiation. Why is
Bill Cosby the closest thing to a piophet we have in this situation` l say this with some
tiepidation, because l iemembei (what l think was) Tomas Sowell`s dehnition of a iacist
anybody winning an aigument with a libeial.
Do we Chiistians all just shume oui feet, look a liule sheepish, cleai oui thioats, and
stait talking about leaven in the loaf, giadualism, gospel piesence, evangelization ovei
time, l have maiiied a wife, l have bought me a cow` Now l do believe Paul taught
piincipled giadualism, but not oui self-seiving, expedient thioat-cleaiing kind. Howevei,
l believe he did teach giadualism. Tis principled giadualism is what l have aigued should
have been the appioach at the time of the Civil Wai, and this is why l am not a clinic
bombei. But why aie you not a clinic bombei`
Viitually the entiie Chiistian woild shuns the idea of going to wai ovei aboition. But if
someone stupid (me, foi instance) says something like "and so why didn`t we do that with
a lessei evil in 188`" such a one is instantly and conveniently iepiesented as a iavening
oic with a tenuous giasp of histoiical souice mateiials. Tis level of defensiveness tells
me that something much deepei is going on.
Tis is because most people, Chiistians included, use histoiy as symbolic place-holdeis,
and not as the names and dates of ieal people and events people as they actually lived
and thought, and events as they actually went down. But when histoiy is used in this
way, it is almost always in defense of the status quo. And if the status quo is disobedient,
well, then, that might explain some things. Te issue might not be the ancient sins, but
the ones iight aiound the coinei.
10 Slavery and the Bible: e Perspective of is Abo-
litionist
abiti Anyabwile
23
March 15, 2013
ln my pievious post, l auempted to inteiact with what l saw as the undeilying logic
of Black and Tan. l aigued that the logic of the book didn`t hold up because (a) Wil-
son`s assumption about depaituies fiom biblical authoiity didn`t piove tiue and (b) Wil-
son commits a genetic fallacy when he links the way slaveiy was ended (Civil Wai and
Reconstiuction) with the way contempoiaiy cultuie wais aie fought and iesolved.
Wilson kindly ieplied to my hist ciitique by hist accuiately and faiily summaiizing
my position, a gestuie l appieciate and am encouiaged by. l`m giateful he has shown
both a willingness to inteiact publicly and piivately as well as a willingness to engage
23
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/1/slaveiy-and-the-bible-the-
peispective-of-this-abolitionist/
30
the substance of this issue. ln his ieply to my hist point about biblical authoiity, Wilson
distinguished between formal authoiity and functional authoiity. He agieed with me
that both sides showed a veiy high allegiance to foimal authoiity, that is, they held a
doctiinally high view of the Sciiptuies. But he thinks my ciitique of Black and Tan fails
because the concein of Black and Tan was foi functional authoiity, a view of authoiity
shown in obedience, and not just foimal willingness to appeal to Sciiptuie to justify what
you alieady wanted to do."
ln my last post, l commiued to picking up my ciitique with some comments about
exegesis and application of the biblical texts peitinent to slaveiy. Wilson`s ieply makes
foi a nice segue since we`ie both tiuly conceined with actual obedience. When l aigue that
the Noith piivileged dineient textsand l agiee with Wilson that theological aiguments
almost always featuie this dineiencel was not suggesting that such piivileging was oi
should be acceptable as pietext foi actual disobedience. To the contiaiy, l think many
anti-slaveiy advocates were in fact obeying the texts they piivileged which is what led
them to theii abolitionist position. How might that be` Let me auempt a biief exegesis
of peitinent texts as an illustiation.
Do We Swim Upstream or Downstream on the Issue of Slavery?
Wilson does auempt in Black and Tan to inteipiet and apply texts of Sciiptuie beyond
the household codes and theii instiuctions to slaves and masteis. He does, foi example,
aigue fiom the cieation account, the post-food ie-population of the eaith, and Acts 12
that all men aie men, cieated in God`s image, and cousins descended fiom the same pai-
ents. He also aigues that we`ie all even moie closely ielated in oui common fallenness in
sin. Tat theological anthiopology infoims his iejection of iacism, slaveiy based on iace,
and iacial vaingloiy. But when we`ve put the household codes alongside the texts that
give us oui biblical anthiopology, have we yet put all the ielevant texts on the table`
We have not. To begin with the household codes, it seems to me, is to begin swimming
too fai down stieam. To take the codes as (a) establishing the legitimacy oi peimissibility
of Roman slaveiy and (b) authoiitative in Ameiican chauel slaveiy, because of its iela-
tively beuei" condition than Roman slaveiy, assumes oi oveilooks fai too much biblical
textbiblical texts that abolitionists piivileged in this discouise.
What texts am l speaking of` l would piivilege all the biblical texts that command
love foi neighboi (Mau. 223-39), love foi enemies (Mau. 43-48), and especially love
foi biotheis and sisteis in Chiist. Tis, oui Loid teaches us, is the second gieatest com-
mandment. All the Law and the Piophets hang upon this command and the command to
love God above all (Mau. 2240). Jesus teaches us that love is the distinguishing maik of
tiue discipleship, a maik that should be so evident that the woild will know we`ie His dis-
ciples (John 1334-3). Te apostle John elevates love to almost a synonym foi the gospel
itself"Tis is the message you heaid fiom the beginning We should love one anothei."
He continues, And this is his command to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Chiist,
and to love one anothei as He commanded us" (1 John 311, 23). John tells us we have no
31
iight to iegaid ouiselves as Chiistians apait fiom love foi the biotheis (1 Jn 420-21).
Now, lest someone think l`m tiying to pull a fast one by pointing to a geneial piinci-
ple" to avoid moie specihc and toothiei commands, let me hasten to point out that biblical
love is a veiy fangy cieatuie! lt`s not meie sentiment devoid of action. Recall that love is
a veib in 1 Coiinthians 13. And the apostle John tells us, Deai childien, let us not love
with woids oi tongue but with actions and in truth" (1 Jn 318). l am contending that the
command to love should have been obeyed and it should have been the contiolling com-
mand in the entiie debate. l aigue that foi this ieason love is everywhere commanded and
slaveholding is nowhere commanded. We must iealize we aie compaiing a positive injunc-
tion against an aiguable fieedom. Befoie we insist on obedience to the household codes,
which addiess a mauei of Chiistian fieedom (at best), we need to insist on obedience to
the gieatest commands, which aie not a mauei of Chiistian fieedom but obligation to
Godindeed evidence of whethei oi not we ieally know God.
What Does Obedience to the Command to Love Look Like in the Context of
Slavery?
Well, how should the command to love be woiked out by a Chiistian mastei` We have
one place in sciiptuie that specihcally addiesses the ielationship between a known Chiis-
tian slaveholdei and a known Chiistian slave. Philemon. We`ll come to the household
codes in a moment. But considei how the apostle Paul addiesses slaveiy and slavehold-
ing in the one place wheie manumission is in view. He wiites, hist of all, to commend
Philemon foi the faith and love he shows all the saintsthat`s the same apostolic wed-
ding of genuine faith and love we saw in 1 John. Ten Paul makes his move based on that
amimation. "Teiefoie, although in Chiist I could be bold and order you to do what you
ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. l then, as Paulan old man and now
also a piisonei of Chiist Jesusl appeal to you foi my son Onesismus, who became my
son while l was in chains. Foimeily he was useless to you, but now he has become useful
both to you and to me" (vv. 8-11).
l emphasized the two poitions in Paul`s woids foi this ieason l think Wilson is cor-
rect to aigue that the gospel and the spiiit of the gospel iemains iiiemediably contiaiy
to slaveiy and that the foicible end of slaveiy is not, fiom a Chiistian peispective, the
best oi hist means to use. Tat, l think, is why Paul iefuses to use even his legitimate
apostolic authoiity to oidei" Philemon. Moieovei, l think Wilson and l agiee that the
coeicive" powei of love is fai moie explosive, longei lasting, and auended with fewei
(no`) side-enects than the use of foice. Tus Paul`s appeal on the basis of love.
Butand this is no small but"l think Paul`s leuei to Philemon exposes the seiious
and deadly faw of Wilson`s sense of timing foi the eiadication of slaveiy and of Wilson`s
seeming identihcation with the mastei class`s iight" to own slaveis instead of identify-
ing with the slave. Notice how Paul keeps iauling his own chains of impiisonment in
Philemon`s eais. Paul identihes himself iepeatedly as the piisonei, the bound man, the
one without fieedom. He could have identihed himself as the man of authoiity, the apos-
32
tle, the one with iight to exeit himself ovei otheis. He nowheie does. Tat, l think, is
instiuctive foi how Chiistians should engage discussions involving oppiessois and the
oppiessed. We should noimally be on the side of the oppiessed in the hght foi justice.
And when Paul appeals to Philemon to tieat Onesimus the way he would tieat Paul, the
implication is obviousfiee him immediately. But we don`t have to iely on the implica-
tion; Paul states it in the text and that goveins oui sense of timing about how quickly love
should woik in manumission.
Considei veises 12-1, the heait of the leuei l am sending himwho is my veiy
heaitback to you. 13 l would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take
youi place in helping me while l am in chains foi the gospel. 14 But l did not want to do
anything without consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. 1
Peihaps the ieason he was sepaiated fiom you foi a liule while was that you might have
him back foi good1 no longer as a slave, but beer than a slave, as a dear brother. He is
veiy deai to me but even deaiei to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. 17 So
if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me."
lt seems to me that Paul expects this favoi," his appeal on the basis of love," to be
gianted immediatelynot giadually as Wilson aigues in Black and Tan. We don`t imag-
ine that Philemon would ieceive to himself the apostle Paul as a slave (v. 1), but iathei
as a man and biothei. Paul makes explicitthough gentlehis expectationwhich he
could have oideiedthat Onesimus be no longer a slave, but beuei than a slave, as a
deai biothei" (v. 1). Paul both fiees Onesimus and elevates him in Philemon`s anec-
tions. Paul amims Onesimus` manhood and his biotheihood. Lovefai fiom misty sen-
timentgoverns this ielationship by actively freeing Onesimus. Tis means that calls foi
immediate abolition of slaveiy weie consistent with the gospel and with love. Whethei
the Wai was just is anothei mauei, but at this point l only want to stiess that immedi-
atism was consistent obedience to the sciiptuie. Wilson`s iecommendation foi a giadual
appioach does not seem consistent with gospel love. lf he amended his position even at
this one point it would mean a woild of dineience foi how people heai his aigument and
peiceive him.
l tiust we see fiom Paul`s leuei to Philemon the gieat dissimilaiity between Ameiican
chauel slaveiy and what Paul addiessed, foi Ameiican chauel slaveiy ieduced Afiicans to
3/ human and actively woiked against the notion that the slaves` conveision and baptism
should mean theii fieedom (foi a wondeiful book-length tieatment of this, see Rebecca
Anne Goetz, e Baptism of Early Virginia: How Christianity Created Race). Paul main-
tains assumptions about the natuie of man and the enect of conveision on mastei-slave
ielationships that aie chalk and cheese, oil and watei, night and day to the assumptions
undeipinning Ameiican slaveiy. Which biings us to.
e Household Codes and eir Application
Paul`s eailiest statement on slaveiy and slaves comes in 1 Coiinthians 21-24. Tis is
an impoitant passage because the oveiaiching theme of 1 Coiinthians -9 has to do with
33
Chiistian libeitythe fieedom to maiiy oi not maiiy (chp ), fieedom in woiship (chp 8),
fieedom and iights as an apostle (chp 9). Tioughout the section Paul expiesses a kind
of ambivalence about the situations" we hnd ouiselves in when we`ie called to Chiist in
salvation. He geneially advocates staying in that situation and not leuing it bothei you,
but he peimits and encouiages actions to change that situation especially when it seives
the gospel and deepens oui satisfaction in Chiist. So he wiites, 20Each one should iemain
in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were
called? Dont let it trouble youalthough if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 Foi he
who was a slave when he was called by the Loid is the Loid`s fieedman; similaily, he who
was a fiee man when he was called is Chiist`s slave. 23 You weie bought at a piice; do
not become slaves of men. 24 Biotheis, each man, as iesponsible to God, should iemain
in the situation God called him to."
lt would be a mistake to conclude that Paul thinks enslavement itself is not tiou-
blesome. Tat`s not his meaning in veise 21. Rathei, the peison saved while enslaved
should iegaid his oi hei ielationship to Chiist as the main thing, the identity changing
thingfiom slave to Loid`s fieedman. ln that sense, the slave should not be tioubled by
his station. lt would also be a mistake to think that Paul believes that the slave should
iemain in that situation in perpetuity. He anticipates that misundeistanding and bieaks
his thought with although if you can gain youi fieedom, do so." Which is actually a moie
diiect encouiagement than anything Paul says about singles wanting to maiiy oi the sta-
tus of ciicumcised/unciicumcised. To them he nevei says do so," but to the slave he does.
Te apostle sees fieedomas a positive good to be puisued. Tis point seems to get lost in a
lot of this discussion because Black and Tan sets up at least some foims of slaveholding as
moially neutial. People go on to then aigue foi the iights of slaveholdeis against the iight
of slaves to puisue fieedom. Tat does not seem to be the apostle`s peispective heie. And
that has some implications foi how we iead the household codes in tension with these
othei veises.
Wilson iightly exegetes the instiuctions given to masteis and slaves in places like Eph.
-9; Col. 322-41; and 1 Tim. 1-2all wiiuen afei Paul`s statements in 1 Coiinthians
.Tough Paul calls the masteis to tieat theii slaves in a iespectful way and slaves to obey
theii masteiseven wicked masteis in 1 Tim. his piimaiy concein is not the mainte-
nance of slaveholding as a system. ln othei woids, in instiucting Chiistians in theii duties
in whatevei state they hnd themselves in when conveited Paul is not also commending
the system as a neutial oi positive good. A Chiistian soldiei should behave like a Chiis-
tian even if his countiy sends him to hght in an atiocious wai. A Chiistian accountant
should behave like a Chiistian even if hei multi-national company has questionable in-
vestments oveiseas. Te Chiistian iesponsibility to submit oi lead in those seuings does
not amount to an endoisement of the seuing. We`ve seen in Philemon and 1 Coiinthians
that Paul expects fieedom when fieedom comes into view.
So, l think Wilson goes beyond what the household codes waiiant when he infers
fiom these passages that (a) slaveiy must have been peimissible in the apostle`s mind as a
neutial" (keep in mind, Wilson does not aigue that slaveiy was a positive good), (b) that
34
we may safely assume that at least some of the masteis and slaves addiessed would have
been in ielationship with each othei and in the same chuich (that`s just an assumption,
an aigument fiom the silence of the text), and (c) theiefoie the way slaveiy ended was in
disobedience to these texts. We might iespond (a) Paul cleaily encouiages fieedom; (b)
We could just as ieadily assume that the masteis and slaves in view weie not ielated to
one anothei; and, (c) Tese texts say nothing about the continuance of slaveiy as a system
oi anything about how slaveiy should be ended. None of these assumptions aie necessary
to the text.
Tat a Chiistian slaveholdei could be a membei in good standing in a chuich, as Wil-
son contends, doesn`t seule the issue. Suiely he may have been a slaveholdei when he
was called to Chiist (1 Coi. ), but just as suiely Paul would appeal to him/hei on the
basis of love to immediately fiee theii slave and ieceive them as biotheis in the Loid if
they weie Chiistians (Philemon).
Which biings me to one hnal point, biiefy. When Paul wiites in 1 Timothy 110
that man stealing" oi slave tiading" is contiaiy to the sound doctiine that confoims to
the gloiious gospel of the blessed God," l don`t think he means the Tiansatlantic stealing
and shipping of slaves was wiong but the subsequent puichase, holding, bieeding, and
keeping of slaves was okay. l don`t think that text countenances a dineience between
trading and holding, and that`s key to Wilson`s view of the peimissibility of slaveholding
in the South. Te Southein holding was a consequence of the stealing. To tiy and sepaiate
the two would be like a thief defending himself by saying, Yes, l stole the money, but
the poveity l lef the family with is just something they have to enduie." Tat will nevei
do. Tat thief, biblically speaking, is obligate to ietuin what he stole and then some!
Tat geneiations latei theie weie people boin into slaveiy who only knew slaveiy is
immateiial. Tey weie only in the countiy due to the tiamcking of peisons, which thus
fai eveiyone agiees was wiong. Righting that wiong, it seems to me, meant sciapping
the entiie system built on the wiong. lf theie weie going to be a peimissible system of
slaveiy in the Southa Christian countiy as Wilson sees itit needed to be built upon
indentuie, voluntaiy seivanthood, usually piemised on debt obligations oi poveity and
not iace.
Conclusion
Teie`s moie that needs to be said about the condition of slaves and theii tieatment,
about the South as a Chiistian nation, and about State`s iights, and about Wilson`s post-
mil views and how it anects the book`s aigument. Peihaps a subsequent post will deal
with some of those things. But the heait of the issue is whethei we obey in practice all
the texts of sciiptuie. And that, l would aigue, iequiies moie than a simple application of
the household codes. Without love we aie clanging gongs. Without love we aie nothing.
We have to stait with love and woik it all the way down to the paiticulais.
3
11 Love Is Never Later
Douglas Wilson
24
March 15, 2013
Tabiti`s most iecent post is ieally veiy good. l want to begin by mentioning again
how pleased l am to able to discuss this issue with him, and in this way. Not only am l
pleased with his chaiitable disposition, and his faii-mindedness in undeistanding views
that aie not his own, l am also excited about the actual piogiess that this conveisation
appeais to be making. Tabiti`s most iecent contiibution was veiy helpful in this iegaid.
And judging fiom feedback l have been ieceiving, and many comments on Tabiti`s blog,
this is a conveisation that many have been hungiy to see happen.
Tis post will be shoitei than my pievious one because l agieed with so much of what
he said. Almost he peisuadeth me to be an abolitionist. His kind of one, anyway.
Fiist, my summaiy of these most iecent points. He begins by saying that we ought
not begin oui discussions of this issue too fai "downstieam." By this he means that we
shouldn`t go stiaight to the household codes goveining the ielationships of masteis and
slaves without hist checking how we have iead the seuings of the global commandments.
By this, he means texts that iequiie of us a life of love.
"What texts am l speaking of` l would piivilege all the biblical texts that
command love foi neighboi (Mau. 223-39), love foi enemies (Mau. 43-48),
and especially love foi biotheis and sisteis in Chiist."
His second point appeals to the example of Philemon and Onesimus, and aigues that the
logic of Paul`s aigument in Philemon iequiied an immediate manumission of Onesimus,
and that this would not be an instance of the kind of giadualism l seem to be uiging in
Black & Tan.
ln his thiid point, Tabiti aigues that Paul does not just aigue foi the status quo,
but that he is an active paiticipant in positively uiging Chiistian slaves towaid fieedom
given any legitimate oppoitunity. "lt would be a mistake to conclude that Paul thinks
enslavement itself is not tioublesome."
Tabiti then makes a signihcant fouith point. He aigues that the piohibition of "man-
stealing" in 1 Tim. 110 would apply to moie than just inteicontinental tiamcking of
slaves. ln addition, he believes that selling slaves and owning them cannot ieally be sep-
aiated. Since the whole system in the South was dependent on the stealing, he aigues the
piohibition found in that text is moie extensive than l believe it to be.
Because theie is a lot of agieement heie, l believe l can take caie of a lot of this quickly
and then move on to the iemaining places wheie we still have some disagieement. l
agiee completely with his hist point about the authoiity of the global texts. Te Golden
Rule, to do as you would be done by, is absolutely ielevant in discussions of slaveiy. Not
only is it ielevant, it would be ielevant in intensely piactical and immediate ways.
24
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/love-is-nevei-latei.html
3
l agiee with his second point about Philemon also. ln fact, the only thing l dinei
with in this section is his appaient assumption that we dinei. Speaking of the ielease of
Onesimus, Tabiti says "lt seems to me that Paul expects this `favoi,` his `appeal on the
basis of love,` to be gianted immediatelynot giadually as Wilson aigues in Black and
Tan."
But l agiee completely with Tabiti about the manumission of Onesimus. Given the
stiength of Paul`s aigument, l believe Onesimus was set fiee immediately, oi within a
veiy shoit time. Te giadualism l aigue foi in Black & Tan would be, in Paul`s teims,
the elimination of slaveiy in Asia Minoi, and then thioughout the whole Roman empiie,
and then thioughout the woild. Societies change giadually, but they can only do so if
individuals change suddenly. So we agiee at this point as well.
On this point, heie is a link
2
to my pievious post, iepublished by peimission fiom
Omnibus III. lt is a biief essay on the fow of Paul`s aigument in Philemon. l tiust that
Tabiti will agiee with viitually all of it. And foi those woiking out the chionology of
all this, that essay was wiiuen in 200. lt is an exposition of my views, not a retraction of
them.
l agiee with his thiid point about Paul pushing in a paiticulai diiection (towaid libeity)
in his household code instiuction. Paul is woiking in the same diiection as the Spiiit of
God is woiking, and that is always in the diiection of libeity. Tat is what the gospel does.
With iegaid to his last point about the piohibition of "man-stealing," l agiee with
most of his point, but not all of it. l do agiee that the piohibition of man-stealing (oi
man-tiamcking) is not only in enect when an ocean is involved. l believe that iunning
domestic slave maiketplaces would not have been a lawful occupation foi believeis at
that time, any moie than being a maiitime slave-tiadei would have been. But it is when
you get out to the end of the ioad and to the simple fact of owneiship that the issue gets
moie complicated. Tat is wheie and when l believe the household codes of the New
Testament piovide some boundaiies and some instiuction, in the context of love. So l
say this agieeing with Tabiti that, eveiything else being equal, a Chiistian mastei was
always and eveiywheie undei the law of Chiist to seek the best inteiest of his slaves, as
though he weie in their position.
"Tat a Chiistian slaveholdei could be a membei in good standing in a chuich,
as Wilson contends, doesn`t seule the issue. Suiely he may have been a slave-
holdei when he was called to Chiist (1 Coi. ), but just as suiely Paul would
appeal to him/hei on the basis of love to immediately fiee theii slave and
ieceive them as biotheis in the Loid if they weie Chiistians (Philemon)."
Tis is why l think the woid immediately might need to be qualihed somewhat. What
about a slave-ownei who nevei bought oi sold any slaves` He inheiited the plantation,
and eveiybody was alieady theie. Oi suppose he just had two slaves, both in theii eight-
ies` Oi what if he, like Jeneison, would not sell a slave family unless the family itself
appioved of it` l agiee that Paul heavily leans towaid seuing slaves fiee, but theie aie
2
Appendix A.
3
othei times when he does make lessei appeals foi the meantime. He uiges masteis, foi
example, to "foibeai thieatening" (Eph. 9). And he tells slaves who have masteis who
have not yet picked up on the compelling logic of Philemon to not despise them (1 Tim.
2).
So Tabiti and l have agieed on the need foi immediate, piactical obedience. But
immediate obedience might not mean immediate manumission. Wheievei it did mean
that, Tabiti and l agiee. But suppose l am a pastoi in 188, and a young man who is a
hne Chiistian comes to me foi counsel. He has just inheiited the family plantation, owns
2 slaves as a iesult, is tioubled by the situation, and wants to know what to do. My
counsel would be designed to get him (and his slaves) out of that ciicumstance as quickly
as possible so long as it was consistent with the well-being of eveiyone. ln othei woids,
stait implementing the law of Chiist today. But because of the outside ciicumstances,
the full piocess might take yeais fieeing the childien when they weie boin, teaching
liteiacy and pioductive tiades, pioviding foi the eldeily, etc.
A man can love his slaves, and if he loves his slaves he will not saciihce them to an
abstiact idea. Sometimes a mastei does something else, like going to Jesus foi healing on
his slave`s behalf. "And a ceitain centuiion`s seivant (doulos), who was dear unto him, was
sick, and ieady to die" (Luke 2). Sometimes love does has something beuei to do than
immediate manumission.
l know what l would do today if an aboitionist wanted to join oui chuich. He would
be called upon to iepent, and to shut down his clinic immediately (like, yesteiday) iegaid-
less of the ciicumstances. ln othei woids, this is the kind of sin that does not admit of any
giadations whatevei, and so l would not be a suppoitive pastoi if an aboitionist paiish-
ionei wanted to "tapei on." No, you shut down the clinic, you don`t sell it to someone
else, and you simply iepent, down to the giound. A slave-tiadei with hve ships would
be in the same position. A slave-maiketeei tiamcking in human souls like that gieat city
Babylon (Rev. 1811-13) would be in the same position. Te message of Chiist is to knock
it o. But theie weie moie than a few slave-holdeis in the South who, like the centurion,
had membeis of theii household who weie deai to them. Teii anections weie not tuined
into something else by the coiiupt natuie of the institution itself.
Foi my abusive ciitics, these aie the only people l am inteiested in defending. Pait
of my defense has been to point out that some of them actually existed. But if you then
thiow back in my teeth a long histoiy of white degiadation, abuse, sexual exploitation,
lynchings, etc., as though l had any sympathy whatevei with those soits of monstiosities,
l will just give you leave to debate with the man you think l am. Tell him hi when you
see him next. l have nevei met him myself.
But back to Tabiti, who is not that kind of ciitic. And this may be the most signihcant
point in the whole discussion thus fai. Tabiti says this
"Wilson`s iecommendation foi a giadual appioach does not seem consistent
with gospel love. lf he amended his position even at this one point it would
mean a woild of dineience foi how people heai his aigument and peiceive
him."
38
Tis is a point l am happy to claiify, especially if it might make a woild of dineience.
ln addition, l am happy to amend any statements that led ieasonable people to believe
that l thought the duties of gospel love in individual situations could be implemented
giadually, ovei centuiies. No, l would iepudiate that appioach entiiely. lndividual obe-
dience, individual acceptance of the Golden Rule, is always right now. lf anyone weie to
iead Tabiti`s excellent tieatment of Philemon alongside my tieatment of it, l don`t ieally
think they would be able to hnd any daylight between us.
And that is why l think we aie gaining on it. Again, many thanks to Tabiti foi this
constiuctive conveisation. Also l want to thank those commenteis at his blog and mine
who aie helping that along with theii comments and piayeis.
12 Sometimes the Exceptions Reveal How Far Weve
Gone with the Rule
abiti Anyabwile
2
March 18, 2013
2
Last week, Doug Wilson and l caiiied on an inteinet conveisation about his book,
Black and Tan, and about the Bible`s teaching iegaiding slaveiy. l began the exchange
with an explanation foi iesponding publicly iathei than piivately, then continued by hist
auempting to summaiize Wilson`s views on iace and slaveiy as l undeistood themin Black
and Tan. l followed that post by auempting to engage the undeilying logic of the book as
l saw it. Wilson iesponded veiy giaciously in a post that that centeied the discussion on
the dineience between the foimal authoiity of Sciiptuie and actual lived obedience to it.
Te discussion continued with my tieatment of the biblical texts iegaiding slaveiy, which
included an aigument foi immediatism in abolishing slaveiy.
As you can imagine, oi peihaps have expeiienced, such conveisations acioss ethnic
lines aie potentially explosive. Feelings can iun high. Tongues can iun loose. Heaits can
iun away with us.
So l have been completely delighted to see the Loid`s blessings on oui exchanges. lt
seems to me that Wilson has woiked haid to be chaiitable at eveiy point, to engage the
substance of my ciitiques afei hist accuiately summaiizing them, and to iespond with
fuithei insight and claiity. lt`s been the best kind of conveisation about the haidest kind
of topic. What moie could we hope foi`
2
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/18/sometimes-the-exceptions-ieveal-
how-fai-weve-gone-with-the-iule/
2
Douglas Wilson`s aiticle, Te Designated Ambition Pole," posted on Maich 1, has not been included
chionologically befoie this aiticle by Tabiti because being autobiogiaphical backgiound iegaiding his de-
cision to go to piint with Black and Tan, it does not featuie as essential matiial to the piogiess of this
discussion. Howevei it has been put in the Appendix (B) because it is peitinent to the bioadei context of
this discussion.
39
Well, we could hope foi some agieement. And, by God`s giace, Doug`s last post,
Love ls Nevei Latei," commits to a signihcant amount of agieement iegaiding the Bible`s
teaching on slaveiy. l was suipiised to leain oui exegetical appioach was moie oi less
identical. l`ll let Wilson summaiize the points of agieement as he sees them
l agiee completely with his hist point about the authoiity of the global texts.
Te Golden Rule, to do as you would be done by, is absolutely ielevant in
discussions of slaveiy. Not only is it ielevant, it would be ielevant in intensely
piactical and immediate ways.
l agiee with his second point about Philemon also. ln fact, the only thing l
dinei with in this section is his appaient assumption that we dinei. Speaking
of the ielease of Onesimus, Tabiti says lt seems to me that Paul expects
this `favoi,` his `appeal on the basis of love,` to be gianted immediatelynot
giadually as Wilson aigues in Black and Tan."
But l agiee completely with Tabiti about the manumission of Onesimus.
Given the stiength of Paul`s aigument, l believe Onesimus was set fiee im-
mediately, oi within a veiy shoit time.
l agiee with his thiid point about Paul pushing in a paiticulai diiection (to-
waid libeity) in his household code instiuction. Paul is woiking in the same
diiection as the Spiiit of God is woiking, and that is always in the diiection
of libeity. Tat is what the gospel does.
With iegaid to his last point about the piohibition of man-stealing," l agiee
with most of his point, but not all of it. l do agiee that the piohibition of
man-stealing (oi man-tiamcking) is not only in enect when an ocean is in-
volved. l believe that iunning domestic slave maiketplaces would not have
been a lawful occupation foi believeis at that time, any moie than being a
maiitime slave-tiadei would have been. But it is when you get out to the end
of the ioad and to the simple fact of owneiship that the issue gets moie com-
plicated. Tat is wheie and when l believe the household codes of the New
Testament piovide some boundaiies and some instiuction, in the context of
love. So l say this agieeing with Tabiti that, eveiything else being equal, a
Chiistian mastei was always and eveiywheie undei the law of Chiist to seek
the best inteiest of his slaves, as though he weie in their position.
l thought it good to let Wilson`s last post soak in ovei the weekend. Teie`s so much
agieement heie to appieciate. ln fact, in iefecting on Wilson`s post it seems piohtable to
sciap posts on the potential dineiences we might have on the natuie of Southein slaveiy
and discussion of Wilson`s post-mil views of the South as a Chiistian nation.
l`m fully awaie that discussants have vaiying views on how bad slaveiy was oi how
Chiistian" the South was, especially in light of slaveiy. Sumce it to say that theie weie
atiocities well beyond the atiocities some have been willing to admit, and theie weie
kindnesses well beyond anything some otheis would admit. Most slaves weie not on
40
laige plantations with iuthless oveiseeis, but in households of foui oi so. Plantation
life could be dull while households could be ciuel. Te eveiyday existence of slaves and
owneis could both conhim and violate eveiy steieotype and expectation we might have.
So while discussions of the natuie of slaveiy have theii place, given the agieements we`ve
alieady ieached about immediate abolition tieating those topics would be stiaining at so
many gnats. lnstead, it seems piohtable to move to the exceptions that Wilson mentions
in his last post, which peihaps (`) illustiate one key point of iemaining disagieement
about the nature of slaveiy.
Wilson wiites
l think the woid immediately might need to be qualihed somewhat. What
about a slave-ownei who nevei bought oi sold any slaves` He inheiited the
plantation, and eveiybody was alieady theie. Oi suppose he just had two
slaves, both in theii eighties` Oi what if he, like Jeneison, would not sell a
slave family unless the family itself appioved of it` l agiee that Paul heavily
leans towaid seuing slaves fiee, but theie aie othei times when he does make
lessei appeals foi the meantime. He uiges masteis, foi example, to foibeai
thieatening" (Eph. 9). And he tells slaves who have masteis who have not
yet picked up on the compelling logic of Philemon to not despise them(1 Tim.
2).
So Tabiti and l have agieed on the need foi immediate, piactical obedience.
But immediate obedience might not mean immediate manumission. Whei-
evei it did mean that, Tabiti and l agiee. But suppose l am a pastoi in 188,
and a young man who is a hne Chiistian comes to me foi counsel. He has
just inheiited the family plantation, owns 2 slaves as a iesult, is tioubled by
the situation, and wants to know what to do. My counsel would be designed
to get him (and his slaves) out of that ciicumstance as quickly as possible
so long as it was consistent with the well-being of eveiyone. ln othei woids,
stait implementing the lawof Chiist today. But because of the outside ciicum-
stances, the full piocess might take yeais fieeing the childien when they
weie boin, teaching liteiacy and pioductive tiades, pioviding foi the eldeily,
etc.
ln these comments Wilson qualihes his sense of immediacy with a concein foi the well-
being of the slave to be fieed and some auention to the paiticulais of a situation. l agiee
with Wilson that theie may be situations wheie an instant manumission may not be piac-
ticalas in the case of veiy young childien being fieed without suppoit, family, education,
oi tiade.
Exceptions that Reveal the Rule
But, Wilson`s pioposal iaises a question foi me that l think is peitinent in most of the
exceptions Wilson imagines Why not fiee the slave while at the same time pioviding foi
41
the now foimei slave`s needs anyway`
Excepting the case of veiy young childien sepaiated fiom natuial paients, most of the
people Wilson imagines could make theii own decisions about theii futuie and should be
gianted the iight to do so with mateiial suppoit fiom theii foimei owneis. Tat suppoit,
l would aigue, would have been pait and paicel of the slave ownei`s genuine iepentance
and indeed owed to the slave whose laboi was nevei piopeily compensated.
lf we agiee that man-stealing is contiaiy to the gospel (1 Tim. 110) and that the sys-
tem built upon it was likewise sinful, then it seems cleai we must ieject the veiy notion of
one man owning anothei undei those conditions. Tis is impoitant because the most de-
humanizing onense of Ameiican chauel slaveiy occuis at piecisely this point. Te abuses
of body weie one thing. But the abuses of human spiiit, including the innate desiie foi
libeity, weie moie signihcant ciimes. Tat one man would constiict the libeity of anothei
man at his whim and foi his pleasuie violates eveiy natuial inclination of humanity. Such
bondage is contiaiy to even the natuial spiiit of libeity, the same animating spiiit that
piompted anothei wai (some would say unjust) called the Wai of lndependence, wheie
alieady-fiee White men fought foi even moie fieedom fiom an absentee goveinment that
had the gall to tax them without iepiesentation. lf the spiiit of libeity was alive and justi-
hed then, it seems we ought to allow that same spiiit to thoioughly leaven oui discussions
of slaveiy`s end a hundied yeais latei.
l iealize we`ie down into hypothetical exceptions at this point. And it`s not dimcult
foi me to imagine that on many exceptions Wilson and l would likely be in complete
agieement. But, even in these exceptional cases, l`m aiguing foi a iecognition of the
deepei piinciple Unless a peison sells himself into slaveiy (see Lev. 2, foi example), no
man has a iight to own anothei man. Even in the exceptional cases of old age, veiy young
age, disability, etc., we should apply this piinciple while simultaneously amelioiating the
enects of enslavement as best as possible.
Why Do People ink Wilson Defends Slavery?
l`m pushing foi this piinciple foi anothei ieason also. l`ve watched many people leav-
ing comments vigoiously contend that Wilson defends slaveiy," and l`ve watched Wilson
vigoiously deny the chaige. He`s been just as consistent in denying the chaige as people
have been in making it. So we`ie lef wondeiing why so many ieadeis of Black and Tan
think he defends Southein slaveiy when he insists he does no such thing.
l think it has to do with this issue of woiking the call foi immediate abolition down
into the bone and maiiowof oui viewof Southein slaveiy. When Wilson calls foi a South-
ein giadualism" and iefoimation" iathei than ievolution," he appeais to leave open the
possibility of slaveiy`s continuance in the South. When he contends that slaveiy in the
South wasn`t Apocalyptic Evil" but Noimal Sin," he appeais to suggest that the contin-
uance of slaveiy would be in the bounds of toleiance, the kind of noimal indwelling sin
that will be with us until we`ie fieed fiom these bodies of death. When Wilson expiesses
his appieciation foi some Southein theologians who themselves defended slaveiy in ways
42
Wilson does not, oi exhoits patience" as pait of the iemedy to the oidinaiy sins of slav-
eiy, he appeais to side with the oppiessois ovei the oppiessed. When he aigues the South
was an advanced Chiistian nation" and that it has long caiiied the stigma of iacism and
bigotiy," he appeais to defend and laud that nation and time despite the abomination"
(his woid) called slaveiy.
Taken togethei, these minoi points (l take them to be minoi given his stated agiee-
ments above) take on a piominence in Black and Tan. Piotests to the contiaiy fall fat
because these sentiments, peppeied thioughout the book, occui with such iegulaiity and
ihetoiical foice the ieadei can be foigiven foi thinking they`ie actually a biggei pait of
Wilson`s thinking than peihaps they aie.
lt seems to me that Wilson`s himei exegetical giound would be stiengthened if it weie
unencumbeied by statements that could ieasonably be inteipieted as defenses of Amei-
ican chauel slaveiy. His cleai denunciations of iacism and iacial vaingloiy" and white
supiemacy would be heaid moie cleaily if they weien`t spoken in this din of potential
countei messages. Moieovei, his pastoial concein foi obedience to the Sciiptuie when
the Bible is most unpopulai and Chiistians aie most likely to be embaiiassed oi bullied
(see this foi a iight now example
28
) would be seen and valued foi the piescient insight
that it is. ln shoit, the aspects of Wilson`s thinking that would be most helpful to the
Chuich of oui Loid aie being diowned out by these unceitain tiumpet sounds.
So much would be gained if Wilson diopped those points oi iestated themin a mannei
moie consistent and piopoitional to his tiue views of slaveiy and its abolition. l don`t
piesume to tell him what is woith defending, explaining, oi ievising in this histoiy. l
ieally don`t. But, with the apostle Paul, l would appeal to Wilson on the basis of love foi
futuie wiiting that continues the kind of measuied and chaiitable tone he has used in oui
exchanges. lt would make a signihcant dineience foi the unity of the chuich and leaining
fiom one anothei when we dinei on impoitant but secondaiy maueis.
13 Adoni-bezeks umbs and Toes
Douglas Wilson
29
March 19, 2013
My ongoing thanks to Tabiti foi his giacious and intelligent disagieements
30
with
what l have wiiuen on this subject of iace and slaveiy. He says that he has been delighted
to see the Loid`s blessing on the exchanges, and l have to say l shaie in that delight. Tabiti
has been giateful foi the chaiitable disagieement, and wondeis what moie we could hope
foi. He then goes on, "Well, we could hope foi some agieement." l agiee that this has to
be the goal. lf we fall shoit of it, it shouldn`t be thiough a lack of tiying.
28
Link hups//soundcloud.com/askpastoijohn/iob-poitman-gay-maiiiage
29
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/adoni-bezeks-thumbs-and-toes.html
30
Refeiiing to Anyabwile, Sometimes the Exceptions Reveal How Fai We`ve Gone with the Rule".
43
Too ofen we get to the level of chaiity, and then give up discussing the haid subjects,
seuling foi an "agiee to disagiee" soit of tiuce. But the Bible commands us to go beyond
this, and to stiive foi likemindedness.
"Now the God of patience and consolation giant you to be likeminded one
towaid anothei accoiding to Chiist Jesus Tat ye may with one mind and one
mouth gloiify God, even the Fathei of oui Loid Jesus Chiist" (Rom. 1-).
"Fulhl ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one
accoid, of one mind" (Phil. 22).
Tus fai the discussion has ievealed some wide swaths of agieement, which has been
somewhat suipiising to some obseiveis including peihaps the two of us. Tis is always
to the good. No sense disagieeing wheie you actually agiee. But while we have made
good piogiess, faithfulness to the Loid iequiies that we keep going. We still have some
woik to do.
So having iejoiced in what agieement we have gouen to, Tabiti moves on to two
basic aieas of iemaining disagieement, which l think aie good selections on his pait.
Te hist conceins the degiading natuie of slaveiy itself. Having been biought up to
love libeity as l have been, l cannot imagine being a slave, and l cannot imagine wanting
to own any. Tus fai, Tabiti`s instincts and mine line up completely. "But the abuses of
human spiiit, including the innate desiie foi libeity, weie moie signihcant ciimes. Tat
one man would constiict the libeity of anothei man at his whim and foi his pleasuie
violates eveiy natuial inclination of humanity." l know what he is talking about heie, at
least when it comes to my natuial inclinations. l shaie them.
Te second issue has to do with why people believe that l "defend slaveiy" when l
iepeatedly deny doing so. Tabiti suggests that it is because that these denunciations of
the institution of slaveiy aie woven togethei with vaiious expiessions of suppoit foi the
cause of the South in othei ways and in othei aieas. "His cleai denunciations of iacism
and `iacial vaingloiy` and white supiemacy would be heaid moie cleaily if they weien`t
spoken in this din of potential countei messages."
He makes a similai point at gieatei length in his conclusion.
"So much would be gained if Wilson diopped those points oi iestated them in
a mannei moie consistent and piopoitional to his tiue views of slaveiy and
its abolition . . . with the apostle Paul, l would appeal to Wilson on the basis
of love foi futuie wiiting that continues the kind of measuied and chaiitable
tone he has used in oui exchanges. lt would make a signihcant dineience
foi the unity of the chuich and leaining fiom one anothei when we dinei on
impoitant but secondaiy maueis."
So let me iespond to these two conceins that Tabiti iaises, but in ieveise oidei this time.
One of the ieasons that l have been so glad to have this exchange with Tabiti is that
it has given me a cleai oppoitunity to do just what he asks foi heie. l believe that we
44
should be eagei to maintain the unity of the Spiiit in the bond of peace, and that we have
a tiue iesponsibility to stiive foi this. l accept the encouiagement to go fuithei in this
diiection. l will do what l can. And in the spiiit of the apostle Paul, who was discussing
his intentions in anothei ethnically chaiged situation, l will say that this is the veiy thing
l have been eagei to do (Gal. 210).
At the same time, defusing a bomb in the movies depends on moie than just good
intentions. You also have to know whethei you aie supposed to snip the gieen wiie oi
the ied one. Tese things can be volatile, and some of it is out of oui hands. ln my case,
a good deal of it is. Paul acknowledges that oui ability to be at peace with eveiyone
will sometimes depend upon the otheis (Rom. 1218). l ieally am happy to cultivate the
oppoitunities that Tabiti has cieated in this exchange, and l hope this leads to moie op-
poitunities. But as l said at the beginning of oui inteiaction, Tabiti is the hist ciitic of
any note who has actually taken the time to inteiact with what l have actually been aigu-
ing, and he has done it without fipping out, and so l am taking it as a golden oppoitunity
to demonstiate that l mean what l say. Racial ieconciliation between biotheis in Chiist is
highly to be desiied.
Now l giant Tabiti`s point that if l would tieat the sins of iacial vaingloiy, all by
themselves, l don`t think l would be in the conficts l get into on this subject. But because
the iacial situation in Ameiica has gouen so infamed, people like me aie not allowed to
tieat issues in isolation. Wiiting Black & Tan was iacially insensitive` But so is oithodox
Tiinitaiian theology anywheie in the neighboihood of T.D. Jakes. lf allowed to speak on
iacism in a vacuum, l think l would do hne. But we don`t live in vacuum; we live in this
messy thing called histoiy.
l have said befoie that l would have fought foi the South, despite the convictions l
hold on the ungodliness of iacially-based chauel slaveiy. l would have done this foi vai-
ious ieasons foi limited constitutional goveinment, against the Whig/Republican diive
towaid centialized fedeial goveinment, against the tax/taiin policies of the centializeis,
etc. Someone might uige me, "Why don`t you just diop the whole issue` Slaveiy is gone,
man." Right, and l nevei would have fought to defend slaveiy as such. Right, slaveiy is
gone, but the centializeis aie still heie. Te anti-constitutionalists aie still heie. Te fed-
eial goveinment is still heie, as aiiogant as evei. All the taxes and then some aie still
heie. Te Bible is still heie, and its desciiption of homosexuality as an abomination is still
heie. Fify million Ameiicans, 30 oi so of them black, would have been heie if somebody
hadn`t twisted the Constitution into a suigical device foi dismembeiing babies, ied and
yellow, black and white.
Aiound the time of the Civil Wai, theie weie about 3. million slaves, and about half
a million fiee blacks. Since Roe v. Wade, about 1 million black childien have been sum-
maiily executed befoie they evei had a chance to leain the coloi of the skin God gave
them. So in oui day, in oui geneiation, we have killed four times more blacks than were
even alive duiing the Civil Wai. Now l cannot talk about what Roe did to all of us without
talking about states` iights, constitutional law, and how we got into this mess.
So this is analogous to a point someone once made about ethnic wais you don`t have
4
to choose up sides in an ethnic wai. Te othei side does that foi you. lf you take a biblical
position on any numbei of issues, you will be accused of iacism oi iacial insensitivity
almost as a mauei of ioutine. lt is iapidly appioaching a meaningless dog-whistle kind of
chaige; it has become a clown cai distiaction.
Now l still think it is my obligation to be ciystal cleai on the iacism issue because
l believe genuine iacism is a gospel-thieatening sin but oui public discouise in these
tioubled times is stiuctuied in such a way that it is viitually impossible to speak God`s
tiuth in a numbei of aieas without incuiiing spuiious chaiges of iacism.
Tose qualihcations made, l have heaid Tabiti`s exhoitation, and l take it to heait. l
will do my level best to keep this conveisation wheie his cleai-headedness has allowed it
to come. l can`t piomise the moon because foi all l know someone is piepaiing an auack
blog iight now accusing me of some outiage oi othei.
Tabiti`s hist point had to do with oui natuial inclinations, and how aveise we aie to
the veiy idea of slaveiy. Tis concein has to do with the veiy natuie of slaveiy. But l want
to make suie my natuial inclinations aie shaped and goveined by the Sciiptuies. Tis
includes paiticulai texts and laws, and it includes the giand sweep of God`s iedemptive
puiposes, which will eiadicate eveiy foim of slaveiy. God will wipe away eveiy teai, and
all mannei of things shall be well. But on the way to that gloiious hnish, we do have to
be honest with some of the angulai texts that we aie sometimes tempted to gloss ovei.
l shaie Tatbiti`s natuial iecoil away fiom this kind of seivitude. But l also know, as a
student of Sciiptuie and histoiy, how much my "natuial inclinations" have been shaped
by the couise of the gospel thiough the woild. l don`t see this shaping as a bad thing but
it can become a bad thing if l allowmy Sciiptuie-cieated sensibilities become a ietioactive
judge of Sciiptuie. Once that happens, we have moved fiom an oithodox undeistanding
of piogiessive ievelation to a libeial and evolutionaiy appioach. Tis issue ieally is ciucial
to me. lf we allow the lauei, it will be about ten minutes befoie we aie "evolving" on same
sex maiiiage.
Foi example, l have said in othei seuings that slaveiy as goveined by the law of God
undei Moses was a foim of indentuied seivanthood, which l do believe and hold. But my
accuseis have not ieally puisued me into the tall weeds foi details on this point because,
at least foi my Chiistian accuseis, my point as stated gives them a pass as well as giving
me one.
ln my apologetic woik, l have to answei unbelieveis who have iead theii Bibles. Tey
ofen know what is "in theie" beuei than some Chiistians do. When l call them to faith
in Chiist, and to a complete acceptance of His holy and infallible Woid, a numbei of them
know what l am asking them to do. Tey know about the guy who was stoned foi picking
up sticks on the Sabbath. Tey know David`s method of taking scalps. Tey know what
happened to Adoni-bezek`s thumbs and toes.
We have to deal with the text of Sciiptuie as it stands. We have to ieveience it as
it stands. But this next thing is impoitant to note ln pointing to some of these angulai
texts on slaveiy (texts that challenge how"natuial" oui cuiient natuial inclinations might
be), l am in no way looking foi a false ietuin to them as though Chiist had not come.
4
Redemptive histoiy cannot be iolled back up again, like it was a caipet.
Tat said, oui enjoyment of the libeity that the Spiiit has given to us now should not
have to iest upon a denial of the woids that this same Spiiit gave to His people then.
ln othei woids, l want to accept what the Spiiit has given us while at the same time
iemembeiing what the Spiiit has said to oui fatheis and to us and without apologizing
foi any of it. And geuing the context iight is not the same thing as apologizing foi it.
ln shoit, l have a theology of piogiessive ievelation that l believe gives an honest
account of all these issues. But too many Chiistians don`t give an unfinching account of
these texts, but iathei give iathei a glancing and oblique account of them.
Tat said, heie goes
"lf thou buy an Hebiew seivant, six yeais he shall seive and in the seventh
he shall go out fiee foi nothing. lf he came in by himself, he shall go out by
himself if he weie maiiied, then his wife shall go out with him. lf his mastei
have given him a wife, and she have boin him sons oi daughteis; the wife and
hei childien shall be hei mastei`s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the
seivant shall plainly say, l love my mastei, my wife, and my childien; l will
not go out fiee Ten his mastei shall biing him unto the judges; he shall also
biing him to the dooi, oi unto the dooi post; and his mastei shall boie his eai
thiough with an aul; and he shall seive him foi evei" (Ex. 212-).
And if a man beats his male oi female seivant with a iod, so that he dies undei
his hand, he shall suiely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he iemains alive a
day oi two, he shall not be punished; foi he is his piopeity" (Ex. 2120-21).
"And if a man smite the eye of his seivant, oi the eye of his maid, that it peiish;
he shall let himgo fiee foi his eye`s sake. And if he smite out his manseivant`s
tooth, oi his maidseivant`s tooth; he shall let him go fiee foi his tooth`s sake"
(Ex. 212-2).
ln the hist instance, a man ceitainly might feel piessuie to indentuie himself to his mastei
foi life foi the sake of keeping his family intact. Suie, he became a slave foi life fieely,
but the alteinative was leaving his family. Tis law makes my natuial inclinations go
gakkk! but in the ancient Middle East, it was an instance of astonishing libeiality. ln the
second case, a mastei is punished foi killing his slave, but he is not punished if the slave
suivives foi a day oi two. Undei those ciicumstances, his behavioi was not to be tieated
as ciiminal. Sinful, peihaps, and l would say even likely. But the Mosaic code made a
iough justice soit of distinction heie that l do not see opeiating between Philemon and
Onesimus (which came latei in iedemptive histoiy). ln the thiid case, the law is iightly
placing limits on the abuse of slaves, but again it is a iough justice kind of scenaiio. As l
have consistently aigued, these soits of iestiictions have a pedagogical iole, and ovei the
long iun they subveit the woildview that makes these untenable situations possible. But
theie is my giadualism again the "long iun."
Afei the closuie of the canon, we have the same soit of dimculty. Tabiti and l agiee
completely on the logic of the book of Philemon, and we agiee that Philemon also "got
4
it." But blind spots aie not eiadicated all at once. Teie weie Chiistian masteis, then and
moie iecently, who didn`t "get it." Tey weie tiue Chiistians, but talk to them about the
unfolding of iedemptive histoiy, and they weie likely to ask you what that had to do with
the piice of couon. Suppose such a man, not an ogie, but not a piofound Chiistian eithei,
had some Chiistian slaves in his household. Suppose that those Chiistian slaves had been
taught to iead, and they had iead Philemon, and they "got it" and theii mastei didn`t.
What do we tell them` We tell them not to despise theii mastei (1 Tim. 2). And we, a
centuiy and a half latei, should take caie not to despise them eithei.
We should considei them oui biotheis, faithful and beloved, and we should seek to
leain fiom theii mistakes. We should considei ouiselves, lest we also be tempted (Gal.
1). But we should iemove the beam of aboition fiom oui enlightened eye befoie taking
up the task of iemoving the specks, oi the beams, fiom the eyes of othei geneiations.
ln othei woids, l believe oui Chiistian biotheis 00 yeais fiom now we look at oui be-
havioi now, in the piesent ciisis, with as much consteination as they look at oui biotheis
at the time of the Civil Wai. Histoiy ieally is a mess.
14 e Cost of Our Chosen Entanglements
Tabiti Anyabwile
31
Maich 20, 2013
We`ie soldieis in a wai. We have oideis fiom oui Captain. We daie not involve oui-
selves in civilian anaiis. We must please the One who enlists us (2 Tim. 24). What good
soldiei would set aside oideis fiom his Commanding Omcei in oidei to enjoy the puisuits
of civilian pleasuie` Leaving his post would most dehnitely impeiil his company.
Consequently, we must be veiy caieful about the entanglements we choose. We must
be caieful to discein the dineience between biblical maiching oideis and maueis impoi-
tant to the many civilians who live aiound us. Tat`s paiticulaily tiue of the pastoi, a kind
of lieutenant to the Commanding Omcei.
Doug Wilson has oneied a iesponse to my last post, a post which appealed foi two
things (1) a moie iadical (in the old sense of the woid, meaning at the ioot) application
of the Bible`s command to love and (2) a continuance of Wilson`s chaiitable tone in oui
discussion in futuie discussions of iace, slaveiy, the Bible, etc. On this second point, l
opined that Wilson might be moie enective at communicating his points and less encum-
beied by false peiceptions of his views if he would disentangle his iathei cleai statements
against slaveiy and iacism fiom statements that seem to celebiate the Old South, defend
slave owneis, and minimize the negative aspects of slaveiy.
Wilson iesponded
32
, in pait, by saying he feais the iacial situation in Ameiica has
31
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/20/the-cost-of-oui-chosen-
entanglements/
32
Wilson, Adoni-bezek`s Tumbs and Toes".
48
gouen so infamed, people like me aie not allowed to tieat issues in isolation. Wiiting
Black & Tan was iacially insensitive` But so is oithodox Tiinitaiian theology anywheie
in the neighboihood of T.D. Jakes. lf allowed to speak on iacism in a vacuum, l think l
would do hne. But we don`t live in vacuum; we live in this messy thing called histoiy."
His next paiagiaph illustiates the inteitwining of his views of political histoiy and
slaveiy
l have said befoie that l would have fought foi the South, despite the con-
victions l hold on the ungodliness of iacially-based chauel slaveiy. l would
have done this foi vaiious ieasons foi limited constitutional goveinment,
against the Whig/Republican diive towaid centialized fedeial goveinment,
against the tax/taiin policies of the centializeis, etc. Someone might uige me,
Why don`t you just diop the whole issue` Slaveiy is gone, man." Right, and
l nevei would have fought to defend slaveiy as such. Right, slaveiy is gone,
but the centializeis aie still heie. Te anti-constitutionalists aie still heie. Te
fedeial goveinment is still heie, as aiiogant as evei. All the taxes and then
some aie still heie. Te Bible is still heie, and its desciiption of homosexual-
ity as an abomination is still heie. Fify million Ameiicans, 30 oi so of them
black, would have been heie if somebody hadn`t twisted the Constitution into
a suigical device foi dismembeiing babies, ied and yellow, black and white.
By inteitwining these things, Wilson does not mean to suggest he shiinks back fiom the
iesponsibility to denounce iacism. Now l still think it is my obligation to be ciystal cleai
on the iacism issue because l believe genuine iacism is a gospel-thieatening sin but
oui public discouise in these tioubled times is stiuctuied in such a way that it is viitually
impossible to speak God`s tiuth in a numbei of aieas without incuiiing spuiious chaiges
of iacism." He simply means he cannot make such denunciations without involving him-
self in a numbei of othei contested issues he sees as ielated.
l`ve tiied but l`ve been unable to undeistand why Wilson sees the denunciation of
iacism as insepaiable fiom this messy thing called histoiy" and a numbei of aieas. in-
cuiiing spuiious chaiges of iacism." Scoies of wiiteis distinguish those two things neaily
eveiy day in eveiything fiom blog posts to aiticles and opinion pieces to book-length
tieatments of eithei subject. We can pick up tomes on iace and iacism that make no men-
tion of whethei the Civil Wai was a ciisis in constitutional polity oi any mention of the
Old South. Likewise, we can iead numeious pieces on the Civil Wai that focus liule on
iace and iacism. ln shoit, these issues aie not as inteitwined as Wilson thinks them to
be. At least not wheie l sit and accoiding to the plethoia of tieatments that avoid such
commingling of issues.
Moieovei, choosing to entangle the issues huits both causeseithei a stalwait, un-
clouded denunciation of iacism oi a ievision of the South`s histoiy and peiception in
populai, political oi academic discouise. When entangling these topics ievisionists of
Southein histoiy huit theii cause by leaving themselves open to chaiges of iacism while
49
opponents of iacism huit theii cause by hitching theii aiguments to Old South ievision-
ism. Neithei side gains an audience.
Our Entanglements Sometimes Keep Us from Asking and Answering Other
Important estions
Te cost of blending these topics iun quite high. When Wilson wiites, l would have
fought foi the South, despite the convictions l hold on the ungodliness of iacially-based
chauel slaveiy," it seems to me he fails to ask a ciitical question iequiied by love What
about the lives, iights, and futuies of enslaved Afiican Ameiicans` Aie not these lives as
impoitant as the constitutional issues at stake` Aie not the constitutional issues impoitant
piecisely because lives aie at stake` What about the constitutional issues makes them
moie impoitant than one`s peisonal convictions on the ungodliness of iacially-based
chauel slaveiy"` Do these consideiations ieally tiump human life`
Wiiting l would have fought foi the South, despite the convictions I hold on the un-
godliness of racially-based chael slavery" (emphasis added) can only mean that one was
willing to countenance and take action to secuie the continuation of ungodliness." Would
we oppose God in oidei to secuie the civilian anaiis of the Old South` lf we take the Wai
to be a judgment upon the nation, why with the advantage of histoiy`s hindsight would
we still be commiued to a cause that God condemned in judgment`
l hnd heie a gieat inconsistency and mismanagement of piioiities. Suiely human life
must iank highei in impoitance than goveinments. Tough goveinments aie appointed
by God, they aie appointed to pieseive justice and life (Rom. 13). lt seems Wilson`s
commitment to the cause of the Old South pievents him fiom asking oi ianking Afiican
Ameiican life above constitutional disputes. l think that`s the wiong set of piioiities foi a
gospel ministei, an ambassadoi of Chiist, and a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. lt seems
to me that those piioiities entangle us with civilian anaiis, and those entanglements cost
us cleaiei vision, consistent application of the Sciiptuie, and human life.
On Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
As l iead Wilson`s last post and skimmed ovei sections of Black and Tan, l couldn`t help
but think of the old adage, One man`s teiioiist is anothei man`s fieedomhghteis." Wilson,
siding with the Old South, sees himself as hghting foi the fieedomof the Southein States to
secede fiom the union and oiganize life undei theii own constitution. l can`t help but see
that as an act that would have fuithei teiioiized enslaved Afiican Ameiicans. l couldn`t
help but pondei why Wilson would pieach 1 Tim. 2 to enslaved Afiican Ameiicans
iathei than 1 Coi. 21.
Ten l thought of my heioes in the disputethe many Afiican Ameiicans who escaped
to hght foi the Noith, fieedmen and fiee-boin men who invested theii piecious life to join
the Union Aimy, men and women who led the Undeigiound Railioad, oi iadicals" who
mounted insuiiections as occasion peimiued. Foi me (literally, foi me) they weie fieedom
0
hghteissome moie iadical than otheis. Meanwhile, foi otheis they weie teiioiists.
Teie aie foims of iadicalism" othei than the John Biown Haipei`s Feiiy vaiiety. l
think of the iadicalism of a Maitin Luthei King, Ji., who, without iecouise to violence,
lived out the most iadical saciihce the Bible calls us to make to love. To love oui God, to
love oui biotheis, to love oui enemies. He wiote an impassioned leuei explaining Why
We Can`t Wait." Te cleigypeisons who wiote to King asking him to be patient" no doubt
had theii cultuial, social, and political ieasons foi auempting to slow King`s movement.
But iadical" that he was, he could not wait. With a pieachei`s eloquence and biblical
texts, he called a countiy to love and to the fieedom love demands. l`m glad he didn`t
wait. Because he didn`t wait l can wiite publicly to disagiee with a White man and not
feai loss of life oi have to fee the southein city in which l now sit. l`m glad all those who
heaid the call of love chose to disentangle themselves foim the laws of the day and to
actively iesist in nonviolent piotest so that we might have a gieatei measuie of fieedom
and justice foi all.
Peihaps this is wheie Wilson and l ieach an impasse. But l have no doubt that weie
the shackle on the othei foot, eveiy White ieadei of this conveisation would have been
seeking theii fieedom iathei than iushing to biblical texts that seemed to iequiie theii ac-
quiescence. When the founding fatheis of Ameiica thought theii libeities weie contiacted
in unfaii taxation, they fought a wai against theii own ciown goveinment, though theii
lives weien`t in immediate peiil oi theii bodies bound. Tey didn`t wait oi choose to hght
foi the oppiessoi they knew to be in the wiong. And when White southeineis thought
theii way of life was compiomised in the mid-1800s, they too fought a wai foi theii fiee-
dom. Wilson says he undeistands that natuial inclination." l believe he does. l would
simply ask and hope that he might hght foi the iight of eveiyone to feel and puisue the
same impulse to fieedom and dignity that he has.
15 Water is icker an Blood
Douglas Wilson
33
March 20, 2013
Tabiti has not only been a faithful and chaiitable inteilocutoi, he is also a foimidable
one. l thank God foi him.
Again, let me begin with a summaiy of his most iecent contiibution
34
. Tis is my
undeistanding of his most iecent post. Tabiti believes that many of my dineient issues
aie moie easily distinguishable than l believe them to be, and he sees othei wiiteis doing
eveiy day what l have declaied to be veiy dimcult to do. Fuithei, he sees my failuie to put
cleai distance between the issues like iacism and (foi example) constitutional limitations
of goveinment as a failuie that natuially causes some of my ciitics to see ied. Tabiti has
33
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/watei-is-thickei-than-blood.html
34
Refeiing to Anyabwile, Te Cost of Oui Chosen Entanglements".
1
found (and undeistood) my denunciations of iacism, but he wouldn`t want me to think
that l made it easy foi him.
"l hnd heie a gieat inconsistency and mismanagement of piioiities. Suiely
human life must iank highei in impoitance than goveinments. Tough gov-
einments aie appointed by God, they aie appointed to pieseive justice and life
(Rom. 13). lt seems Wilson`s commitment to the cause of the Old South pie-
vents him fiom asking oi ianking Afiican Ameiican life above constitutional
disputes."
Fiist, l want to take the centei of Tabiti`s exhoitation to heait. Just this moining in my
Bible ieading, this veise stiuck me. "As eveiy man hath ieceived the gif, even so ministei
the same one to anothei, as good stewards of the manifold giace of God" (1 Pet. 410).
Ministeis aie stewaids of the manifold giace of God, which means that we must give
an account foi how we use oui woids, foi how we teach. We don`t want any of oui peuy
piioiities to get tangled up with the "manifold giace of God."
l do undeistand how some people would just stop listening when l say something like
"l would have fought foi the South," and dismiss eveiything afei that as just so much gas.
l thank Tabiti foi not doing that, and foi the oppoitunity to explain what l considei as
impoitant in this kind of ciicumstance.
When l was a liule boy, l once went down to a diug stoie neai oui home and bought a
comic book it was one of those Sgt. Rock kind of things, with some haid-biuen Ameiican
hghting his way acioss the Pacihc. My fathei, a veteian of the Koiean Wai, found me
with it, and made me take it back. Te ieason, as he explained caiefully to me (in a way
l have nevei foigouen), was that the Japanese enemy weie diawn in that comic book as
decidedly sub-human. (My mothei was a missionaiy to Japan, aiiiving theie in 194.) lt
is sometimes teiiibly necessaiy to go to wai, but when a Chiistian does so, he must nevei
foiget that he is hghting with fatheis and sons and biotheis. He is hghting people with
families, families that aie deai to them.
lt is fai too easy foi us to go to wai with caitoons. We envision baule as simple and
gloiious elves to oui lef and iight, and the oics out in fiont of us. And when wai bieaks
out between nations that have heavy Chiistian populations, the issues become even moie
complicated and tiagic. Te legendaiy stoiies about unomcial Chiistmas tiuces in the Fiist
Woild Wai come to mind, and it would be things like that that can just bieak youi heait.
Anothei example would be the tiuce l once iead about between Union and Confedeiate
foices . . . in oidei to conduct a baptism in the iivei between them.
ln the Civil Wai, theie weie godly Chiistians on both sides. Teie weie vicious scoundiels
on both sides. Teie weie slave-owneis on both sides. Teie weie iacists on both sides. lt
was famously a wai between biothei and biothei but it was also a wai that ofen piued
biothei in Chiist against biothei in Chiist. David had moie in common with Abnei than
he did with Joab, go hguie, and that is one of the consequences of living in fallen woild.
But we still have to use equal weights and measuies. Te judgment with which we
judge, we shall be judged. lf a Chiistian today joins the Ameiican militaiy, is he hghting
2
foi aboition iights, poinogiaphy, and same-sex maiiiage` Well, not ieally, but it would
be faiily easy to iepiesent it that way a hundied yeais fiom now.
Tabiti believes that l ammistaken foi choosing the abstiact concept of "constitutional
libeities" ovei the plight of fesh and blood slaves, who weie ieal people suneiing in ieal
time. Stated that way, of couise, l would agiee with him. l am told in Sciiptuie to love
my neighbor, and l ought not piivilege some political idea l have ovei against the genuine
suneiing of my biotheis and sisteis. But what if the idea is to love my biotheis and sisteis`
Tis is an example of how l tend to see vaiious issues as veiy tightly woven.
Constitutional libeities aie not an abstiact idea to be kicked aiound in civics class
constitutional liberties are what the slaughtered unborn in America have had taken away
from them, along with their lives. So l do not set abstiact piinciples ovei against slaves.
l am conceined foi people in this situation and people in that one. l am also conceined
foi the dehciencies of law that allowed foi the iise of chauel slaveiy and the dehciencies
of law that allowed foi the Ameiican genocide that we aie still in the middle of. l want
to soit out the apples and compaie them to one anothei, and then do the same with the
oianges.
With all this stated, Tabiti iaises a few paiticulai questions that l need to answei.
"l couldn`t help but pondei why Wilson would pieach 1 Tim. 2 to enslaved
Afiican Ameiicans iathei than 1 Coi. 21."
What l would actually want to do is pieach both passages to them. l would want to
encouiage them to seek theii fieedom at the hist legitimate oppoitunity, and l would see
embiacing the spiiit of 1 Tim. 2 as one of the enective ways of doing that. But theie aie
othei ways also. l would want slaves evangelized, taught to iead and given Bibles. Tat
done, they would iun acioss this.
"Tou shalt not delivei unto his mastei the seivant which is escaped fiom his
mastei unto thee He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place
which he shall choose in one of thy gates, wheie it liketh him best thou shalt
not oppiess him" (Dt. 231-1).
Teie is a veiy stiong biblical case that can be made foi a fugitive slave law that leans
heavily in favoi of a mistieated slave escaping fiom an abusive situation. Again, as l
hope my appeal to this passage demonstiates, my cential concein is hdelity to the whole
counsel of God, and to all the ielevant passages. l am not diiven by a simple oi jingoistic
auachment to a iegion oi a seculai cause. All l want to do is defend the puie woids of
God in the middle of oui veiy impuie histoiy.
Tabiti also makes this point
"But l have no doubt that weie the shackle on the othei foot, eveiy White
ieadei of this conveisation would have been seeking theii fieedom iathei
than iushing to biblical texts that seemed to iequiie theii acquiescence."
3
l take Tabiti`s point heie, and do agiee with it. Teie is a stiong temptation (foi all of
us) to iead the Bible in self-seiving ways, and to wondei why othei people aien`t obeying
theii haid texts those texts being the ones that aie not pinching us at the moment.
But at the same time, theie is a stiong ebb and fowin histoiy, and we should iemembei
that oui woid slave comes fiom the ethnic Slavs. Tat was the iesult of boidei conficts
foi the Holy Roman Empiie in the ninth centuiy. And most of the slaves entailed in Paul`s
instiuctions would have been white, not black, and the geneial condition of slaves in that
eia was hoiiendous. lt was not based on skin coloi, but it was still hoiiihc. And Afiica
has been an equal oppoitunity place of miseiy when it comes to the unhappy topic of
slaveiy. Not only weie many blacks enslaved and expoited (with many muideied on the
way) fiom the west coast of Afiica, Muslim iaideis ian a iobust slaving business on the
noith coast of Afiica, impoiting white slaves (as many as a million ovei seveial centuiies),
captuied and impoited fiom Euiope.
Te human iace is a piece of woik, and we (all of us) despeiately need the gospel. We
don`t iun oui own anaiis veiy well, whatevei oui tiibe oi skin coloi, and so we desperately
need to listen to God.
As this exchange is (peihaps) coming to a close, l want mention just a couple of things.
Te hist is that the dineiences between Tabiti and me aie signihcant, and so l wanted
to thank him again foi his consistent faii-mindedness. ln the giace of God, Tabiti and
l aie biotheis in Chiist, and l wanted to state publicly that l considei him to be my tiue
biothei in the stiongest possible sense. Te bonds of Chiist aie not shackles, and l am
most giateful that watei is thickei than blood.
Te second thing is a standing invitation. As ciicumstances and the piovidence of
God allow, l would love to meet Tabiti in peison, shake his hand, buy him a beei, invite
him to oui home foi a Sabbath dinnei, and ask him to hll the pulpit at Chiist Chuich on
a Loid`s Day moining. My desiie would be to do all of the above and moie, but any one
of them would be a piivilege.
16 Resisting the Slavers
Douglas Wilson
3
March 20, 2013
An issue has come up in the comments of both Tabiti`s blog and mine that l thought l
should addiess quickly, at least if l can. l have wiiuen and spoken on this in othei seuings,
but it appeais that a few folks think it is somewhat ielevant to this discussion. Tat is the
question of the Ameiican Wai foi lndependence, and whethei oi not it was legitimate foi
oui Foundeis to ievolt against "the existing authoiities."
l believe it was legitimate but l believe this because it wasn`t ovei the levels of taxation.
Rathei, the issue was one of which bodies had the constitutional authoiity to tax the
3
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/iesisting-the-slaveis.html
4
colonies at all. Living as l do in ldaho, if l weie to ieceive a tax bill levied by the legislatuie
of Noith Dakota, l would simply iound hle it. Tis would not place me in violation of the
existing law the Noith Dakota legislatuie would be the ones violating the law by tiying
to tax me. l don`t live theie, and they have no legitimate juiisdiction ovei me whatevei.
Te ciicumstances weie similai foi the Ameiican colonies. Teie aie some vaiiations
in all this, but when the colonies weie hist established, the ciown was theii executive au-
thoiity, and they weie given theii own legislatuies. As a iesult of the Gloiious Revolution
in England in 188, the ciown lost authoiity in England, and Pailiament gained authoiity.
Tey gained authoiity in such a way as to make them assume (wiongly) that theii legisla-
tuie (foi England) was now in chaige of all the legislatuies in othei places. But it wasn`t
that was the point of dispute. "No taxation without iepiesentation" was an Ameiican
aigument from the law. Pailiament had no taxing authoiity ovei the colonies because the
colonies had no iepiesentatives in Pailiament.
ln shoit, the Ameiicans weie the conseivatives, hghting to maintain theii iights undei
the constitution, and the Pailiament iepiesented the iadical innovation.
Tat`s the shoit veision, and l hope it makes sense. So to biing this into the slaveiy
discussion, the Ameiican colonists weie not long established slaves who decided to ievolt
against theii masteis. Tey weie fiee men who iesisted an auempt to make them slaves
in the hist place. ln consequence, because of the ciicumstances they weie in, l believe
that such iesistance was fully appiopiiate.
17 e Histories of the AmericanSouth: ACautionagainst
Hegemonies
abiti Anyabwile
3
March 25, 3013
Duiing my days of touiing college campuses to heai men like Moleh Asante, Yosef
ben Jochanon, lvan van Seitima, Naim Akbai, and Wade Nobles wax poetic about Afii-
centiism, Afiican histoiy, and the need foi a genuinely multicultuial Ameiican society,
it was commonplace to aigue that histoiy was his stoiy (lowei case `h`). So much of
what makes it into piint in the widely published and standaid texts, we weie told, was
wiiuen fiom the vantage point of white westein elites who knew liule of the peoples
and cultuies of Afiica. We studiously took oui place in the naiiative wais of histoiy and
countei-histoiy. Not only is one man`s teiioiist anothei man`s fieedom hghtei, but it
tuins out that one man`s conspiiacy theoiist is anothei man`s histoiian.
l`m ieminded of all this ieading many of the comments and iesponses in the thieads
to these posts on Black and Tan. Many have questioned Wilson`s histoiy of the Ameiican
South, and otheis have hied back with facts and quotes in defense of that view. Eveiy
3
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/2/the-histoiies-of-the-ameiican-south-
a-caution-against-hegemonies/

quote is met with a countei-quote, and on it goes. lt sometimes looks like the amateui
histoiian`s veision of the pieachei`s weak pioof text (which is sometimes ieally a pietext
foi an a priori position).
ln an eailiei post, l thought we might be able to skip any discussion of the undeilying
histoiy involved. l thought that because Wilson and l hold veiy similai views of the
biblical texts, theii piioiity, and theii implications. l was hoping foi some piogiess on
biblical giounds, since we both think that`s piecisely the giound at stake and the giound
upon which Chiistians should stand. But, it seems a few geneial iemaiks about histoiy
and about Black and Tan`s histoiy aie waiianted.
An Appreciation
Let me begin with an appieciation. l`m giateful foi Wilson`s defense of the geneialist
histoiian. Wilson undeistands that theie`s no way to be a good pastoi without having
at least a geneial giip on histoiyseculai and iedemptive. He wiites, Histoiical laymen
should iead bioadly enough to make suie they aie not ieading some tiuncated account oi
othei, but neithei should they be embaiiassed by the necessity of populaiizing the mate-
iial" (pp. 8-9). l agiee with this sentiment entiiely. l join with Wilson in both appieciating
the necessaiy iole specialists play while amiming that all us non-specialists have a stake
and iole in telling the stoiy as well. Afei all, good histoiy has to be our stoiy too.
Some Concerns with Black and Tans Approach to History
But having said that, the histoiy" assumed in Black and Tan does piovoke a few con-
ceins. Tese conceins need to be touched upon because oui viewof what happened shapes
oui view of who we aie, what is, and what ought to be. Again, Wilson and l agiee lf we
get the past wiong we`ie likely to get eveiy subsequent thing wiong, also. So to avoid
that domino enect, we need to give auention to histoiical method.
Fiom my peispective, Black and Tan is lacking in foui ways.
First, Black and Tan is not history. Te book makes claims about histoiy, but it`s
not a piesentation oi exposition of histoiy in any sense that l could iecognize. Now, l
iealize that Black and Tan is in many ways Wilson`s apologetic foi Slavery As It Wasa
woik l have not iead but undeistand to have piesented moie histoiy than Black and Tan.
Peihaps Wilson allows himself the convenience of not iestating the aiguments of Slavery
As It Was. But the consequence, as he puts it, is a book with an ad-hoc, iagtaggy feel" (p.
119). ln my ieading, that feel" is felt most wheie histoiical claims aie in view.
lt`s dimcult to onei a ciitique of the histoiy since theie`s no cleai substantive histoiical
basis to the book. Foi example, Wilson wiites that it is necessaiy to get cleai on the natuie
of Ameiican slaveiy, which was not what it`s abolitionist opponents claimed foi it" (p. 4).
But he doesn`t give us eithei a sustained ciitique of abolitionist claims oi a sustained

aigument foi a dineient view. Tat being the case, ieadeis of the book who take seiiously
the book`s claims about the natuie of Southein slaveiy oi the South in geneial aie at least
going to have to do a lot of homewoik themselves oi at woist be pione to making seiious
mistakes in undeistanding the who, why, and what of contempoiaiy society. We have to
be caieful heie. How can we with intellectual integiity take the piemise of Slaveiy as lt
Was as tiue without its doing anything to oveituin the eyewitness testimony in American
Slavery as It Is: Testimony of a ousand Witnesses, foi example` l chuckled at the amazing
similaiity of the titles. Ten l thought to myself, What makes one title more reliable than
the other? Until Wilson oneis a substantive histoiy, l`m afiaid the buiden of pioof iests
with him against eyewitness testimony.
Second, Black and Tan aempts historical revision. Wilson knows that Histoiy
is stoiytelling" and Faithful histoiy is faithful stoiytelling" (p. 8). But he`s conceined that
the stoiytelling iegaiding Ameiican slaveiy and the South haven`t been all that faithful.
He knows that facts mauei, that we. iead the stoiy with oui loyalties intact," and Hu-
mility is haid" (p. 9). Wilson iightly maintains that Objectivity is a false god" (p. 10),
that Some histoiians sin thiough hagiogiaphy and otheis sin thiough debunking" (p. 11),
that it`s possible that afei about a hundied yeais oi so, [political coiiectness] tuins into
histoiical coiiectness" (p. 11), and that Pioud ignoiance is no beuei than pioud knowl-
edge" (p. 12). l take this to mean Wilson undeistands how fiaught with complexity and
pitfalls wiiting and ie-wiiting histoiy can be.
But he contends that the established naiiative about slaveiy and the Civil Wai needs
ievising at ciitical points lest we misundeistand ouiselves and oui piesent cultuial baules.
Some of the things that we think aie slam-dunk ceitainties will almost ceitainly tuin
out not to be" (p. 10). Cential to the book`s thesis and Wilson`s logic is the notion that
antebellum slaveiy was the noimal kind of sinful situation" iathei than Apocalyptic
Evil" (p. 4). ln defense of Slavery as It Was, Wilson wiites, lt was the contention of this
booklet that the way in which slaveiy ended has had ongoing deleteiious consequences
foi modein Chiistians in oui cuiient cultuie wais, and that slavery was far more benign
in practice than it was made to appear in the literature of the abolitionists" (p. 14; emphasis
added). Tat`s a massive claim.
So the hist thing we ought to ask as good ieadeis is, Howdoes the authoi knowthat`"
Te hist iesponsibility of any wiitei must be to make his oi hei case cleai to the ieadei. As
someone that`s wiiuen his own book auempting some histoiical ievision, l think l know
two things (1) such ievisions aie needful and can be helpful, and (2) if you`ie going to
auempt ievising a long-held histoiical naiiative you`d beuei biing plenty of evidence to
substantiate youi claims!
Te woist kind of ievisionist histoiy is the kind that claims without ceitifying. Be-
cause Black and Tan suneis in that way, it`s vulneiable to eveiy Southein" agenda that
oppoitunistically makes use of such claims. lf foi no othei ieasons, l hope Wilson will
signihcantly modify this book to piotect himself fiom those agendas and to make ieal
contiibutions to a iich and still contested histoiy. Tat will iequiie moie than meie as-

seition; it`ll iequiie aigumentation fiom souice mateiial and without the entanglements
that keep us fiom being heaid.
Third, Black and Tan represents a biased retelling of history. Wilson iightly
points out that we all do histoiy" fiom a vantage point and questions how completely
objective" we can be in wiiting histoiy. But though we`ie not omniscient and though oui
assumptions infuence ussometimes unwiuinglyit`s anothei thing altogethei to adopt
a point-of-view so deeply that we only piesent those things that conhim oui bias. l think
Black and Tan fails in this way.
Wilson tells us fiom the stait that to giasp the cential issues, it is necessaiy to be
steeped in a paiticulai intellectual tiadition" (p. ). He has the Southein conseivative in-
tellectual tiadition" in mind. He doesn`t tell us why we must be steeped" in that tiadition.
lnstead, Wilson notes a deep hostility among some ciitics of this tiadition and suspects
no amount of aigumentation will get thiough to them. We all know ciitics like that, don`t
we` But it seems, those ciitics notwithstanding, Wilson has peihaps put himself in the
lamentable position of pieaching only to the choii of the Southein conseivative intellec-
tual tiadition. He may be puuing the peitinent facts and events outside the giasp" of
people fiom othei tiaditions. Tat bias signihcantly limits the usefulness of this book.
Tat biased peispective also signihcantly cuitails the iange of iesouices used in Black
and Tan. l counted ioughly 90-9 footnotes in the woik. Only a handful of those iefei-
enced histoiical woiks actually focusing on the antebellum South oi the Civil Wai. Teie
weie two books by Eugene Genovese, A Consuming Fire and e Southern Front. Fogel
and Engeiman`s Time on the Cross was cited along with Weavei`s Southern Tradition at
Bay. Dabney ieceives a numbei of notations. Apait fiom Dabney, who aidently defended
the South and slaveiy, Genovese ieceives the most fiequent appioving citations. Wilson
desciibes Genovese as a modein and sympathetic ciitic of the South" (p. 9). But what
about othei views of the South and slaveiy wiiuen eithei by Southeineis oi about them`
We`ie not tieated to any othei peispectives. Even when Black and Tan calls upon Black
wiiteis like Benjamin Qailes, it does so to document the fact that a small handful" of
Blacks fought foi the South in the Civil Wai (p. 3). Anyone who knows Qailes` woik
knows Qailes would be unsympathetic with Wilson`s piemise and piobably chagiined
to see his book biought into this seivice.
l undeistand that Black and Tan was wiiuen amidst contioveisy and a lot of ciiticism
and peisonal auack. l undeistand howthat context could make a peison pessimistic about
his opponents giving him a faii shake. l simply wish the book would have engaged the
histoiies and stoiy-telling outside the Southein conseivative intellectual tiadition. Having
failed to do that, Black and Tan simply amims its a priori assumptions.
Fourth, the post-mil perspective of Black and Tan makes it too optimistic about
the Souths history. Much has been said about this alieady. l won`t belaboi the point
except to say that given the hist thiee limitations this hnal peispective suiely coiiupts
Wilson`s ieading of the South and its cultuie.
8
Foi these ieasons we should not think of oi use Black and Tan as iesouice on eithei the
histoiical peiiod in question oi a helpful way to undeistand oui piesent situation. Wilson
wiites eaily on in Black and Tan the fact that l am willing to teach on histoiical subjects
does not mean that l somehow think l am infallible. l have been wiong on numeious
points ovei the yeaissometimes the mistake is mine, and sometimes a souice leads me
astiay. Te point of all this is simply to say that on such subjects l am always open to
coiiection, and moieovei l am eagei foi it" (p. 3). Tus fai, Wilson has been nothing but
giacious. We`ve found ouiselves agieeing on a numbei of things along the way. l suspect
we`ll hnd a good amount to disagiee about iegaiding the actual histoiy of the South and
slaveiy. l hope, and have no ieason to think otheiwise, that he`ll be willing to considei
these points about the histoiy assumed in Black and Tan and make modihcations at a
numbei of points.
A Post-Script
Histoiy belongs to us allnot just the winneis. Wilson and l agiee about that. l want
to end my ciitique of the histoiy" in Black and Tan at this point. l just want to say a few
things about us all and oui ieadings and conveisations about histoiy.
lt`s impeiative that we (by which l mean all people and Chiistian people, in paiticulai)
undeistand that we don`t shaie the same expeiience of the same events. lf we`ie going
to giow in undeistanding one anothei, we`ll have to allow the othei to tell theii stoiy
with empathy foi theii side." l don`t begiudge Southeineis telling theii histoiy and de-
fending themselves at vaiious points along the way. Likewise, othei Southeineis (foi to
be Southein" is not one thing), Afiican Ameiicans, Noitheineis, etc. have othei stoiies
to tell about the same events. But much of the ihetoiic in the comments thiead hasn`t
allowed the same couitesy to otheis. When that happens we fall piey to thinking theie`s
only one objective, infallible histoiyand usually we think it`s ouis.
l`ve noted the occasional jab at public school education" and textbooks used theie.
l`ve iead the disdaining iemaiks about multicultuialism" and postmodein ielativism."
Tese aie the chaiges and labels used whenevei some have contended that theie`s an-
othei side" to that told in Black and Tan oi, moie ofen, by those who seem to suppoit the
woik.
Such iejections aie pioblematic foi a numbei of ieasons. First, they reveal an unwilling-
ness to deal with the world as it really is. We alieady livelike it oi notin a multicultuial,
multi-ethnic, multi-eveiything woild. We`ll eithei engage it fiuitfully oi buiy ouiselves
undei an avalanche of sentimental histoiies" of bygone eias. Second, such rejections gener-
ally take for granted the normative nature of ones own cultural and historical vantage point.
is always leads to misunderstanding. ird, these rejections really serve a hegemonic pur-
pose and refuse to admit as legitimate the counter-narratives caused by that hegemony. Te
19th centuiy saw a lot of White Southein talk about civilization" and the gieatness of
Westein civilization. Tat talk is still with us. Many of those who take that view can`t
fathom why Afiican Ameiicans, foi example, talk much about Afiican civilizations and
9
the contiibutions of Afiican Ameiicans to oui piesent westein" civilization. Tey don`t
see (oi iefuse to see in some cases) how the White Westein civilization" naiiative, which
has histoiically disenfianchised and dehumanized Black people, necessitated a countei-
naiiative to coiiect the caiicatuies, misiepiesentations, and iacist viewpoints. ln othei
woids, we`ie locked in this baule of telling and ie-telling piecisely because some people
iefuse to admit theie aie moie people in the poitiait than just those iesembling them-
selves.
As W. Fitzhugh Biundage documents so insightfully in e Southern Past: A Clash of
Race and Memory, the baule of competing naiiatives has been liteially caived into the
landscape of the South and has been encoded in iacial memoiy. To come back to Wilson
foi a moment, he`s suiely coiiect to contend that the enects of the Civil Wai live with
us and the way the Wai ended slaveiy impacts oui lives today. l just think it impacts
us and oui ielationships acioss iacial" lines moie than it does public policy. So, foi my
concluding post, l`ll comment on this issue of iacial insensitivity" and why l think it`s
legitimate to point to Black and Tan as an example.
18 With Jello in My Hair
Douglas Wilson
3
March 25, 2013
l would like to welcome Tabiti back to oui discussion. l undeistand he was on the
ioad, and you can`t always keep up the back and foith when you aie tiaveling back and
foith. We have both expiessed oui appieciation foi how the discussion has faied thus
fai, but given the volatility of the topic (veiy much in evidence in the comments section
at both oui blogs), l want to make a point of continuing to expiess that appieciation. l
don`t think it is possible foi me to oveistate my giatitude foi how Tabiti has taken this
on, and l genuinely admiie how he taken me on. Be kindly anectioned one to anothei
with biotheily love; in honoui piefeiiing one anothei" (Rom. 1210). Te Bible is as cleai
about how we aie to debate undei these ciicumstances as it is on the substance of oui
deaily-held positions.
ln this latest installment, he addiesses some of the histoiical questions iaised by Black
& Tan. He begins by agieeing with what l wiote about the need foi pastois to be "genei-
alists" in histoiy, and does not begiudge me this point at all. But having gianted the point
in the abstiact, he has signihcant conceins about my application of this piinciple in foui
paiticulai aieas.
His hist concein is that Black & Tan doesn`t ieally "do" histoiy it is moie an ex-
piession of an histoiical outlook than it is an alteinative iendeiing of the histoiy itself.
l make ceitain points about oui cuiient cultuie wais, and these points iest on the back
of ceitain histoiical assumptions. Te natuie of the assumptions is cleai enough, but a
3
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/with-jello-in-my-haii.html
0
detailed histoiical case foi those assumptions is not made.
Tabiti`s second point is that because my histoiical assumptions aie in many aieas
ievisionist assumptions (contiaiy to the ieceived wisdom), they will tend to piovoke the
question "how does he know that`" Because it is ievisionist, it will piovoke majoi ques-
tions, and because it is not a full woik of histoiy, it will leave them laigely unansweied.
Tabiti says the woist kind of ievisionism is the kind that "claims without ceitifying." He
believes that it was too easy foi my claims to devolve into "meie asseition."
Tiid, Tabiti says that B&T iepiesented a "biased ietelling of histoiy." By this, l took
himto mean that l was ietelling the stoiy naiiowly l laigely cite souices fiomwithin the
Southein intellectual tiadition (Dabney, Weavei), oi fiom those who aie capable of intei-
acting with it sympathetically (Genovese). "l simply wish the book would have engaged
the histoiies and stoiy-telling outside the Southein conseivative intellectual tiadition."
Te iange of citations was naiiowei than Tabiti thinks would have been helpful in mak-
ing my case stiongei.
Tat said, undei his thiid point, l did appieciate his undeistanding of the context of
a lot of this "l undeistand that Black and Tan was wiiuen amidst contioveisy and a lot
of ciiticism and peisonal auack. l undeistand how that context could make a peison
pessimistic about his opponents giving him a faii shake." Put anothei way, it is haid to
wiite a book in the middle of a cafeteiia food hght. lt is haid to do histoiy with jello in
youi haii. Just saying.
And fouith, Tabiti thinks my postmill thinking made B&T too "optimistic about the
South`s histoiy." He doesn`t develop this point at length, but simply places it alongside
the hist thiee points.
What l would like to do is iespond to each of these foui points, faiily biiefy, and
then tuin to a laigei issue iaised by Tabiti`s concluding mention of a "multicultuial,
multi-ethnic, multi-eveiything woild."
Fiist, Tabiti is quite iight that B&T is not, and was not intended to be, a woik of
histoiy piopei. l agiee that my book is moie a statement of an histoiical outlook than it is
a foundation foi that histoiical outlook. Tis appioach has its limitations, but they need
not be ciippling limitations. Te late Eugene Genovese, one of oui hnest histoiians of this
whole eia, was kind enough to iead the whole manusciipt of B&T, making veiy helpful
editoiial suggestions thioughout. ln his bluib foi the book, he said that l had "a stiong
giasp of the essentials of the histoiy of slaveiy and its ielation to Chiistian doctiine."
Tese woids weie veiy kind, and the woids and its relation point to what it was that l
was tiying to accomplish. Te book is about the inteisection of the histoiy of slaveiy and
Chiistian doctiine and the ieasons foi this weie outlined in an eailiei post. Genovese
said that l undeistood that intersection beuei than a lot of piofessional histoiians.
On Tabiti`s second point, that my ievisionism staits hghts it can`t hnish, l would
ieply that the basic restorm claims fiom B&T weie built on duly iefeienced claims. Foi
one example, Tabiti points to the "massive claim" that slaveiy was moie benign than the
liteiatuie of the abolitionists indicated. But l believe that this point ieally was established
by Fogel and Engeiman, and l cited them as having made it.
1
On his thiid point, that of wishing l had inteiacted with a bioadei iange of viewpoints
in wiiting the book, l think this is an entiiely ieasonable point. l have no objection to
doing something like that in fact, that is what l am tiying to do now but l don`t think
it is necessaiy always and eveiywheie. But l do agiee that if l weie moie widely iead and
conveisant than l am, this would have made B&T a beuei book.
Last, my postmillennialism. l am glad this has come up, because l think it is a majoi
unspoken playei in a lot of the contioveisy. l would like to just make two points about it,
one on defense and the othei looking to the futuie. Fiist, postmill thinking doesn`t iequiie
us to believe that the past was altogethei iosy. Teie aie many histoiical hellholes that
l believe weie genuine hellholes, and this is not in tension with my postmillennialism at
all. Foi a postmillennialist, the issue is the gloiy of the futuie, and not so much the gloiy
of the past.
What would be in tension with postmillennialism is an asseition that theie is no ieal
piogiess in histoiy, and that Chiistians should iesign themselves to the possibility that all
oui cuiient atiocities might well be a peimanent hxtuie. Tis would include, foi dinei-
ent Chiistians at dineient times, slaveiy, aboition, oi polygamy. Postmillennialism does
iequiie us to believe that whatevei kind of a mess histoiy gets us into, it is the kind of
mess that Jesus can always get us out of. Tis has huge piactical iamihcations when it
comes to motivating believeis to get involved to "make a dineience." l do believe that this
dineience is piomised to us, and they will not huit oi destioy in all His holy mountain.
ln his conclusion, Tabiti says that we need to leain how to deal with the ieality of
a multicultuial woild, and he believes that when we don`t do that, oui tendency will be
to piivilege the stoiies of oui tiibe as though they weie the hnal, ultimate and objective
tiuth. "When that happens we fall piey to thinking theie`s only one objective, infalli-
ble histoiyand usually we think it`s ouis." Blinkeied naiiatives aie assumed to be the
God`s-eye-view of histoiy, and we too blithely assume that oui stoiy is iatihed by the
omcial notaiy at the Peaily Gates. Tus fai l actually agiee. We believe in objective his-
toiical tiuth, which is good, but we too ieadily assume that this objective histoiical tiuth
just fell into oui lap. Tabiti says that iejection of competing and jockeying naiiatives is
fiequently hegemonic. He says "these iejections ieally seive a hegemonic puipose and
iefuse to admit as legitimate the countei-naiiatives caused by that hegemony."
ln iesponse to this l would want us to be caieful to distinguish multicultuial iealities,
which aie chaiacteiistic of oui tiiune God`s cieativity, and multicultuialism, which is a
false and veiy postmodein way of iefusing to piivilege any histoiical naiiative whatevei.
But such a iefusal, in oidei to be woikable at all, would have to include the sciiptuial
naiiative of cieation, fall, food, exile, ietuin, not to mention the death and iesuiiection
of the Messiah. Postmodeinists don`t like any metanaiiative and the Bible is the biggest
hegemon of them all. But then, afei postmodeinism has iejected all hegemonic stoiies,
it keels ovei and points all foui hooves towaid the sky, and quietly decomposes into the
futuie of eveiy foim of ielativism.
l am as much conceined about the next hegemon as l am about the last one, and my
conceins about the last one aie laigely wiapped up in wanting to leain the appiopiiate
2
lessons so that we might not get ouiselves a tyiant foi the next one. ln oidei to do this we
have to asseit that while we don`t have automatic access to a God`s-eye-view of histoiy,
theie neveitheless is a God, and theiefoie theie is a God`s-eye-view of histoiy. He has
given us a good poition of an inspiied histoiy in Sciiptuie so that we might leain how to
imitate it, and we should do oui best to do exactly that. As we do oui best, we know that
we aie fallible and so we should always be open to coiiection. We should do histoiy with
a conhdent humility, and a humble conhdence.
At the same time, we should nevei allow seculaiists to come in and coiiect mistakes"
in oui iegulai histoiy that would also be consideied (by oui high gloss elites) to have been
mistakes in the sacied histoiy as well. As many piofessing Chiistians aie as tioubled by
paits of the Bible as they aie by ceitain aspects of Southein histoiy and foi the same
politically-coiiect ieasons. l don`t mind confessing Southein sins at all l believe it to
be an essential thing foi all Southein sympathizeis to do. But that should not get tangled
up with the cuiient humanistic insistence that we confess the sins that come with being
consistently Christian. Tat is something l will not do.
Tis is one of my ieasons foi pointing to the angulai" texts of Sciiptuie on slaveiy l
iefuse to apologize foi any pait of the Bible, and l iefuse to acknowledge any piinciple in
oidinaiy histoiy that might iequiie me (latei on) to apologize foi any pait of the Bible. l
have iead Chiistian" wiiteis who empathized with the diowned Egyptians in the Red Sea,
the slaughteied Canaanites in the lsiaelite invasion, and the women of Ephesus chahng
undei the misogynistic ministiation of the apostle Paul. Tis kind of thing is common in
oui day and in our circles. At a ceitain point, you don`t have to be a doctoi to tell that the
gangiene is spieading.
ln shoit, while l believe that it is valuable to heai dineient multicultuial peispectives
of dineient gioups, especially on a subject as convoluted as this one, we must do so in a
way that cleaily iesists eveiy foimof ielativism. Histoiy is haid foi us, but not impossible.
Chaiity makes it easiei, but not easy.
19 Another Point Where Wilson and I Almost Entirely
Agree: On Doing History and Multiculturalism
abiti Anyabwile
38
March 26, 2013
ln my last post iegaiding the histoiical outlook of Black and Tan, l included a post-
sciipt which l`d hoped would encouiage us all to step back fiom oui" naiiatives to moie
fully considei the peispectives of otheis. l was contending that we live in a multicultuial,
multi-ethnic, multi-eveiything woild. l think that`s iiiefutable.
38
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/2/anothei-point-wheie-wilson-and-i-
almost-entiiely-agiee-on-doing-histoiy-and-multicultuialism/
3
Today, Wilson iesponded with anothei veiy chaiitable engagement with my ciitique
of Black and Tan`s view of histoiy and a push-back iegaiding my post-sciipt.
Not iesponding to eveiy iesponse has helped Wilson and l keep the conveisation mov-
ing and pievented us fiom being bogged down into veiy hne details. Tose details aie
ielevant but piobably don`t ht a blog foimat veiy well. Tat`s why we have books with
footnotes and the like. So, l don`t intend this to get us down into the thicket of histoii-
cal detail oi twist us in the biiei of he said-she said." But l do want to auempt a quick
ieply to Wilson`s latest post with the hope of mutual undeistanding and chaiitable iion-
shaipening.
Like Wilson, l have found eveiy post in this back-and-foith to meet the iequiiements
of Ephesians 429
39
and the Bible`s call foi chaiity between biotheis who disagiee. l`m
giatefuldeeply giatefulfoi Wilson`s spiiit in all of this because we`ve all seen oui shaie
of inteinet exchanges that fail to meet the tests of Sciiptuie. So, Doug, thank you" again
foi being willing to engage and foi staking out youi positions with a concein foi tiuth
and giace. l would have lef comments like this on youi blog seveial times by now but
foi some ieason l can`t get the comment featuie to woik even though l`m iegisteied. Oh
well, on to my ieply.
Critique 1: Black and Tan is not history.
Wilson concedes this point, but adds in his defense Fiist, Tabiti is quite iight that
B&T is not, and was not intended to be, a woik of histoiy piopei. l agiee that my book is
moie a statement of an histoiical outlook than it is a foundation foi that histoiical outlook.
Tis appioach has its limitations, but they need not be ciippling limitations." He then goes
on to mention Genovese`s helpful comments on the manusciipt and commendation of
Wilson`s giasp of the inteisection between Ameiican slaveiy and Chiistian theology.
Actually, l do think the book`s weaknesses heie aie ciippling." Te book doesn`t
meiely asseit that slaveiy was not that bad," it goes on to aigue that ielationships be-
tween slaves and theii owneis weie ieally quite good and to asseit the outstanding Chiis-
tian chaiactei of the South. Tose asseitions, it seems to me, aie ciitical foi the book`s
analogy to aboition and oui contempoiaiy iesponses to aboition to hold. Foi if Ameiican
chauel slaveiy fails to display the moie benign chaiactei Wilson holds, the entiie thing
becomes a house of caids. Consequently, foi such a diamatically ievised view of the his-
toiy to stick" most thoughtful ieadeis will iequiie documentation well beyond the biief
citations of a couple secondaiy woiks. Moieovei, Genovese`s commendation doesn`t bol-
stei the book`s aigument, noi should we take it as a golden seal of appioval. e Decline of
African-American eology boasts an endoisement fiom Di. Dwight N. Hopkins, widely
iegaided as a leadei in Black Libeiation Teology and heii-appaient to James Cone. He
says, Tabiti Anyabwile builds on iich ieligious scholaiship foi the black chuich in the
U.S.A." l`m giateful foi his endoisement and taking the time to iead the book. But, judg-
39
Let no coiiupting talk come out of youi mouths, but only such as is good foi building up, as hts the
occasion, that it may give giace to those who heai.
4
ing fiom the dineiences between Di. Hopkins` emphasis and my own, that comment
can haidly be inteipieted as an unqualihed endoisement of the book. Likewise, we don`t
want to make too much of Genovese`s endoisement of Black and Tan, especially if said
endoisement is being oneied as a substitute foi histoiical gioundwoik.
Critique 2: Black and Tan attempts a revision of history.
Heie, l aigued that Wilson needed to piovide a lot of histoiical evidence if he was going
to oveituin the well-established naiiative about Ameiican chauel slaveiy`s dehumanizing
natuie. To which Wilson ieplied, Tabiti points to the massive claim" that slaveiy was
moie benign than the liteiatuie of the abolitionists indicated. But l believe that this point
ieally was established by Fogel and Engeiman, and l cited them as having made it."
l`d simply say that citing one souice is nowheie neai sumcient foi substantiating the
histoiical outlook Wilson maintains in Black and Tan. l suspect that if a student of Wil-
son`s auempted to countei the Southein conseivative intellectual tiadition`s naiiative
iegaiding, say, state`s iights, Wilson would iequiie moie than a iefeience to a Lincoln bi-
ogiaphei wiiting 10 yeais latei. Citing one souicea souice veiy much debatedsimply
doesn`t hold mustei when it comes to making a case on the magnitude that Black and Tan
assumes.
Critique #3: Black and Tan needed to interact with a wider range of sources
and opinions.
On this ciitique Wilson wiites, l think this is an entiiely ieasonable point. l have no
objection to doing something like that.." He sees himself as doing that now, by which
l take him to iefei to these exchanges. He believes having done this would have made
Black and Tan a beuei book." l agiee, and l`m glad we agiee. l hope that some futuie woik
fiom Wilson might auempt to iemedy this omission and that he might especially use
souice mateiial lef by slaves themselves. Tioughout Black and Tan l kept wondeiing,
But why doesn`t he include some statements fiom Black people themselves iegaiding
what slaveiy was like`" Some good geneial intioductions would be Mellon`s Bullwhip
Days and Johnson`s, God Struck Me Dead. Both include hist-hand naiiatives fiom the
peispective of slaves in the twilight of the institution, and the conveision testimonies in
God Struck Me Dead have useful glimpses into the slave`s peispective on that inteisection
of slaveiy and Chiistian theology. lncluding mateiial of this soit would not only make
Black and Tan a beer book, it would make Black and Tan a dierent book.
Critique #4: Post-Mill assumptions make Black and Tans judgment of South-
ern history too optimistic
Tat was my contention, which l did not develop. l had in mind comments like Te
discipleship of the nations is a piocess. Tis means that the South was (along with all

othei nations) in tiansition fiom a state of pagan autonomy to one of full submission to
the Loidship of Chiist. Chiistian infuence in the South was consideiable and extensive,
but the laws of the South still fell shoit of the biblical pauein. ln spite of this, the Chiistian
infuence on antebellum Southein cultuie suipassed most othei nations in the woild of
that time" (pp. 1-2).
Wilson wiites in his post today that postmill thinking doesn`t iequiie us to believe
that the past was altogethei iosy. Teie aie many histoiical hellholes that l believe weie
genuine hellholes, and this is not in tension with my postmillennialism at all." l agiee
that post-mill thinking doesn`t iequiie a unilateially iosy view of the past. But l think
Wilson`s viewof the South falls fai closei to iosy" than hellhole." l suspect that assuming
the possibility of something called a Chiistian nation" and the discipleship of nations"
and a national full submission to the Loidship of Chiist" has a lot to do with post-mill
undeistandings. lf so, l think it`s coiiupting Wilson`s view of the South piecisely by
making him too optimistic about its chaiactei and past. Without a fullei aiticulation of
the histoiical evidence and/oi how his post-mill views play into all this, l`m at least lef
guessing that`s the way his millennial views aie at woik.
e Post-Script on Multicultural Realities and Perspectives
Finally, in his ciitique of my post-sciipt, Wilson wiote in pait
l would want us to be caieful to distinguish multicultuial iealities, which aie
chaiacteiistic of oui tiiune God`s cieativity, and multicultuialism, which is a
false and veiy postmodein way of iefusing to piivilege any histoiical naiia-
tive whatevei. But such a iefusal, in oidei to be woikable at all, would have
to include the sciiptuial naiiative of cieation, fall, food, exile, ietuin, not to
mention the death and iesuiiection of the Messiah. Postmodeinists don`t like
any metanaiiative and the Bible is the biggest hegemon of them all. But
then, afei postmodeinism has iejected all hegemonic stoiies, it keels ovei
and points all foui hooves towaid the sky, and quietly decomposes into the
futuie of eveiy foim of ielativism.
l am as much conceined about the next hegemon as l am about the last one,
and my conceins about the last one aie laigely wiapped up in wanting to
leain the appiopiiate lessons so that we might not get ouiselves a tyiant foi
the next one. ln oidei to do this we have to asseit that while we don`t have
automatic access to a God`s-eye-view of histoiy, theie neveitheless is a God,
and theiefoie theie is a God`s-eye-view of histoiy. He has given us a good
poition of an inspiied histoiy in Sciiptuie so that we might leain how to
imitate it, and we should do oui best to do exactly that. As we do oui best,
we know that we aie fallible and so we should always be open to coiiection.
We should do histoiy with a conhdent humility, and a humble conhdence.
Okay, now it`s time foi me to say, l`m not that kind of multicultuialist" in the same way

that Wilson might say, l`m not that kind of `Confedeiate` oi `neo-Confedeiate`." Tat is to
say, in conveisations like this we always face the dangei of not dehning teims oi pausing
to know what the othei guys means when they say `x`.
l completely agiee with Wilson that theie is a compiehensive, infallible, exhaustive
meta-naiiative. lt is God`s metanaiiative. Oui Loid knows all, sees all, oidains all, and
goveins all. He compiehends the ends fiom the beginning, and l shout with the sacied
wiitei, Let God be tiue and eveiy man a liai!" l want to iatify, endoise, sign on on, and
cheei the call to do histoiy with a conhdent humility, and a humble conhdence." Tat`s
well-stated, in typical Wilson fashion.
Howevei, l think ethnic minoiities and White evangelicals use multicultuial" and
multicultuialism" in two entiiely dineient ways. When almost eveiy ethnic minoiity l`ve
evei had the conveisation with uses the teimmulticultuial" oi multicultuialism," they`ie
simply talking about the inclusion of theii peisons and theii peispectives in the bioadei
stoiy of Ameiica oi whatevei stoiy is in viewat the time. lt`s a way of saying, We`ie heie,
too." l can`t think of a single conveisation wheie a peison fioman ethnic backgiound used
multicultuialism" as a joust against meta-naiiative. We use it to push back on hegemony
and the assumed noimative natuie of White westein ideals and values, but not against the
veiy natuie of tiuth oi of God`s contiolling naiiative. So we biistle and, quite honestly,
assume the woist when we heai oui white biethien iail against multicultuialism." lt
sounds to us like an adamant aigument against oui inclusion in the discouise and the
histoiyan exclusion which we have histoiically felt the biunt of.
But l`ve leained that most of my White evangelical biotheis aie usually iefeiiing to
something else entiiely when they talk about the ism" of multicultuialism." Tey`ie stin-
ening theii backs to defend the idea of absolute tiuth against the kind of postmodein
ielativity" Wilson mentions. Tey`ie awaie of the postmodein theoiists who ieally do
deny any oveiaiching stoiy one could call in any absolute sense tiue." Tey deny Fiancis
Schaenei`s notion of tiue tiuth" and embiace the skepticism of Deiiida, Foucault and
otheis. l happily join my white biotheis in the hght against such claims!
But postmodeinismwhethei an academic oi man on the stieet vaiietyis not at all
what l mean when l use the teim multicultuial" oi multicultuialism." When my White
fiiends think postmodeinism" while l`m thinking include me," we`ie having two dinei-
ent conveisations diawing upon two dineient expeiience fiom oui iespective woilds,"
and we`ie missing each othei completely. One walks away thinking, ats a white supremacist
racist way of viewing me, history, etc. Te othei walks away thinking, Im tired of these
aempts to deny the truth and to overthrow whats good about my history, culture, and peo-
ple. ln the vast majoiity of cases, both walk away with false conclusions because they
haven`t undeistood the othei`s use of the teim oi the undeilying conceins.
And this use of multicultuialism" in oui back and foith, it seems to me, illustiates and
pioves the point of my post-sciipt. Unless we make ioom to ieally listen to one anothei
and heai what the othei is saying and meaning we doom ouiselves to disastious iesults.
Wilson wiites neai the end of his post, while l believe that it is valuable to heai dineient
multicultuial peispectives of dineient gioups, especially on a subject as convoluted as this

one, we must do so in a way that cleaily iesists eveiy foim of ielativism." Amen. And, we
must also do so in a way that cleaily questions the centiality of oui own expeiience.
Tis exchange iegaiding multicultuialism" pioves anothei point as well Listening
is haid, slow woik. Even when we`ve woiked as haid as Wilson has to heai me, oi as
haid as l`ve woiked to heai Wilson, it`s still entiiely possible to mishie at vaiious points.
Ten we have to go back and listen all ovei againpeihaps suspecting ouiselves and oui
assumptions a bit moie. lt`s haid, slow woik, but l think it`s woith it.
20 A Good Luck Wave Wont Cut It
Douglas Wilson
40
March 26, 2013
As Tabiti did with mine, l would like to iespond to some elements in his most iecent
post, and l will tiy to do so without geuing us lost in the weeds.
Eveiy exchange in this seiies has been a gif fiom God, and l continue to thank God
that Tabiti`s inteiaction with me has been giacious, seasoned with salt (Col. 4).
Foi those just joining us, l would like to emphasize that oui discussion is not ovei
whethei the institution of slaveiy as such was good oi bad, oi whethei it needed to be
eiadicated. Tabiti and l both agiee on that aspect of the point. Te discussion ievolves
aiound how it should have been eiadicated. l am saying that iesolving it with a bloodbath
has had two gieat negative consequences the hist being the bloodbath itself, and the
second being the long teim negative enects downstieam. Moie about that at the end of
my post.
On Tabiti`s ciitiques -1-3, theie is always something to say, but in the inteiests of not
geuing lost in the weeds, l will just let Tabiti`s comments stand foi the piesent. Te one
thing l do want to say fiom this section(evei mindful of Piov. 22) conceins the point
about Eugene Genovese. lt would not be too much to say that that gieat scholai was kind
enough to help me out as an editoiial ieadei. l have nevei gouen that kind of feedback
fiom someone pioviding a bluib foi me.
Now, befoie going on, allow me to giant at the fiont end two things that this does
not mean. lt does not mean that l am iight, and it does not mean that Genovese agieed
with me about eveiything (although he agieed with me about an awful lot). What this
does mean (and heie my comments aie diiected, not at Tabiti, but to the cat-calls coming
fiom the nickel seats) is that l am appaiently not a histoiical ninnyhammei. ln shoit, my
thesis, even if wiong, is not the pioduct of someone who spent too much time as a child
with his Robeit E. Lee coloiing book.
And lest l seem to be acting too huny, which would be bad, allow me to just toss my
cuils and move on.
40
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/a-good-luck-wave-wont-cut-it.html
8
Befoie iounding into the stiaight, l am glad to say that l found Tabiti`s section on the
dineient uses of the woid multiculturalism to be most helpful and wise. l agieed with him
completely. l have no pioblemwith maiginalized voices insisting "we weie theie too," and
l believe that thoughtful Chiistians should stiive to heai to those voices. l also iejoiced
at Tabiti`s iobust iejection of ielativistic multicultuialism. Tis is anothei point wheie l
believe we aie in complete agieement.
So then, back to the implications of postmillennialism. l like talking about postmil-
lennialism, and so l should be caieful not to be too eagei to pick up on cues to do so.
But in this instance, l ieally do believe it is a key pait of undeistanding my paiadigm foi
piocessing this whole eia. Tabiti thinks it makes me too iosy in my evaluation of the
South, but l think a lot moie is going on. Tabiti says, "But l think Wilson`s view of the
South falls fai closei to iosy" than `hellhole.`"
Now this depends entiiely on who you weie, and wheie you weie. lf you weie a slave
with an abusive mastei, it was a hellhole. lf you wife and childien had just been sold down
iivei, it was a hellhole. lf you weie on youi way to a fancy diess ball at the mansion, it
wasn`t.
But Tabiti thinks l paint too iosy a pictuie (generally) because of statements like this,
which he quoted.
Te discipleship of the nations is a piocess. Tis means that the South was
(along with all othei nations) in tiansition fiom a state of pagan autonomy
to one of full submission to the Loidship of Chiist. Chiistian infuence in the
South was consideiable and extensive, but the laws of the South still fell shoit
of the biblical pauein. ln spite of this, the Chiistian infuence on antebellum
Southein cultuie suipassed most othei nations in the woild of that time" (pp.
1-2).
Now l own that l said that, and taken alone it would seem at least ielatively iosy, but l
also said this
Southein slaveiy was "open to severe judgment of God" (p. 42). ln discussing abuse of
slaves, l used woids like indefensible, immoiality, and deploiable. "Tese weie sad iealities
in the Southein system, and when God hnally deteimined to judge it, l am deteimined to
say amen to the judgment" (p. 42).
"Tis is a tiuth we also acknowledge. ln one sense, the antebellum South was
a Chiistian nation, but it was a Chiistian nation that invited, and received, a
genuinely seveie judgment fiom the God who is not mocked. Tis judgment
fiom a holy God included all the atiocities of Sheiman, and sinful men must
always bow befoie the judgments of the Almighty and tuin to the Sciiptuies
to leain how to accept those judgments. A man will ieap what he sows, and
so do nations . . . Tis is basic to covenantal thinking" (p. 90)
Just as Tabiti and l heai the woid multiculturalism dineiently, l think something similai
may be going on heie. When l talk about the judgment of God falling on the South, l am
9
talking about a wasting desolation, not a wiist slap. Moieovei, l am talking about one that
was deserved. God is just. l believe that the South was a hellhole foi many blacks befoie
181, and a hellhole foi many whites afei. l also believe that it was a judgment on the
entiie nation that paved the legal way foi the hellhole that is the aboition cainage today.
And that biings us to the ieason why l don`t think we aie debating the obedience/dis-
obedience iatios foi people have been dead foi a centuiy oi moie. l keep coming back
to this. Tabiti has said on his blog that he doesn`t believe that the aboition situation is
ieally compaiable to the time of slaveiy. ln one sense, l agiee that it is not it is fai, fai
woise. Ten, blacks weie enslaved by white stiangeis, by anothei people. Today, black
childien aie slain by own theii black motheis. Te ciime is moie hideous, and the scale
goes fai beyond anything we can get oui minds aiound.
Now heie is the pioblem. All of this is going on today, now. ls Ameiica today a
hellhole` lt still depends on who you aie and wheie you aie. 0 million dead and counting.
My pioblem as a pastoi involved in the cultuie wais has to do with the fact that just
about eveiy aboition mill in the countiy is within quick diiving distance of an evangelical
chuich, piaise choiuses and all. Do we have any iesponsibility to do something` l believe
we do. What then` How shall we then live` lf theie weie an undeigiound iailioad foi the
unboin black childien, would we be heioes foi iunning it` What piinciples aie involved`
Was John Biown a muideious thug` Should pio-lifeis be piaying foi oui own equivalent
thug` Why oi why not` ls theie any way to appeal to the ielevant piinciples (legal,
constitutional, moial, histoiical, and biblical) without geuing called a iacist` Let me add
to the mix the fact that oui half-black, half-white piesident iepiesents oui two iaces veiy
well. He is a ghoulish piesident, and we aie a ghoulish people. Blacks aie ghouls and
whites aie ghouls. Neil Young heaid bullwhips ciacking fiom ovei a centuiy ago, but he
can`t heai the silent scieams fiom just down the stieet. Noith Dakota has just given the
iaspbeiiy to Roe v. Wade. Aie they heioes oi chumps`
l don`t play identity politics. Men aie sinneis. Black men aie sinneis, and white men
aie sinneis. Tey sin against each othei, and they tiy to justify theii sin by pointing to sins
that somebody else commiued against them. Tat`s what sinneis do. But Jesus inteivenes
and Jesus foigives sinneis, both black and white. Tis is why black men who know Jesus
aie my biotheis, and white men who hate Jesus aie not my biotheis.
l said at the beginning that the way the wai was puisued led to all kinds of hoiiihc
consequences downstieam. Many of those hoiiihc consequences fell upon scapegoated
blacks afei the wai. Te wai ended in 18. Reconstiuction ended in 18. Ovei 00,000
men died in the wai. Moie died in one bale at Antietam than weie killed in the entiie
Vietnam wai. Do you think you can do that to a people, cieate the standing point that
it was all on account of fieeing the blacks, and then pull all youi tioops out a few yeais
latei, with a liule "good luck" wave to the blacks you aie leaving behind` Who thought
that was a good idea` Don`t let me stop youi liule humanitaiian mission.
lncidentally, l am justifying no sin, l am not tiying to whitewash any evil. Te only
thing we should do with sin is confess it. We should confess the biuei iacism of defeated
Confedeiates, and confess the supeicilious iacism of the do-gooding Yankees fiom Mas-
0
sachuseus, making a hash of things as is theii usual custom.
Goveinment-enfoiced bigotiy against blacks ended when l was boy, a centuiy afei
the wai. Te "stiange fiuit" that Biyan Loiius iefeienced in his oiiginal post giew on a
paiticulai kind of tiee the tiee of hatied, iebellion, and malice. Tat tiee was planted
by both sides and wateied with the blood of ovei half a million men, and it wasn`t blood
of maityis shed in imitation of Jesus. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make
men fiee" sounds veiy hne, but it didn`t quite woik out that way. lt was blood shed in a
way that makes men hate each othei foi a hundied tiips aiound the sun.
And coming back to aboition, because the states lost theii iight to tell the Supiemes
to take a hike, we should peihaps add 0 million moie to the body count.
Jesus is the only way out. Jesus is the way. But if we aie going to follow Him, we have
to do it His way. We have to do what He says.
21 Illustrating Racial Insensitivity in Black and Tan
abiti Anyabwile
41
March 27, 2013
Doug Wilson and l have been at this exchange foi about two weeks now. Much has
been said and much moie could be discussed. But, alas, we have to biing things to an
end at some point. Foi my pait, this post will be my last comment on Black and Tan. l`m
guessing Wilson will want to ieply to the substance of this post, then peihaps we`ll end
with some foim of a summaiy comment.
Since the publication of Southern Slavery as It Was and Black and Tan, many iead-
eis have chaiged Wilson with eithei iacism" oi being iacially insensitive." Most would
iegaid those chaiges as seiious. l do, too. We live in a day wheie it`s no longei socially ac-
ceptable to be a iacist oi iacially insensitive. lt was peifectly hneeven expectedfoi cei-
tain peisons to be iacist and iacially-motivated duiing the peiiod we`ve been discussing
(the 1800s). But much has changed, including the heaits of many people and the social
standaids by which we live with one anothei. Because of those changes and to piotect
those advances, we now also live at a time when such chaiges need to be pioven, oi at
least an enoit to do so ought to be made.
ln this post, l want to lay out a few thoughts about Black and Tan and what l iegaid
to be its iacial insensitivity. l think l owe this to Wilson and to any ieadei who iead
my allusion to these issues in my veiy hist post. l need to be accountable foi the woids
l speak and l hnd this medium a sometimes enective place foi ieceiving admonishment
and accountability. So we begin..
What Is Racial Insensitivity?
41
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/2/illustiating-iacial-insensitivity-in-
black-and-tan/
1
Some commenteis have suggested that the chaige of iacial insensitivity" is liule moie
than being oveily sensitive. Tey`ve equated iacial insensitivity with huit feelings, imply-
ing oi stating that the peison with huit feelings simply needs to giow up" and be adult"
about such things. While l`m suie some people do need to giow up, please foigive me foi
saying that such countei-iesponses aie themselves immatuie and have sometimes been
evidence of the insensitivity in question.
lt seems to me that discussions of this soit iequiie dehnitions, lest we descend in a
spiial of allegations, dismissals, and countei-allegations. Such dehnitions aie notoiiously
dimcult. ls iacial insensitivity" one of those things, like beauty, that`s foievei impiisoned
in the eyes of the beholdei` Oi can dineient eyes see it and all know it when they do` Oi
is it the opposite of beautycan we dehne it but not know it when we see it` We need a
woiking pioposal`
We all have some sense of what we mean by iacial," even though that teim itself in-
tioduces ambiguity. Foi oui puiposes, let`s just assume a man on the stieet" dehnition
of iace." Te tiickiei teim is insensitive." A Webstei`s Dictionaiy dehnition foi insen-
sitive" is not iesponsive oi susceptible" oi lacking feeling oi tact." Some synonyms in-
clude compassionless, haid- oi cold-heaited, heaitless, inhumane, pachydeimatous (my
favoiite!), pitiless, iemoiseless, and iuthless. Antonyms include chaiitable, compassion-
ate, humane, kindheaited, sympathetic, tendei, waim, and waim-heaited.
At the level of woid meaning, iacial insensitivity" involves being uniesponsive oi
lacking in feeling oi tact towaid people of dineient iaces oi issues associated with iace. l
would suggest it`s a ceitain inability oi unwillingness to sense and lovingly considei the
conceins, feelings, and peispectives of otheis acioss iacial lines.
Who Gets to Decide What Is Racially Insensitive?
Of couise, oneiing a dehnition only gets us staited. We need to also onei some
thoughts about how we know iacial insensitivity has occuiied. ln a woild wheie chaiges
aie made and denied, who gets the hnal say-so`
Heie`s wheie being dismissive of othei people`s feelingsnot to mention theii state-
ments, peispectives, cultuies and the likeactually becomes a big deal. lnsensitivity is
fiaught with feeling, and usually the lead indicatoi that something insensitive has hap-
pened will be one emotion oi anothei. Te emotion could be biueiness, like the wife
whose dinnei lies cold waiting on a husband who foi the thousandth time has bioken his
piomise to be home foi dinnei. Oi, it could be deep sadness, like the man told his wife
has been unfaithful. A thousand examples could be imagined. But you get the point. ln-
sensitivity piovokes feeling, and if we`ie dismissive of that feeling oi insensitive towaid
it we`ll only compound the pioblems we have acioss iacial lines.
So, who gets to decide` l don`t know if they get the hnal woid, but the peison so huit
should at least have the rst woid. And the peison doing the huiting should ieally stop
and listen foi what they missed. Tat listening tuins out to be ciucial because the natuie
2
of insensitivity is that it fails to sense something. When we`ie insensitive we have a blind
spot, at least. At woist, we`ie knowingly and intentionally tiying to cut and huit. ln
eithei case, we`ll nevei piopeily hx the huit oi help the huiting feel dineiently oi addiess
oui own heait issues (out of the abundance of the heait the mouth speaks, iight`) if we
continue tone-deaf to that leading indicatoithe othei peison`s feelings.
How Does Racial Insensitivity Aect Us?
Bulls in china shops ieally do cause a lot of damage. Sciiptuie wains us iepeatedly
about the deadly destiuction of oui tongues. So, it should be obvious that such insensitiv-
ity anects us deeply. Te enects iange fiom huit feelings, to bioken ielationships, discoid
among biotheis, haidened heaits, mistiust, and signihcant sins against each othei.
ln the context of iace ielations, both inside and outside the chuich, we`ve paid a
tiemendously high cost foi oui iacial insensitivity. We continue, by and laige, to woi-
ship the same Savioi in dineient chuiches. We continue to suspect and mistiust one
anothei. We continue to make the same cioss-cultuial ganes and we continue to avoid
seeking foigiveness and undeistanding foi those ganes. Some continue to hate. Some
continue to pietend ignoiance of deep huits, and some otheis just want to get past it
all." Many continue to ciy out, How long`" but they`ie addiessing the iacial othei, not
the Loid. Teie aie the costs in missed oppoitunities foi fiiendship, woiship, mission and
paitneiship. Te stakes aie ieally quite high and the enects aie dimcult to numbei and
assess. Tis is why willful ignoiance ianks among the most signihcant contaminates in
cioss-cultuial oi intei-ethnic ielationships.
What Ought to Be Done When Racial Insensitivity Occurs?
We should apply the Bible. We should go to oui biotheis and show them theii faults.
lf he heais us (theie`s that listening thing again), then we have won oui biothei ovei. lf he
will not heai us, we should take two oi thiee witnesses with us who can establish eveiy
fact of the mauei. And if we`ie in the same chuich, we may just get to the point of having
to tell the entiie chuich. lt seems the Mastei`s instiuctions in Mauhew 181-1
42
apply
pieuy specihcally to the peisonal onense of iacial insensitivity.
Oi, peihaps we would be wise to considei Titus 310
43
. We should wain the divisive
peison once. We should wain them a second time. And if the behavioi isn`t iepented of
afei the second waining, we should have nothing to do with them. We iegaid them as
biotheis, but we can`t have meaningful fellowship with someone who continues to wound
42
lf youi biothei sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. lf he listens to
you, you have gained youi biothei. But if he does not listen, take one oi two otheis along with you, that
eveiy chaige may be established by the evidence of two oi thiee witnesses. lf he iefuses to listen to them,
tell it to the chuich. And if he iefuses to listen even to the chuich, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax
collectoi.
43
As foi a peison who stiis up division, afei waining him once and then twice, have nothing moie to do
with him,
3
and sin without acknowledgement of the huit they`ve caused.
All of this suggests to us that chaiges of iacial insensitivity" ought not be made lightly
and they ought not be tieated lightly. Te fellowship and witness of oui Loid`s chuich is
at stake. Which biings us to oui key question foi this post.
Is Black and Tan Racially Insensitive?
Befoie we answei that question, let me iemind us of a couple things stated in eailiei
posts. Wilson makes it cleai iepeatedly that he abominates and disavows iacism, iacial
vaingloiy and white supiemacy. He does not wiite anywheie in the book that one iace is
supeiioi to anothei. lnstead, he oneis a iathei sound biblical anthiopology that empha-
sizes oui common descent fiom Adam, oui close cousinage biologically, and oui common
need foi the Savioi because of oui common pioblem of sin. l think it`s impoitant to heai
him at these points and to take him at his woid about these things even as (especially as)
we take issue with his woids at othei places.
l am not heie leveling a chaige of iacism" against Wilson. But l do want to entei a
chaige of iacial insensitivity." ln my mind, iacismis ielated to iacial insensitivity the way
ciiminal cases aie ielated to civil cases. Te foimei (iacism, ciiminal cases) iequiie highei
levels of pioof to substantiate. Te lauei iequiie a lowei thieshold, some indication that
damages have occuiied, even sometimes when a peison has been acquiued in a ciiminal
case. Tink O.J. Simpson`s ciiminal acquiual foi the muidei of Nicole Biown Simpson
and his subsequent civil conviction in a suit biought by hei family.
With that in mind, l want to quote a seiies of things fiom Black and Tan and onei
veiy biief explanations foi why l think they`ie iacially insensitive oi what l think Wilson
fails to sense in these comments. Some of these illustiations will be moie minoi and some
moie seiious. Te point is to demonstiate something of the iange of statements that might
leave an honest ieadei onended and huit by such iemaiks.
A Benign Slavery Ended Wrongly
It was the contention of this booklet [Slavery as It Was] that the way in which slavery
ended has had ongoing deleterious consequences for modern Christians in our current culture
wars, and that slavery was far more benign in practice than it was made to appear in the
literature of the abolitionists" (p. 14).
Tis, the cential piemise of the book, fails to sense how hoiiihc an expeiience slaveiy
was foi Afiican Ameiicans. lt fails to take into account, that though iemoved fiom chauel
slaveiy by 10 yeais, Afiican Ameiicans considei the 30 yeai slave expeiience founda-
tional to theii condition heie and we iegaid the 100 yeais oi so of Jim Ciow segiegation
a modihed continuance of systematic oppiession based on iace. Tis quote fails to iecog-
nize that the abolitionists aie the heroes to Afiican Ameiicans, not the villains. To iepeat
this piemise thioughout the book without evei showing consideiation foi how Afiican
Ameiicans view that histoiy oi heai these woids is an instance of iacial insensitivity, in
4
my opinion.
Labels Like Paleo-Confederate
l`m a paleo-Confederate" (p. 1).
Wilson woiks haid to distinguish himself fiomneo-Confedeiates" and to dehne what
he means by paleo-Confedeiate." But Confedeiate" hits the black eai with cuned hands
and leaves the listenei shell shocked and momentaiily disoiiented. l don`t want to aigue
that Wilson shouldn`t use this label foi himself. But l think if he continues to do so,
he should onei a dehnition without the woidplay and snaik" of Black and Tan. Te
label Confedeiate" has a lot of negative connotations. Wilson appeais insensitive to
the fact that foi Afiican Ameiicans Confedeiate" connotes white subjugation of Blacks
and conjuies nightmaies ielated to lynchings, segiegation, cioss buinings, and the like.
Rightly oi wiongly, to embiace the label is to embiace the connotations. A lot of those
associations, which Wilson seems to undeistand (p. 1), have to do with iacism and iacist
auitudes. lt then becomes insensitive to take on the label without plainly, tactfully, and
sympathetically dehning and distinguishing what is meant oi not meant foi those you
don`t want to onend. As it is, that label and its pioud use feels like a giant dehant hngei
in the eye.
e Inferiority of Black Culture
Both Northerners and Southerners were misled by the obvious inferiority of black culture
at that time, which had nothing to do with whether blacks bore the image of God in man, and
everything to do with whether the gospel had yet had an opportunity to do its work within
black culture" (p.18).
All men exhibit the image of God equally, but all cultures are not equal. As we look
at all the tribes of men, we see some that have landed a man on the moon, and some that
have not yet worked out the concept of the wheel. We have some with one whole row in the
supermarket dedicated to shampoo, while in another tribe hair is washed with cow urine" (p.
33).
Now, l need to hasten to add context to these woids befoie l explain why l think
they`ie iacially and cultuially insensitive. ln both places, Wilson denies that the ielative
supeiioiity/infeiioiity of cultuies has anything to do with iace oi iacial dineiences. He
auiibutes dineiences to the enect of the gospel in cultuies. Some have ieceived the gospel
and been aided and changed by it, while otheis have not. He aigues that racists make the
misstep of auiibuting the obvious dineiences" to iace, but he does not. Tat`s impoitant
context. Leaving these quotes to stand alone would misiepiesent his actual aigument.
But what of his actual aigument` l hnd it onensive on at least thiee giounds. Fiist, he
binds the gospel up with spuiious assessments of cultuies. He means to adoin the gospel
(l get that) but as a Christian l think he enectively tainishes the gospel by associating

it with claims and peispectives the biblical wiiteis nowheie make. Teie`s an implicit
civilizationism heie that needs to be detangled and questioned foi the sake of the Good
News.
Second, Wilson wiites about the obvious infeiioiity of black cultuie" with seemingly
no undeistanding oi acknowledgement of how the Southein cultuie he`s defending ac-
tually actively guaianteed black undeidevelopment! With one bioad stioke he lumps all
of black cultuie" (as if theie`s only one) into one bag and deems it infeiioi to (l pie-
sume) White cultuie" impioved by the gospel. He does that while failing to mention
that the supposedly gospel-enlightened white cultuie has its boot on the necks of people
in the infeiioi" black cultuie. His comments fail to sense this incongiuity and it fails
to acknowledge that a black cultuie of both iesistance to inhumanity and piomotion of
everyones humanitywhites includedwas well undei way. One might aigue that a cul-
tuie of such toleiance, patience, and humanity is supeiioi to one lacking those tiaits, no
mauei it`s economic and technological state.
Tiid, these comments fail to be sensitive to the fact that this veiy notion of cultuial
supeiioiity has led to impeiialistic abuses in the name of civilization" all ovei the woild.
lt was one justihcation foi Euiopean colonization and a host of iesultant ciimes against
otheis. lt was justihcation, as Wilson notes (p. 34), foi the iacist auitude and actions of
otheis.
Tese comments aie iacially and cultuially insensitive to a host of things. ln fact,
shoitly afei the last quote, Wilson ieveals an indineience that piobably contiibuted to
the tone and insensitivity of Black and Tan. Foi those who do not want to listen to
the aigument, l have nothing moie to say. Foi some, the meie denial of egalitaiianism
is enough to biand one as a iacist foievei, and since l am inteiested in taunting egal-
itaiianism eveiy chance l get, l have liule hope of gaining theie favoi" (p. 34). Wil-
son seems to be digging in. l suspect that auitude, while aimed at his detiactois at
the time, cieates a blind spot foi Wilson when it comes to peiceiving how his woids
wound otheis not in his immediate view. ln stoning himself against those who call him
iacist," he may in fact have made himself insensitive to a ton of othei people as well.
Lile Black Sambo
ln a moie autobiogiaphical section of the book, Wilson iecalls a
high school town meeting to discuss iacial haimony. He was a student
on that panel and iecalls that, One of my co-panelists was aggrieved
over the book Liule Black Sambo. But Sambo was not an African Amer-
ican; he was from the subcontinent. And besides, as I recall saying that
evening, I had nothing but the highest respect for Sambo. If anyone asked
me to turn tigers into buer for my pancakes, I confess that I would be
entirely nonplussed" (p. 24).

Honestly, l staggeied ovei the iacial insensitivity in these comments. Not only that,
l couldn`t fathom how these comments seived any ieal puipose in undeistanding one
anothei. l suppose most ieadeis will know that Sambo came to be a veiy huitful iacial
tiope and image. lt`s a iacial slui and Sambo iconogiaphy, like the Mammy" hguies
once so pievalent, exaggeiate and tiansmogiify iacial featuies so much that many Afiican
Ameiicans still have deep visceial ieactions to them. Tey`ve been such a potent tool of
hatied, oppiession and misiepiesentation that l simply can`t fathom why Wilson would
(a) miss his co-panelists giief ovei the book and the iacial insensitivity associated with it
and (b) tiivialize the entiie mauei with comments about buuei foi pancakes. lf you want
to know what iacial insensitivity looks like, it looks like this anecdote. With all Wilson`s
leaining and iefection on these issues, it`s dimcult foi me not to think this anecdote isn`t
an example of that iacial insensitivity boin of willful ignoiance.
More Skilled at Confessing the Supposed Sins of Black People
None of us is clean in himself. So do whites need to seek and receive forgiveness for
their treatment of the black man? Absolutely. But blacks also need the cleansing blood of
Christsome of it for treatment of fellow blacks, some for responding to white hatred with
hatred, some of it for taking mistreatment of a great-grandfather as a license for crime, and
so on. We are, all of us, sinners. And it is not ing for a sinner to look sideways at someone
else and say, Well, Im less of a sinner than you (pp. 29-30).
Reading this l was lef wondeiing, Why is Wilson so expert at confessing Black peo-
ples sins and so slight and general in confessing the sins of white people in a book partially
about slavery? He`s ceitainly coiiect to say we all need foigiveness. But that`s not all
he says. He goes on to identify a few instances of sin that Blacks need to be cleansed
of. Te net enect is that Black people come on looking like the bad guys in a book about
slaveiy! Again, all of this without auending in any way to the causative factois of white
oppiession. lnstead, he imagines some black people justifying theii ciime by iefeiiing
to a gieat-giandfathei`s mistieatment. Te section ieads like a chastisement of Black
people. l don`t doubt that some people need chastisement. But the question is whethei
Wilson displays any sensitivity in making these comments. l don`t think so. He seems
to conveniently foiget that whites commit ciimes against whites; whites claim Twinkies
made them kill theii paients; and whites have used the mistieatment" of othei whites as
giounds foi theii mistieatment of blacks. Do we iemembei Emmet Till who supposedly
onended a white woman, oi Rosewood, oi even Tiayvon Maitin whose onense was walk-
ing while Black
44
` Wilson`s comments heie lack tact, compassion, and chaiity. Tey aie,
44
A couple of ieadeis of this post found this iefeience to Tiayvon Maitin insensitive. l take theii point
and have oneied an apology in the comments thiead and sepaiately in this post. l asked theii counsel as to
whethei to leave the comment in the post oi delete it. Tose who ieplied suggested leaving it in the post
with this kind of notation. Again, l onei a sinceie apology foi using a iefeience that would cause confusion,
consteination, doubt, oi angei foi any ieadei. ln an enoit to aigue foi sensitivity in oui communication
about volatile issues, l ceitainly do not want to be insensitive in the piocess. May the Loid be giacious to
us all.

in a phiase, iacially insensitive."

On Black Lives and the Implied Charge of Black Indierence to Abortion
Finally, l hnd it insensitive towaid black life that Wilson and many commenteis con-
tinually biing up black lives in aboition in this discussion but iefuse to countenance the
cost of black lives in the antebellum South. Foi instance, Wilson wiites Who cannot
lament the damage to both white and black that has occurred as a consequence of the way in
which slavery was abolished? I am forced to say that, in many ways, the remedy which has
been applied has resulted in problems that are every bit as bad as the original disease ever
was. Christians who doubt this should consider whether it was safer to be a black child in
the womb in 1858 or in 2005 (p. 0).
l don`t get the sense fiomthe oveiall tone of the book that Wilson was tiuly foiced" to
wiite these things. One gets the sense that he took a kind of delight in saying them. And
l can`t help but see the omissions and blind spots that make these comments insensitive.
We`ie fiequently told of the ovei 00,000 lives lost in the Civil Wai but not once do l iecall
a mention of the 4- times that numbei of lives lost in the Middle Passage and Southein
slaveiy up to the wai. lt stiikes me as at least inconsistent and at woist oppoitunistic to
emphasize one`s concein foi black lives today while wiiting in a mannei that suggests
indineience to black lives then.
Moieovei, many of these comments insinuate that Black people themselves aie cal-
lously disinteiested in Black life today. Case in point Tis paiagiaph fiom Wilson`s ini-
tial post
4
stiuck me as tiemendously insensitive about men he does not know (at least he
does not know me)
Te blood of Jesus also makes it possible foi the white libeial to iepent of
his exaspeiating and cloying insistence on a sof bigotiy of low expectations,
coupled with his destiuctive subsidies of all the wiong things in the black
community. But the blood of Jesus makes it possible foi the libeial to iepent
of Maigaiet Sangei`s wai on black childien in utero. ln addition, it iequiies
that he iepent of celebiating, and giving awaids to, those iap thugs who want
to teach Ameiica`s next geneiation to think of black women as bitches and
ho`s who aie supposed to be beneath contempt. ln the face of this demolition
job being iun on the black family by piogiessivism, with black childien killed
by the million, and black women publicly degiaded by black men, and othei
black men standing by leuing them, let`s get out theie and iebuke the thiee
iemaining people who think that Robeit E. Lee was an honoiable man. Way
to keep the piioiities stiaight.
Biotheis, l don`t have a pioblemwith you standing up foi and piotecting youi
people. l do have a pioblem with youi failure to do so.
4
With a Bit of Menthol"
8
Ouch! Whoa! All this fiom a blog post and a tweet. l don`t know how the sof bigotiy
of low expectations" oi libeial suppoit of destiuctive subsidies of all the wiong things
in the black community" came into all of this. But it sounds to me like so much iacially-
loaded and insensitive speak. l`ve nevei given awaids to iap thugs" and l don`t use the
language Wilson felt fiee to use in desciiption of black women. And l don`t iegaid myself
as standing by" while such tieatment goes on oi childien aie killed. Noi do l think any of
Wilson imaginings in these paiagiaphs amount to my failuie to stand up foi and piotect
my people. Tey`ie his imagination and iacially insensitive ones at that.
To be fiank, l think Wilson should ietiact statements made in Black and Tan and ie-
ally should apologize foi the comments made in his post, With a Bit of Menthol." Tese
comments aie well beyond the lines diawn foi us by oui Loid in His woid.
Conclusion
Teie aie othei examples l thought to piovide. But this has gone on fai longei than l`d
hoped oi planned. l wish l could wiite these things moie succinctly. On second thought,
l wish l didn`t have to wiite these things at all. l wish iacially insensitive comments weie
not a pait of Black and Tan, oi a pait of any inteinet exchanges between biotheis. But,
such comments aie and we have to tiy to chaiitably woik thiough them. l piay this post
has made even inciemental piogiess to that end. Racial insensitivity (and iacism) is ieal.
Te huit it causes is ieal. Te loss to the chuich and its witness is ieal. But ieal, too, is
the powei of the Holy Spiiit, the hope of the gospel, and the indwelling of Chiist which
can lif us above these thins by actually iesolving them and ieconciling. May the Loid be
pleased to giant us such victoiy with one anothei and not ovei one anothei.
22 Harder an It Looks
Douglas Wilson
4
March 27, 2013
ln his next to last post in this exchange, Tabiti said some things that weie no fun foi
him to say, and l appieciated him saying them to me anyway. l appieciate it as much as l
appieciated the things we agieed on. He says, "l piay this post has made even inciemental
piogiess to that end [woiking thiough these dineiences chaiitably]," which, speaking foi
myself, l believe we have. As has been obvious, wheie we dinei, we do dinei consideiably,
but l count it an honoi to hnish this exchange with the same eye towaid tiue edihcation
that l am convinced Tabiti has.
Tabiti accepts my iejection of iacism, which l am veiy giateful foi. But he goes on to
outline why he believes that l am guilty of iacial insensitivity. ln his usual, caieful way,
he wants to begin with the dehnitions.
4
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/haidei-than-it-looks.html
9
"lt seems to me that discussions of this soit iequiie dehnitions, lest we descend
in a spiial of allegations, dismissals, and countei-allegations."
Te dehnition he pioposes is this
"l would suggest it`s a ceitain inability oi unwillingness to sense and lovingly
considei the conceins, feelings, and peispectives of otheis acioss iacial lines."
l would like to amend this dehnition, but l will put my alteinative dehnition foiwaid latei,
afei l inteiact with Tabiti`s paiticulai citations of my puipoited insensitivity. Sumce it
to say foi now that Tabiti`s dehnition does not leave ioom foi those situations wheie
"the othei peison`s feelings" aie hypei-sensitive, manipulative, oi tyiannical. Although it
is not in the dehnition, Tabiti does appeais to leave ioom foi the possibility of this kind
of pioblem in this statement
"l don`t know if they get the hnal woid, but the peison so huit should at least
have the hist woid. And the peison doing the huiting should ieally stop and
listen foi what they missed."
But heie is the pioblem. ls the peison huiting, oi aie they pietending to be huit` ls the
peison doing the huiting actually doing so, oi is it an alleged huit` ls it an actual chaige,
oi is the defensive playei fopping in fiont of the ief` We live in a fallen woild, and so theie
aie tiue onendeis/tiue victims. l do not want to minimize the ieality of that at all but
it is not the only ieality. We also have to deal with alleged onendei victims/piofessional
onendees. Tat happens too.
lt is doubly impoitant that we take this into account if we think of it as a potential
mauei of chuich discipline. lf Tabiti believes that Mau. 181-1 oi Titus 310 aie in play,
as he appeais to, then that means eveiything has to be conhimed in the mouths of two
oi thiee witnesses it cannot iest on the basis of how ceitain people feel. lf the feeling is
enough to convict, then no one is safe. Tis is a chaige that cannot be defended against.
ln a situation as volatile as this one has been foi us all, we have to ask whethei l am
diiving on the sidewalk, oi whethei people aie thiowing themselves in fiont of my cai.
Expanding the metaphoi, diiving on the sidewalk ieally is a Mau. 181-1 onense. But
so is jumping in tiamc and falsely accusing otheis of diiving on the sidewalk. Tat should
be consideied a Mau. 18 onense also.
We need to use equal weights and measuies. Te measuie we use is the measuie
that will be used on us (Mau. 1-2
4
). Tis paiticulai iound was begun when Biyan
Loiius accused me because of how he felt about Black & Tan. But he made a veiy similai
accusation against men who wouldn`t be caught dead wiiting B&T, but who did have veiy
ieasonable questions about T.D. Jakes` oithodoxy. So how much should this accusation
be weighed` And last yeai Anthony Biadley staited a similai iuckus, and then iefused to
woik thiough it. Tat`s not going to get us anywheie. lf you want me to considei things
4
Judge not, that you be not judged. Foi with the judgment you pionounce you will be judged, and with
the measuie you use it will be measuied to you.
80
that l might be able to coiiect, the best way to stait is not by accusing me of things l know
l would nevei do.
But in staik contiast to the iesponses l usually get, l believe that Tabiti has been
judicious and caieful thioughout oui entiie exchange. Tat is piecisely why this exchange
has been moie fiuitful than some of the otheis have been.
All this said, let me summaiize the instances that Tabiti cites as examples of my iacial
insensitivity.
1. He quotes a section of my book that said that slaveiy in piactice was moie benign
than the ihetoiic of the abolitionists made it appeai. His point was that this was just
stated baldly, without any appaient iecognition that foi blacks today, abolitionists weie
heioes. He feels l did not acknowledge how hoiiihc slaveiy was in the Ameiican black
expeiience.
2. Tabiti aigues that to use the phiase "paleo-Confedeiate" is ieally on-puuing to
people l am not tiying to onend, and so l should (if l insist on using it) be much moie
caieful in how l set out my dehnition of it.
3. Tabiti objects to how l categoiize the "infeiioiity of black cultuie," and bieaks
this objection down into thiee sub-sections. His hist is that my scale of supeiioi/infeiioi
appeais to be in the giip of the false standaid of "civilizationism." Second, he points out
the iiony of me saying that Southein cultuie was supeiioi when they weie in the middle
of commiuing the outiage of slaveiy. And last, he points out that the notion of "supeiioi
cultuies" is an idea that has led to "impeiialistic abuses."
4. His fouith citation was my use of the Sambo illustiation, pointing out how deeply
onensive that woid is in the black community.
. Tabiti`s hfh example is one wheie he cites a paiagiaph wheie l acknowledge white
sins, but then go into much gieatei detail on the sins of the black man, which he believes
was an example of my jaundiced eye. Why do l itemize the sins of one, but not the othei`
. And last, Tabiti believes that l spoke beyond my knowledge of black cultuie and
black Chiistian leadeis when l went on on Maigaiet Sangei and the aboition wai and
othei cultuial atiocities that aie being inficted on blacks today.
l tiust l have heaid these objections accuiately. Let me woik thiough them, and then
ietuin to the all-ciucial mauei of dehning iacial insensitivity. l will tiy to be biief in
these iesponses, lest l be outdone by Teitullus befoie Felix(Acts 244
48
). Who wants to be
tedious`
ln what l am about to say, l am not faulting Tabiti. l believe that this iound illustiates
beuei than some of the othei exchanges how dineient gioups can say something, and
knowthat they have said it, but still have theii woids be laigely invisible to anothei gioup
with a dineient set of expectations. Tis is no ieason to give up on the woik of iacial
ieconciliation. Rathei it is why we have to iecognize it as genuine woik, and iedouble
oui enoits at it.
1. Tabiti quotes one poition of my book, and then says this "Tis, the cential piemise
of the book, fails to sense how hoiiihc an expeiience slaveiy was foi Afiican Ameiicans."
48
But, to detain you no fuithei, l beg you in youi kindness to heai us biiefy.
81
But fiommy peispective, this is something l labored to acknowledge thioughout the book.
Just a few samples "slaveiy was no bagatelle" (p. 21); "deploiable" (p. 101); it was bad
enough to be the just cause of "heice destiuction upon the South" (p. 101); we used
woids like "deplorable, wicked, evil, despicable, cruel, inexcusable, abuse, immorality, and
criminal barbarity" (p. 101). Tabiti doesn`t see that l did this, but l can say befoie God
that l honestly tiied to say it.
2. On the use of the phiase paleo-Confederate, the oiiginal context of that use is ieally
impoitant. l wasn`t tiying to come up with a name foi a newministiy Paleo-Confedeiate
Outieach oi something. Rathei, l was in the middle of a iobust hght tiying to detach myself
fiom the label neo-Confederate that ceitain slandeieis weie tiying to auach to me, and l
was tiying to do this without making the fatal mistake (in this kind of contioveisy) of
backing down in the wiong way, oi foi the wiong ieasons. So l wasn`t tiying to get to
paleo, l was laboiing to get away fiom neo.
3. Tis is a laigei cultuial issue, and l don`t ieally see how it ties in with iacial insen-
sitivity. l believe that the gospel beais cultuial fiuit, and that it causes cultuial advance. l
believe it does this with all human cultuies, and l am opposed to any abuse of this giace,
whethei by iacists oi impeiialists. l don`t want to answei foi the wicked deeds of men
who diew the wiong conclusions fiom what l iegaid to be an obvious fact. When God
showeis us with His giace, it is always too easy foi us to take false-heaited ciedit foi it.
l would join with Tabiti in condemning all such vaingloiy. But l don`t want to deny the
obvious to keep people fiom being conceited about it. Some people, in the vanity of theii
heaits, aie pioud about theii height, foi example. But as a spiiitual pioblem, this cannot
be hxed by pietending that they aien`t ieally that tall.
With iegaid to Tabiti`s second sub-point, l amhappy to giant it in numeious seuings.
Technological supeiioiity and ethical infeiioiity don`t cancel each othei out.
4. Again, the Sambo point was autobiogiaphical. Tat section was desciibing a scene
that l believe was an agitpiop set-up. Teie had been a iace iiot in my high school. l had
come out of my class, and saw a line of cops iunning by with billy clubs out. l walked
aiound to the fiont of the school, which took just a few minutes, and theie was already
a lawyei on the fiont steps holding foith to iepoiteis while the iiot was still in piogiess.
Now l ieally believe that theie aie tiue iacial giievances in the woild and have said
so ovei and ovei. But l don`t believe that they should switch on and on depending on
the piesence oi absence of cameias. Tis was a sham event, a set-up. So when l was
asked to be on a panel with othei students, and somebody else biought up Sambo, like he
had anything to do with it, my iesponse was to tieat it with the seiiousness l thought it
deseived. Sambo didn`t cause that iiot.
Tat said, if someone came to Canon Piess today and wanted us to publish the Chiis-
tian equivalent of Lile Black Sambo, my iesponse would be "do we look like idiots`" And l
wouldn`t want to publish that today because l think to do so would be iacially insensitive.
lt ieally would be.
. Tabiti felt that l focused on black sins instead of white sins (which l did do in the
place he cited). But theie aie numeious places, in B&T and elsewheie, wheie l catalog
82
white sins in a similai way. lt is a long section so l won`t quote it, but p. 32 in B&T has a
long list of how insuneiable white people have been. Daiwin, Sangei, Shaw, and Hitlei all
had knees that weie the same coloi as mine, which is to say, the coloi of a dead mackeiel
by moonlight. And theie has even been an example
49
in this conveisation of ouis.
. Undei his sixth point, Tabiti thought l was chaiging him peisonally, and l want
to hasten to say that l was not doing that at all. As he mentions, l don`t know him and
l wasn`t tiying to pietend that l did. But iionically, the paiagiaph he quotes undei his
th point is one that l could easily cite to answei his concein undei the th point. Tat
paiagiaph was almost entiiely a list of chaiges against white liberals theii bigotiy, theii
destiuctiveness, theii bloodthiist, theii fawning ovei black iap quislings, and so on. Teie
was one passing iefeience to unnamed black men who aie too passive in the face of such
white oppiession, and then theie was this concluding statement.
"Biotheis, l don`t have a pioblem with you standing up foi and piotecting
youi people. l do have a pioblem with youi failure to do so."
Te kind of thing l mean heie would be the levels of black evangelical suppoit foi Piesident
Obama, levels which aie geneially known. Teie aie high levels of suppoit fiom black
Chiistians despite his policies on things like aboition. l was not pietending to know what
any paiticulai black pieachei pieached on last Sunday.
So with all those woids behind us, heie is howl would suggest that Tabiti`s dehnition
of iacial insensitivity should be modihed. ltalics aie my additions.
"l would suggest it`s a ceitain inability oi unwillingness to sense and lovingly
considei the legitimate conceins, the natural feelings, and understandable pei-
spectives of otheis acioss iacial lines."
What sin is being commiued by someone who is tiuly being insensitive about iace` Te
sin would be, bouom line, a lack of love. We aie told to covei all oui dealings with love,
we aie told to be knit togethei in love, and we aie told to puisue it as the chief giace. As
the elect of God, we aie to put on tendei meicies,
So how would l faie if chaiged with iacial insensitivity, using this dehnition` l would
plead the following l am ceitainly not unwilling to sense and lovingly considei the
legitimate conceins, the natuial feelings, and undeistandable peispectives of otheis acioss
iacial lines. l believe myself to be entiiely willing, and if theie is any place wheie l am
somehowunwilling (unknown to myself), l amwilling to be made willing. ln shoit, l have
no desiie whatevei to be a booi when iace is conceined.
lnability` Undei this heading, l would considei factois like cultuial blind spots, ig-
noiance of what a woid oi phiase means to somebody else (e.g. Sambo), etc. With that
undeistanding of it, l am suie that l have been guilty in the past, and would ceitainly
want biotheis who see it and who caie foi me to point it out. James teaches us that the
wisdom that is fiom above is "easily entieated" (Jas. 31), and that is the kind of wisdom
49
Wilson, All in the Oiiginal Hebiew".
83
l always want to have. With that said, l would theiefoie like to seek Tabiti`s foigiveness
foi anionting him in some of these aieas he has mentioned. His foibeaiance thioughout
oui conveisation has made it plain to me that he is not one of those who is woiking a
system of iacial giievances, and he is theiefoie not the kind of peison that l want to have
huit in this way. My apologies. And l would want to extend this to any who aie in the
same position that Tabiti has been in.
lf this weie all, life would be easiei than it is. But iemembei that we also have to
factoi in the fact that some basketball playeis aie lying theie on the fooi, and l didn`t
come within two feet of them. l am still willing to point this out to the ief, and am willing
to point out they have no business holding theii ankle like that. l am most willing to be
chaiged with iacial insensitivity undei these ciicumstances. l am unwilling to be a iacist,
and unwilling to be iacially insensitive (second dehnition), but l do not know of any way
to be a faithful Chiistian in this time of ouis without diawing those chaiges.
Real iacial ieconciliation is not a game, and so if we want it, we have to stop playing
games. We have to be willing to have conveisations in which eveiybody says what they
actually think, and wheie we all stay at the table afei we have said it. Tat`s what love
actually looks like.
Tabiti mentioned we might hnish this on with a summaiy statement fiom each of us,
which l think would be good.
23 A eology of Apology
Douglas Wilson
0
March 28, 2012
Life in community is haid, and life in laige community is even haidei. When we have
angeied someone we didn`t want to angei, oi huit someone we ought not to have huit,
we should be eagei to put it iight, and we should act like we aie eagei to put it iight
(Piov. 11
1
). When we onend someone we weie intending to onend, and we had good
biblical ieasons foi intending that, we should do oui level best to be what l call Tom Peuy
Piesbyteiians don`t back down. Don`t climb down eithei. Above all, don`t ciawl.
Tis is complicated even fuithei when one action (say a book oi aiticle) diaws both ie-
sponses one fiom the taiget gioup and anothei fiom what might be called the collateial
damage gioup. You have to iespond huingly to both gioups. And if 9 of the damage
was with the suiiounding civilian population, that is what should be called "missing," and
fulsome apologies aie in oidei. But even theie, apologies aie not extended to the gioup
that was oiiginally and lawfully taigeted.
Anyone who has not noticed that "demands foi apologies" have become one of the
cential political tactics of oui day has simply not been paying auention. Like many enec-
0
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/a-theology-of-apology.html
1
A sof answei tuins away wiath, but a haish woid stiis up angei.
84
tive tactics, it depends on an impulse that was oiiginally good and iight. lt is the old
Poueiy Bain iule you bieak it, it`s youis. Eveiybody knows that. But in oui hypei age,
we have gouen to the point wheie old high school pianks can be hauled out in piesidential
campaigns. Tis is simply pathological.
So a Chiistian must always distinguish those who want you to apologize so that iela-
tionship can be iestoied, and those who do it to steei and manipulate you. Teie is a vast
chasm between the two. What l mean is that the piinciple involved heie is not subtle,
even though the piactical side of it can be challenging.
Tis can even be challenging with just two people (depending on which two it is), but
when you aie dealing with hundieds of people, oi thousands, the level of dimculty iises
exponentially. But, as l just mentioned, this is a piactical dimculty, not a theoietical one.
Life is simple. You want to apologize to those you owe one to, and you want to iefuse
to apologize to those you don`t own one to. But life is also complicated. Who belongs to
each gioup`
Tis is why James tells us that not many should want to become teacheis (Jas. 31
2
)
because teacheis woik with woids, and wheie woids aie many, sin is not absent (Piov.
1019
3
). Te tongue is compaied to a small hie in a bone diy foiest (Jas. 3-
4
), and
teacheis aie those who woik in the woods all the time. Teie aie tiees all aiound, in
eveiy diiection.
Heie aie some sciiptuial examples of the kind of thing l am talking about. Te apos-
tle Paul wiote some white hot iebukes to the saints at Galatia, but he also wanted to be
piesent with them so that he would be able to change his tone with them (Gal. 420

).
He knew that his communication needed to be calibiated in ieal time, and he knew this
even when his wiiuen woids weie the inspiied woid of God. How much moie is face-to-
face communication necessaiy in contextualizing uninspired woids` Tis is why we have
sought, multiple times, to aiiange foi face-to-face meetings with oui biotheis, and have
thus fai been iefused. We think it is necessaiy, but this is not something we can do by
ouiselves. Such iefusal to meet, incidentally, is pait of what we take into account when
tiying to evaluate the sinceiity of the giievance.
Ten theie was the time when the apostle Paul issued a qualihed apology, that is, one
that was not stiaightfoiwaid and simple. He was on tiial befoie the Sanhediin, and when
he defended himself by saying his conscience was clean, the high piiest oideied him to be
stiuck on the mouth (Acts 232

). Paul`s eyesight was appaiently not veiy good, and he

didn`t know who had given that oidei. He said "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall
2
Not many of you should become teacheis, my biotheis, foi you know that we who teach will be judged
with gieatei stiictness.
3
When woids aie many, tiansgiession is not lacking, but whoevei iestiains his lips is piudent.
4
So also the tongue is a small membei, yet it boasts of gieat things. How gieat a foiest is set ablaze
by such a small hie! And the tongue is a hie, a woild of uniighteousness. Te tongue is set among oui
membeis, staining the whole body, seuing on hie the entiie couise of life, and set on hie by hell.

l wish l could be piesent with you now and change my tone, foi l am peiplexed about you.

And the high piiest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to stiike him on the mouth.
8
. . ." (Acts 233

). When he was infoimed that it was the high piiest he was talking to,
he coiiected himself, in enect explaining that his mistake was made in ignoiance, while
at the same time applying the Sciiptuies to himself undei his new undeistanding. He
apologized, but it was most ceitainly qualihed. Tat qualihcation was not "spin." Had the
oidei come fiom the kind of peison Paul had oiiginally thought it had, he would have
apologized foi nothing.
Keep in mind this was the same body that had muideied Jesus. You onei apologies in
accoidance with what Sciiptuie iequiies of you, and this may oi may not be in accoidance
with the desiies of those who ieceive the apology. Also keep in mind that Ananias was a
whited wall. Paul apologized foi saying it, not foi thinking it. He apologized because the
context tuined out to be dineient than what he had assumed.
Ten theie is anothei angle. Teie was the time when Jesus insulted the sciibes and
Phaiisees, and some lawyeis took up the onense, and said that His woids insulted them
also (Luke 114
8
). Te Loid`s iesponse to that was to thank them foi the iemindei, and
to say "Woe unto you, ye lawyeis . . ." (Luke 114
9
). He was asked foi an apology to a
"collateial damage" gioup, and what He did was simply expand the taiget zone.
ln a liule known episode fiom the Old Testament, one time John Knox wiote a small
missive aimed at a tyiannical woman, Bloody Maiy. Tat pamphlet was entitled Te Fiist
Blast of the Tiumpet Against the Monstious Regiment of Women. Unfoitunately, afei
the iock lef Knox`s hand, Maiy died and was ieplaced by Elizabeth, a Piotestant. She
was a Piotestant, unlike Maiy, but she was also a woman, like Maiy, and when the iock
bounced on hei foiehead, she was displeased, which is something Elizabeth knew how to
be. Knox laboied to explain and beg paidon, but it was a tough audience. Teie aie times
when "that`s not what l meant" is a dimcult sell. Oh, well. Chuich histoiy staggeied on
iegaidless.
Now biing this back to oui discussions about iacial insensitivity. lf you look at my
pievious post, neai the end of which l seek foigiveness fiom Tabiti, l invite you to take a
look at some of the sneeis in the comments. Tat illustiates the dineience between those
who demand apologies as a weapon, and those who want to see genuine ieconcilation.
Foi those just joining us, this claque of accuseis, that`s not-good-enougheis, and the
deeply giieved has been following me aiound foi well ovei a decade. Sometimes it in-
volves iace, and a lot of times it doesn`t. lt always involves thiowing jagged objects at my
head, which helps us maintain at least some kind of continuity. When it involves iace, l
make a point of factoiing in the veiy ieal pioblem of iacial sensitivity scam aitists. Tey
aie out theie, and theie aie a lot of them. One of the cential ieasons theie aie a lot of them
is because the sins of white people against blacks weie the kinds of inexcusable sins that
spanned centuiies, and cieated a vast quaiiy in which the scam aitists may laboi happily

Ten Paul said to him, God is going to stiike you, you whitewashed wall! Aie you siuing to judge me
accoiding to the law, and yet contiaiy to the law you oidei me to be stiuck`"
8
One of the lawyeis answeied him, Teachei, in saying these things you insult us also."
9
And he said, Woe to you lawyeis also! Foi you load people with buidens haid to beai, and you youi-
selves do not touch the buidens with one of youi hngeis.
8
foi many yeais to come.
Because confict is the kind of thing it is, theie have been times ovei the yeais when l
have owed an apology in the midst of confict, and theie aie times when l have owed an
apology to those whose sole inteiest is to take me out. l have, undei such ciicumstances,
oneied the apology whethei oi not l believed it would be eithei ignoied oi used against
me. God is the one who sees eveiything, and He knows the heait. He is the one who
iequiies it. But in such seuings, it must be oneied in submission to God, and nevei in sui-
iendei to the enemies of giace. Paul apologized to the Sanhediin because Ex. 22 iequiied
it, and not because Ananias was wiping his eyes.
Teie aie othei times when l have seen that my woids and actions (appiopiiate in one
seuing) anected someone negatively (in anothei seuing), and l have no desiie to be on
the outs with that peison at all. My apology to Tabiti is in that categoiy. Tis is because,
on the iace issue, he is the hist peison in a long stiing of yeais to make a visible and
conscientious enoit to iepeat my aiguments in a way that l could still iecognize. l honoi
him highly foi it, but l will also mention that a numbei of the folks applauding his side of
these exchanges aie not able to imitate what they applaud.
Tis is a tendei spot in the body of Chiist, and l may need to ietuin to it.
24 I Can Be Insensitive, Too
abiti Anyabwile
0
March 29, 2013
Some of you have been following the seiies of email exchanges Doug Wilson and l
have been having iegaiding his book Black and Tan. ln my last post l auempted to dehne
iacial insensitivity" and then to cite instances in Black and Tan wheie l thought Wilson
was guilty of that chaige.
ln one of my citations, l made iefeience to Wilson cataloging a list of the sins of Black
people while not mentioning in compaiable ways the sins of White people. l auempted
to paiody Wilson`s comments with a list of White sins." ln context, l simply wanted to
illustiate what l found insensitive in Wilson`s comments by ieveising them. ln my list l
made mention of Tiayvon Maitin being killed foi walking while Black."
A couple of giacious and thoughtful ieadeis wiote to let me know that they weie at
least caught on guaid by the iefeience to Maitin and some weie onended. Tey felt the
iefeience injected iace in an unhelpful way and iushed to judgment in the Maitin case.
lt`s plain to me that these peisons weie coming to the blog to be edihed and with that
iemaik weie instead huit. lt`s also plain to me that my comments lost me my aigument.
Rathei than illumine the point at hand, the iemaik clouded the judgment and heaits of
some.
0
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/29/i-can-be-insensitive-too/
8
Tis was not a case wheie only one peison felt injuied. At least thiee otheis iesponded
similaily. So l`m lef to conclude that these peisons weie not being too sensitive" and to
wondei if otheis might have been wounded but did not ieply.
ln failing to make it cleai that l was puuing foith a paiody of Wilson`s wiiting, l
ieplicated not only Wilson`s eiioi but also the haim. l am tiuly soiiy foi that and l ask
my ieadeis` foigiveness. l am completely willing to accept whatevei consequences come
as a iesult of my woids, including the loss of esteem, iespect, oi suppoit my woids deseive.
l fully undeistand if that line costs me the point l was tiying to make in that section oi
costs me youi empathy as a ieadei. l will have eained those losses.
Rathei than ietiact the statement and pietend as though l had said nothing onensive,
at the counsel of the ieadeis, l have lef the comment in with an asteiisk diiecting futuie
ieadeis to this apology and a similai apology in the comments thiead. Going foiwaid, l
will endeavoi to wiite moie caiefully. l will auempt to considei the ieactions, feelings,
and peispectives of otheis even when l`m tiying to challenge and piovoke thinking. lt`s
huing that l should take caie to do so since that`s what l`m aiguing needs to be done foi
me and otheis.
Again, l hope that those who iead that post can hnd the spiiit`s stiength to foigive my
caielessness with woids. Te Loid be giacious to you this Good Fiiday,
Tabiti
25 Once More Into the Breach: Pushing Toward Rec-
onciliation
abiti Anyabwile
1
March 29, 2013
l suspected that when the conveisation iegaiding Black and Tan tuined to specihc ci-
tations of iacial insensitivity (which l obligated myself to make in the conclusion of the
hist post), things might actually get moie dimcult. Such allegations cieate fevei. Undei-
standably so. When these things aie alleged we natuially feel that moie giound is at iisk,
and ofen it is. And theie`s the heightened temptation to eithei auack with the allegations
oi to be defensive in heaiing them. Te fesh may be involved in the angei of the accusei
oi the piide of the accused. Piecisely at these times we need the most patient enoit and
the giiuiest stick-to-it-ness. We`ll eithei fold oi double down.
But if we`ie in it foi genuine ieconciliation and undeistanding, we hnd ouiselves called
upon to auack the citadel once again, even if it means hlling the bieach with oui dead.
Wilson iightly says that the discussion is haidei than it looks," a fact l`m piaying all the
onlookeis will keep in mind as they watch us talk and onei theii opinions. Suiely we`ie
1
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/29/once-moie-into-the-bieach-pushing-
towaid-ieconciliation/
88
all closest to falling when we`ie most self-conhdent and self-assuied (1 Coi. 1012
2
).
But iisks taken to achieve undeistanding, ieconciliation, and peace aie woith it even
if they`ie deadly" to us. l waiveied foi some time about whethei to post a iesponse to
Wilson`s Haidei Tan lt Looks," a ieply to my chaiges of iacial insensitivity. Tiee diafs
latei, two things have led me to this post (1) oneis of apology iequiie iesponse and (2)
the duties of love.
Wilson is absolutely coiiect when he wiites
Real iacial ieconciliation is not a game, and so if we want it, we have to
stop playing games. We have to be willing to have conveisations in which
everybody says what they actually think, and wheie we all stay at the table
aer we have said it. Tat`s what love actually looks like." (emphasis added)
lt`s so easy to smash mouths, step on toes, and give people the iemaining piece of oui
minds then peacock stiut oui way fiom the table, congiatulating ouiselves all the way to
oui camp, wheie oui fiiends await to join us in oui self-congiatulatoiy and self-iighteous
ietelling of events. You suie told `em!" sounds so good to the fesh.
But we`ie afei ieconciliation, which implies genuine confession, genuine iepentance
and genuine foigiveness.
Now, to be completely honest, the last yeai has included a measuie of the Loid`s chas-
tening when it comes to my tendency to easily abandon ielationships that piove dimcult,
especially distant ielationships that don`t iequiie iegulai accountability and love. l`ve
been guilty of a passive appioach to fiiendship and the last yeai has biought oppoituni-
ties to ielinquish that appioach. While pait of me wanted to move to the hnal summaiy
post, anothei pait, that pait that knows the tendency of my fesh to not iequite love, in-
sisted that l stay at the table" as Wilson put it. So heie l am iushing into the bieach
ciying, God foi Haiiy, England, and Saint Geoige!"
l want, howevei, to limit myself to only what l think needs saying. And l must confess
to some dimculty heie because theie`s so much l ieally want to say. l don`t think we`ie to
say eveiything we could say, foi not eveiything that`s peimissible is convenient. l tiust
that if we can iemain focused on the needful we might have a conveisation that, while it
feels moie intense on the one hand, will yield moie fiuit on the othei. l`m piaying to that
end foi us all.
ln that spiiit, let me onei thiee obseivations about Wilson`s comments in Haidei than
lt Looks" that, if addiessed, would move us even faithei down the ioad of ieconciliation.
Fiist, the apology follows piefacing comments that appeai evasive and to shif
blame.
Second, the apology follows defensive explanations wheie he essentially de-
nies each instance of insensitivity.
Tiid, the apology gets caveated with iefeiences to those he thinks aie taking
fops" ovei the veiy same comments l hnd onensive.
2
Teiefoie let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
89
While l accept Wilson`s peisonal apology to me, these thiee pioblematic aspects of his
post leave me wondeiing what he means when he iefeis to his aniont."
Now, l`m veiy eagei to avoid the appeaiance of a couple things. l`m not tiying to say
Wilson was insinceie. l don`t know that. l`m not alleging that. Also, l`m not tiying to
hold Wilson hostage with some supei-high and capiicious standaid foi apologies. l iealize
that even wiiting these things can make me look like that peipetually-huit, emotionally-
manipulative peison who is nevei satished. As best l know my own heait, that`s not
what`s happening heie. So, l`m neithei questioning Wilson`s heait noi leuing my own
iun ienegade.
What am l tiying to do then` l guess l`m tiying to get to a couple things
1. Some cleai sense as to whethei Wilson thinks the comments l cited, his ciicumstan-
tial explanations notwithstanding, weie in any way insensitive along iacial lines.
2. lf so, whethei Wilson joyfully owns complete iesponsibility foi those comments.
3. lf so, whethei Wilson thinks iepentance might include a moie complete and specihc
apology along with wiiuen ietiaction of the insensitive things he believes he has
wiiuen. (Beai in mind, l`m not asking him to ietiact an argument he thinks is tiue,
but to ietiact and iestate the way things have been saidmuch the same way he
aigues the way slaveiy was ended was wiong, not that its ending was wiong).
lf it`s yes" to all thiee, then l think we`ve come a long, long way and would only encouiage
Wilson to make a full apology and ietiact onensive statements without qualihcation and
defense. lt would be honoiing to Chiist to address eveiyone involved; avoid if," but"
and maybe"; admit specihcally; acknowledge the huit; accept the consequences; alter
behavioi; and ask foi foigiveness (to boiiow fiom Peacemakei Ministiies
3
).
lf it`s no" to one oi moie, then l`d like to know what l could do to help him see my
peispective moie fully. What have l not done that might give him a sense of things fiom
within my shoes, and by extension the shoes of otheis who ieact similaily to his wiiting
in Black and Tan`
ln the hnal analysis, l`m not engaging all of this to eithei scoie intellectual points in
aiguments oi to see a man ciy mea culpa. My puipose is iedemptive. lt seems cleai to me
that a biothei in the Loid, a biothei with consideiable gifs, hnds himself embauled on
eveiy side and peihaps needs a way out. Tat way out and the way to gieatei usefulness
foi his Loid and mine involves iepentance, confession, and foigiveness.
Afei ie-ieading all of oui exchanges, l still believe we have a ways to go in the way
of confession and iepentance. Weie Wilson to onei such, then l stand ieady to make foui
piomises (again, to boiiow fiom Peacemakei Ministiies)
- l will not dwell on this incident;
3
hup//www.peacemakei.net/site/c.aqKFLTOBlpH/b.98123/k.A8/PeacemakeiMin-
istiiesHome.htm
90
- l will not biing this incident up and use it against you;
- l will not talk to otheis about this incident; and
- l will not allowthis incident to stand between us oi hindei oui peisonal ielationship.
Tat, l believe, would be the heait of foigiveness and ieconciliation. Tat`s what love looks
like; love keeps no iecoid of wiongs. But the wiongs have to be genuinely confessed and
iepented of.
With faith, hope and love, l`m staying at the table and hoping we don`t have to close
the bieach with oui dead.
26 Trigger Alert Study Bible
Douglas Wilson
4
March 29, 2013
Reading the latest two posts by Tabiti, which you may hnd heie

and heie

, l am
moie convinced than evei that he is a giacious Chiistian gentleman. l continue to be
piivileged to be in a discussion with a man of his calibei, and l tiust this post of mine will
move us faithei into edifying teiiitoiy. l wish l could go as fai as Tabiti would like, but
theie aie some undeilying theological ieasons why l cannot. l do want to make cleai that
l am up against the baiiieis of conscience heie, and that l am not tiipping ovei peisonal
egotism oi piide. Tat said, l tiust that Tabiti will be encouiaged by how fai l can go.
Since l am the one in the dock, this piesents a ihetoiical challenge. lt is veiy haid to
avoid looking defensive when you aie the defendant. Foitunately, we have a case in hand
that l can talk about without me sounding all piickly.
ln an eailiei post, Tabiti had used in passing the example of Tiayvon Maitin, saying
that he had been killed foi "walking when Black." Some commenteis weie onended by
that, and iegisteied theii objections. ln this post

, Tabiti oneis a sinceie apology foi

that statement. Now l have no doubt that he is doing this sinceiely, and doing so because
he believes it is necessaiy. Tis shows, at the same time, that he is not opeiating with
unequal weights and measuies. Tabiti is asking me to do nothing that he himself is not
obviously willing to do. l hnd this encouiaging because it make it cleai to me that l am
debating with an honest man.
But heie is the catch. l cannot accept Tabiti`s apology heie because l don`t think he
wionged me. He didn`t onend me, oi huit me in any way. l cannot think of any passage of
Sciiptuie that piohibits him fiom making a point like that in a discussion like this. Given
his piemises, l thought it was a faii point, faiily made. When l iead that l was suipiised,
4
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/tiiggei-aleit-study-bible.html

Anyabwile, l Can Be lnsensitive, Too".

Anyabwile, Once Moie lnto the Bieach Pushing Towaid Reconciliation".

Anyabwile, l Can Be lnsensitive, Too".

91
but my sentiment was along the lines of huh. lt showed me that Tabiti was ieading the
news veiy dineiently than l have been, but that is not a sin. lf the claim about Tiayvon
was factually wiong, as l believe it was, then it did weaken the point he was making, but
he didn`t sin against anybody by making it. He didn`t sin against me, the non-onended,
and l don`t believe he sinned against those who weie onended. Tis is why l think we all
need to listen to the Eagles a liule moie and get ovei it.
Now push it a liule fuithei. lf Tabiti had apologized to "any who might have been
onended," that could be made to sound too qualihed and weasely. So he didn`t do that. He
apologized to his ieadeis acioss the boaid. But that would include at least thiee kinds of
people those who weie onended at the iemaik, those who weie not onended at all, and
then those who weie onended by the apology. Aie theie no people out theie who believe
absolutely that Tiayvon Maitin ieally was muideied foi walking while black, and that
Tabiti biiefy stood up foi him, but quickly diopped it when some white commenteis got
theii feelings huit` Why do those feelings not count`
We aie dealing with thousands of people, iemembei. lf you don`t apologize, some will
be onended. lf you do apologize, otheis will be onended. And this biings out the hidden
stiuctuie of the system. Apologizing to those whose feelings aie huit is an impossible way
to iun youi life. Teie has to be a systemfoi hieiaichically aiianging who gets the apology
and who doesn`t. lt is my contention that in contioveisies like this one, that system
of soiting is helpfully piovided by the zeitgeist, which appoints the omcially-appioved,
designated victims.
Summaiizing my daughtei Rachel on this, not only does the squeaky wheel get the
giease, the squeaky wheel dehnes the woild. When we done, we aie all ciammed into a
ioom full of emotional hostage takeis, which is to say, we aie ciammed into the eaily 21st
centuiy.
Tis biings us to Tabiti`s second post, wheie he is tiying to measuie how much
piogiess in ieconciliation we have actually made. Let me begin by noting how much
we agiee on the need to say what we aie ieally thinking, and not doing that as a pielude
to stoiming out and slamming the dooi. l am glad we agiee this is haidei than it looks. l
am also conhdent that Tabiti is not in any way playing gotcha with me. He has my best
inteiests in mind, as l have his.
Tabiti lists thiee sets of questions, questions which basically ask if l believe that l
have been iacially insensitive in the comments he pointed to, whethei l joyfully own my
iesponsibility in it, and if l am willing to act accoiding to this by making moie specihc
and cleai apologies.
He then says this
"lf it`s no" to one oi moie, then l`d like to know what l could do to help him
see my peispective moie fully. What have l not done that might give him a
sense of things fiom within my shoes, and by extension the shoes of otheis
who ieact similaily to his wiiting in Black and Tan`"
Fiist, l think l undeistand his peispective veiy well. He is a cleai and good wiitei. l think
92
l have a much fullei undeistanding of why honest Chiistians have the views about B&T
that they do. l have been edihed by this inteiaction; it has been helpful to me. Tabiti has
lef nothing undone that would have helped me see how he feels about this. l am veiy
giateful foi that aspect of all this.
But he has lef something undone in a couple of othei aieas, and these aieas aie the
only ieason l have wiiuen on these subjects at all. Tese aie the things that l would need
to have iesolved befoie l could give a blanket apology. Tese two aieas aie the angulai
text pioblem and the need we have to be faithful in oui geneiation when confionted with
evils much gieatei than slaveiy.
l sometimes feel like too many Chiistians aie staiing a lonely iook on a daik squaie,
while l am staiing at the whole chessboaid. Tey want me to move the iook ovei one,
and it seems that as soon as that is accomplished they will be able to say "oui woik heie
is done." But l know, fiom long expeiience, that something else will happen then, that
somebody else will make a move, and then l am going to be pondeiing again and l don`t
want to be pondeiing what to do with fewei pieces.
l want to take my Sciiptuie the way l take my whiskey stiaight. But l know that l
live in a day when countless people aie stumbled and onended ovei the haish and haid
iealities of biblical teaching. Moieovei, we live in a time when this onense that people
aie taking is a move that has no liule tiaction in evangelical and Refoimed ciicles. Tis
tactic woiks. lt doesn`t just woik on theological libeials. lt woiks on us. We live in a time
when people aie onended at the Bible`s declaiation that sodomy is a sin, oi that wives aie
to submit to theii husbands. We live in a time when ostensible Chiistians want to piint a
Tiiggei Aleit Study Bible. Now this move is being iun on us, and we aie not handling it
well. We don`t know what to do with it. Tis is ieally bad because God gave this sciewed
up woild a gospel that was delibeiately fashioned as a skandalon.
l don`t want to go down that ioad at all. l want to be an apologist foi the Chiistian
faith, but l don`t want to be the kind of apologist who diaps seculaiist tinsel on Jesus in a
lame enoit to make Him moie auiactive to hipsteis. l don`t just believe in sola Scriptura
it is tota et sola Scriptura. All of Sciiptuie and only Sciiptuie. Tis means that when
somebody says that they hnd the woid submission onensive, l want to be as likely to point
to a passage they would hnd ten times woise than l am to sandpapei the Bible passage
they found tioublesome.
"You may also buy fiom among the stiangeis who sojouin with you and theii
clans that aie with you, who have been boin in youi land, and they may be
youi piopeity. You may bequeath them to youi sons afei you to inheiit as a
possession foievei. You may make slaves of them, but ovei youi biotheis the
people of lsiael you shall not iule, one ovei anothei iuthlessly" (Lev. 24-4,
ESV).
l know oui cuiient geneiation well enough that if l stait apologizing foi things l said that
aie much mildei than things l iead in my quiet time iegulaily, then my days as an intel-
lectually honest apologist aie numbeied. l have begun to tailoi the Bible to my paueins
93
of speech instead of the othei way aiound.
ln shoit, it is not enough to call ouiselves ineiiantists. We have to be people of the
Book, and not apologize (on God`s behalf) foi things that outsideis might hnd onensive.
My account of how God iemoved slaveiy fiom the woild iuns paiallel to how l think He
iemoved polygamy fiom it. l think it is honest with the text, with the fow of iedemptive
histoiy, and with vision of futuie gloiy. Tat doesn`t make my account iight, but l think
my account has to be beuei than no auempted account at all.
Te second aiea l need to have addiessed befoie l could considei apologizing foi this
language of mine is the aiea of biblical obedience today in oui cultuial dilemmas. Te
19th centuiy was not the hist geneiation to face gieat evil, and it was not the last. Some
of them acquited themselves well, and some did teiiibly. But we aie not siuing aiound
a seminai table, fipping idly thiough the pages of histoiy books that have no ielevance
to us. Te aboition cainage stands out. Te sodomite ievolution stands out. We aie
iesponsible to be obedient.
Now what l am looking foi is an account of the conficts of the 19th centuiy that will
enable us, in good conscience, to model oui behavioi afei the behavioi of those we deem
woithy of imitation. What should they have done? is not an antiquaiian question foi me,
because the next question, asked almost immediately, should be, how can we be faithful
today like they were?
So that`s it. ln oidei to apologize foi Black & Tan acioss the boaid, l need a way
foiwaid that won`t apologize foi, oi ignoie, ceitain paits of the Bible, and l need a coheient
undeistanding of oui cultuial histoiy that enables me to stand in a long line of faithful
men.
l know that Tabiti may have asked me foi the time, and l gave him the histoiy of
watchmaking, but it is my best shot at explaining wheie l am coming fiom. Tat said,
again, let me conclude by thanking Tabiti foi being the kind of man l want to be siuing
at this table with.
27 Oh, So Close And Yet So Far Away
abiti Anyabwile
8
March 30, 2013
Tat`s what ieconciliation woik feels like sometimes. And l don`t just mean the woik
of ieconciling acioss ethnic lines. l mean all ieconciliation woik. Evei tiied to get hghting
spouses to put down the fiying pan and iolling pin to embiace each othei` Evei tiied to
talk a paient down on the ioof when they weie about to diop a WWF-inspiied elbow on
a disobedient child` Teie aie those moments when you think you see just how close the
paities aie. if. they. would. just.. We can be so close and yet so fai away.
8
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/03/30/oh-so-close-and-yet-so-fai-away/
94
Tat`s how l feel to some extent in the inteiactions with Douglas Wilson about his
book Black and Tan. We`ve coveied a lot of giound and have agieed on a suipiising
amount. Now we`ie at a point wheie l`ve made some specihc appeals to Wilson which l
think aie ieasonable. We`ie close to talking about the heait of the mauei in teims of what
onends me in ieading the book. Close. but not theie yet. l feel like we`ie talking past
one anothei.
ln my last post,
9
l oneied questions to Wilson to assess wheie we aie in oui discussion.
Tose weie
1. Does Wilson think the comments l cited, his ciicumstantial explanations notwith-
standing, weie in any way insensitive along iacial lines`
2. lf so, does Wilson joyfully own complete iesponsibility foi those comments`
3. lf so, does Wilson think iepentance might include a moie complete and specihc
apology along with wiiuen ietiaction of the insensitive things he believes he has
wiiuen` (Beai in mind, l`m not asking him to ietiact an argument he thinks is tiue,
but to ietiact and iestate the way things have been saidmuch the same way he
aigues the way slaveiy was ended was wiong, not that its ending was wiong).
But l don`t think Wilson undeistood what l was asking (paiticulaily as it ielates to the
paienthetical comment at the end of -3). l say l don`t think he undeistood what l was
asking because of this comment
So that`s it. ln oidei to apologize foi Black & Tan acioss the boaid, l need
a way foiwaid that won`t apologize foi, oi ignoie, ceitain paits of the Bible,
and l need a coheient undeistanding of oui cultuial histoiy that enables me
to stand in a long line of faithful men.
Tis was Wilson`s summaiy of the two theological stones he thinks l`ve lef untuined in
all of this (see heie
0
).
But l`m ieally not asking Wilson to apologize foi Black and Tan acioss the boaid." l
agiee with Wilson that we need to iefuse apologizing foi the faith oi foi the paits of the
Bible its cultuied despiseis" ieject. We must not ignoie any pait of the whole counsel
of God, including what Wilson calls the angulai" texts of the Bible dealing with slaveiy.
As l iecall, theie wasn`t much moie than a haii`s bieath between us in the oideiing and
exegeting of the biblical texts on the mauei. Moieovei, l think the seaich foi a coheient
undeistanding of oui cultuial histoiy that enables us to stand in a long line of faithful
men" is an appiopiiate quest we all need to puisue. As l undeistand it, these aie the
ieasons he wiote Black and Tan. Tose ieasons seem compelling to me. l`m not afei a
ietiaction of any of thatnot even the paits of the histoiy about which we disagiee.
9
Anyabwile, Once Moie lnto the Bieach Pushing Towaid Reconciliation".
0
Wilson, Tiiggei Aleit Study Bible".
9
l`m seeking something naiiowei and moie specihc. l think the way Wilson wiote
Black and Tanits tone and balanceis the pioblem. Let me tiy to illustiate. Wilson
doesn`t think slaveiy should have continued. He is foi it`s abolition, just not the bloody
way it was abolished. ln like mannei, l`m not calling foi a ietiaction of the book acioss
the boaid." l`m for Wilson stating what he thinks and iisking the skin to stand behind it.
l`m just not foi the insensitive way he`s done so at points in the book.
l`m simply asking the question Doug, do you think it might be possible that a iea-
sonable man (and l`m thankful that you include me among them) might take legitimate
onense at the way you have put some things in the book` As a ieasonable man youiself,
do you think that some of youi comments in the book aie insensitive to the legitimate
conceins, natural anections, and understandable peispectives of some of youi ieasonable
ieadeis`
As you think about that, l would hope you would be able to considei the naiiowei
question of phiasing at vaiious points in a mannei consistent with the way you wish youi
wiiting to be judged at othei points. What l mean is this When it comes to the claims
that you aie a iacist, you point to the numbei of places wheie you explicitly disavow such
things. You ask to be judged on what you actually wiote. l think that`s faii, and that`s
what l`ve tiied to do.
But in youi last couple posts iegaiding iacial insensitivity, you`ve asked us to considei
what you intended iathei than what you actually wiote. lt seems like you`ie ietieating to
motive and in doing so you`ie peihaps not piopeily evaluating youi woids.
l wiite all the time. l know what it`s like to wiite something with one intent and to
ieally blundei with the woids. l iegiet it when l goof like that, especially in my pieaching
and when people aie huit by my woids. So l`m not aiming at Wilson as though l`m some
Tefon Don against whom the same chaiges won`t stick.
But each time we`ve come close to geuing an account of the kinds of haimful things
l`ve cited, we`ie heaiing a lot about the widei audience out theie," the detiactois who
have suifaced ovei the yeais. l`m lef thinking, Hey, Doug, l`m ovei heie." And when we
heai conceins about abandoning the Bible and the like, l`m thinking, Yeah, but that`s not
what l`m asking you to do oi want to do myself."
l get that you`ie not wanting to give giound to those you think aie insinceie oi who
have an anti-Bible agenda. l get that. And l believe you when you say you don`t think
you`ie tiipping ovei peisonal egotism oi piide." Reading youi last post, howevei, l won-
dei if you might not be stumbling ovei feai`` Feai that engaging the naiiowei issues
will somehow amount to unfaithfulness in youi apologetic calling. Oi feai that some
concession to an opponent`s aigument might end in a check mate you didn`t see. Oi feai
that the heckleis out theie might have theii howling paity once and foi all. Oi feai that
an evanjellyhsh chuich might lose even the musculai integiity of jelly. l don`t know. l
can`t pietend to know youi head oi heait. lt just seemed to me as l iead youi last post
that it was so heavy with concein foi potential negative iesults that you weien`t allowing
youiself to come down to the conveisation l`m actually tiying to have with you. To be
honest, l`ve felt that way foi the last 3-4 posts now.
9
So, it seems to me that the thieshold question is whethei oi not you iecognize anything
onense in youi woids. Whethei oi not you can see a causal connection between the
ways you`ve sometimes desciibed oi iefeienced Afiican Ameiicans oi slaveiy and the
huit, angei, oi onense some have taken. You`ve alieady admiued to a kind of collateial
damage." What`s lef to be deteimined is whethei you think that damage is in the heads
of the wounded oi should be located in the woids you`ve wiiuen.
We`ve gouen close enough to put that question on the table. How close we ieally aie
and how fai we can walk togethei in agieement depends on what you see heie.
28 Another Rose Hedge Awaits
Douglas Wilson
1
March 30, 2013
Teie aie a couple things in Tabiti`s most iecent post that l would like to iespond to
immediately, and then peihaps pick up the thiead of the discussion on Monday afei we
have all celebiated the iesuiiection of Jesus fiom the dead, the one in whom all nations,
kindieds, peoples, and tongues may dwell togethei in haimony (Rev. 9
2
).
But heie aie the quick things.
Te hist thing is that l would like to stand coiiected. Tabiti points out that he was
not asking me to apologize foi Black & Tan acioss the boaid, but iathei foi the paiticulai
poitions of the book that he cited. By stating it the way l did, l misundeistood and mis-
iepiesented his iequest, one which he had made cleaily. l am iesponsible foi ieading him
too hastily when l ought to have iead moie caiefully. And foi that l am happy to seek his
foigiveness.
Te second thing is a iesponse to this question
"l`m simply asking the question Doug, do you think it might be possible that
a ieasonable man (and l`m thankful that you include me among them) might
take legitimate onense at the way you have put some things in the book`
As a ieasonable man youiself, do you think that some of youi comments in
the book aie insensitive to the legitimate conceins, natuial anections, and
undeistandable peispectives of some of youi ieasonable ieadeis`"
Tabiti, the answei to that question is yes, and was the ieason why l sought youi foi-
giveness in the eailiei post. And l am suie this iesponse will geneiate fuithei ieasonable
questions fiom ieasonable men, and fuithei howls fiom the unieasonable ones. But that
is why l did it.
1
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/anothei-iose-hedge-awaits.html
2
Afei this l looked, and behold, a gieat multitude that no one could numbei, fiom eveiy nation, fiom all
tiibes and peoples and languages, standing befoie the thione and befoie the Lamb, clothed in white iobes,
with palm bianches in theii hands,
9
Te question that Tabiti iaises about feai of "downstieam consequences" is quite a
ieasonable one also, and one that l need to defei until next week. But this is not because
l am feaiful of answeiing it, but iathei because it is Satuiday and l need to make a dump
iun to the landhll and tiim a iose hedge. Tat iose hedge piovides a iemaikable metaphoi
foi this whole conveisation, which l may expand on latei. Many thanks, and may God
iichly bless youi Eastei celebiations.
29 Hecklers Gonna Heck
Douglas Wilson
3
April 1, 2013
l iesponded biiefy to Tabiti`s most iecent post
4
on Satuiday. He wiote heie

, and
l iesponded heie

. But theie was one impoitant point he made that iequiied moie time
than l had, and with eveiyone`s peimission l will get to it now.
"Reading youi last post, howevei, l wondei if you might not be stumbling
ovei feai`` Feai that engaging the naiiowei issues will somehow amount
to unfaithfulness in youi apologetic calling. Oi feai that some concession to
an opponent`s aigument might end in a check mate you didn`t see. Oi feai
that the heckleis out theie might have theii howling paity once and foi all.
Oi feai that an evanjellyhsh chuich might lose even the musculai integiity
of jelly. l don`t know. l can`t pietend to know youi head oi heait. lt just
seemed to me as l iead youi last post that it was so heavy with concein foi
potential negative iesults that you weien`t allowing youiself to come down
to the conveisation l`m actually tiying to have with you."
Te answeis heie aie simple, but the explanation foi those answeis might take a minute.
Out of Tabiti`s foui suimises, thiee of them weie dead on and one of them almost dead
on. Yes, l do have that kind of feai the only one that doesn`t apply stiaight acioss is the
heckleis having theii howling paity. l don`t mind that in itself hateis gonna hate, and
heckleis gonna heck. What l feai is stupidly giving them mateiial wheie they would have
eveiy iight to howl.
Now l know that peifect love casts out feai (1 Jn. 418

), and l know that God has not

given us a spiiit of timidity (2 Tim. 1
8
). Tat is not what l am talking about. l have my
3
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/heckleis-gonna-heck.html
4
Anyabwile, Oh, So Close. And Yet So Fai Away".

Anyabwile, Oh, So Close. And Yet So Fai Away".

Wilson, Anothei Rose Hedge Awaits".

Teie is no feai in love, but peifect love casts out feai. Foi feai has to do with punishment, and whoevei
feais has not been peifected in love.
8
foi God gave us a spiiit not of feai but of powei and love and self-contiol.
98
stiuggles, but timidity isn`t one of them. But that does not mean that feai is not involved.
Tis is the kind of thing that moves me
"Would to God ye could beai with me a liule in my folly and indeed beai
with me. Foi l am jealous ovei you with godly jealousy foi l have espoused
you to one husband, that l may piesent you as a chaste viigin to Chiist. But
I fear, lest by any means, as the seipent beguiled Eve thiough his subtilty, so
youi minds should be coiiupted fiom the simplicity that is in Chiist" (2 Coi.
111-3).
Te seipent is good at beguiling, and modein evangelicals weie almost custom-hued foi
being beguiled.
Comes now
9
Wheaton College, which now has a student gioup foi those students
who "self-identify" as one of those alphabet GLBTQ thingies. Now the pioblem is not
having a student gioup that would help students iepent of theii eneminacy and sofness,
oi of theii desiie foi cainal knowledge with those of the same sex (1 Coi. 9-10
80
). Some
Chiistians have those temptations, and we all need help with oui temptations. l don`t
begiudge that at all.
But who cannot see, piovided you look diiectly at it, that this gioup will not be a
gioup chaiacteiized by a spiiit of iepentance. Rathei, students who join this gioup will
hnd a haven foi talking about theii desiies, just so long as they don`t act upon thembefoie
giaduation, they will spend yeais maiinating in theiapeutic goo and heie is the point
ielevant to oui discussion they will be able to do all this on the basis of the straight
evangelical world having hurt their feelings. Te gioup will not (bet you a hundied dollais)
focus on how they aie onendeis against biblical noims, but will iathei focus on how
the laigei Wheaton community, still confoiming kinda to those noims, is thoughtless,
callused, huitful, and, you guessed it, insensitive.
Moieovei, this technique has woiked, is woiking, and will continue to woik. Tis
is not something that is limited to libeial institutions. Te iot is well-advanced among
evangelicals those liule bugs have eaten most of the tiunk, but they don`t like the taste
of the baik. Tat means we can still take impiessive photogiaphs of the "tiee" to send out
to the donoi base.
l say all this gianting that there is true sin undeineath some instances of "insensitivity."
Te biblical name foi that sin would be a iefusal to love oui neighboi. lf l see that l have
been guilty of such a thing, my obligation is to put it iight with God, and with the neighboi
l have wionged, iegaidless of how much hay the accuseis can make out of it. But nine
out of ten times, the insensitivity stick is being used to whack any iemaining biblical
faithfulness we may have found, much to oui displeasuie. Feminists do this, homosexuals
9
hup//baylyblog.com/blog/2013/03/sciiptuies-ciitical-nuance-malakoi-and-aisenakoitai-lost-
wheaton-identity-politics
80
Oi do you not knowthat the uniighteous will not inheiit the kingdomof God` Do not be deceived nei-
thei the sexually immoial, noi idolateis, noi adulteieis, noi men who piactice homosexuality, noi thieves,
noi the gieedy, noi diunkaids, noi ievileis, noi swindleis will inheiit the kingdom of God.
99
do it, and evangelicals who aie neithei (still technically iejecting the sin piopei) will help
them police the boundaiies of the new speech codes, saying in enect that we must show
them how much we love them by obeying them, instead of obeying God.
Tis biings us to those instances wheie l delibeiately set up the accuseis, making a
point of doing what l know they aie demanding we all stop doing. Foi example, in the
comments of Tabiti`s last post, one peison pointed out that l use the woid sodomite fiom
time to time. "l can imagine a glee, siuing at desk, typing, and thinking, `Watch this!
Watch how the `libs` blow up ovei this one . . .`" Now l do admit that theie aie times
when l ciack myself up as foi example if l weie to wiite about Anglican sodomites
piocessing up the cential aisle in theii sodomities. At the same time, l take no glee in
being a "bad boy." l am in deadly eainest.
Some might say that this kind of "glee" is unbecoming to a Chiistian ministei, but l
can assuie eveiyone that this kind of thing is only diiected at high iebellion, like Elijah`s
commentaiy on the latest dance steps fiom Baaltown. As a counseling pastoi, l can also
testify that l have paiticipated empathetically in all the giief that men and women can
get themselves into. Some might say axiomatically that this is not possible how can the
same man bind up the bioken-heaited and punctuie the puned up` l do not do it neaily
as wisely oi well as l ought to, but that is what l do.
Demands that we change the language we aie allowed to use is a pielude foi a change
in the laws. Moies and customs change befoie the laws do. We aie alieady living in a
day wheie it is uncouth to use the woid sodomite in piint, oi in the pulpit, and so l am
piepaiing foi the day when it will be illegal to do so. l am practicing, and l hope that l will
have the couiage of my convictions all the way thiough.
When the apostle Paul asked the Ephesians to piay foi him, that he would have bold-
ness (Eph. 20
81
), he had been in the apostolic ministiy foi decades. He wasn`t asking
foi piayei because he would get buueifies befoie speaking. He wasn`t dealing with stage
fiight oi the jiueis. He asked foi boldness because he knew that all who desiie to live a
godly life in Chiist Jesus will be peisecuted (2 Tim. 312
82
), and he had a long list of events
on his iesume that don`t usually show up on modein iesumes (2 Coi. 4-10
83
).
So am l motivated by feai` You bet l am (1 Coi. 92-2
84
). l don`t want to be biibed
by the woild, and l don`t want to act biibeable. Te same goes foi thieats. l have seen a
lot of good men taken out by this tactic. l don`t want to pull a Louie Giglio. He was going
81
foi which l am an ambassadoi in chains, that l may declaie it boldly, as l ought to speak.
82
lndeed, all who desiie to live a godly life in Chiist Jesus will be peisecuted,
83
but as seivants of God we commend ouiselves in eveiy way by gieat enduiance, in amictions, haid-
ships, calamities, beatings, impiisonments, iiots, labois, sleepless nights, hungei; by puiity, knowledge, pa-
tience, kindness, the Holy Spiiit, genuine love; by tiuthful speech, and the powei of God; with the weapons
of iighteousness foi the iight hand and foi the lef; thiough honoi and dishonoi, thiough slandei and piaise.
We aie tieated as impostois, and yet aie tiue; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we
live; as punished, and yet not killed; as soiiowful, yet always iejoicing; as pooi, yet making many iich; as
having nothing, yet possessing eveiything.
84
So l do not iun aimlessly; l do not box as one beating the aii. But l discipline my body and keep it undei
contiol, lest afei pieaching to otheis l myself should be disqualihed.
100
to have the honoi of doing something at Obama`s second inauguiation, and when an old
message of his on homosexuality was tioued out by his accuseis, he iesponded by saying
that soit of thing wasn`t the focus oi centei of his ministiy. He didn`t deny the tiuth, so
fai as l know, but he was back on his heels fiom the get go, and he iesponded ill advisedly.
l don`t know him oi his heait, and so l am not speaking to that. l am talking about the
stiategic blundei. ln the gieat tank baule that is oui spiiitual waifaie, that is how to get
youi tank "blowed up."
l do not want to talk about how much l emphasize things, even though l could. As
Paul might say, l am out of my mind to talk this way. What peicentage of my books,
my seimons, my aiticles, aie dedicated to a discussion of Ameiican slaveiy` Less than
one peicent` And, to the extent that l do discuss this, what peicentage of the time is it
happening because people aie tiying to disciedit me in some othei aiea usually in the
aiea of sexual moiality` l have been in thiee majoi blow-ups ovei slaveiy, and each one
of the thiee times was iight afei a collision on homosexuality.
But please note that when l point to these laigei stiategic conceins, l am saying noth-
ing whatevei about Tabiti, oi even necessaiily about the ciitical commenteis on his blog
oi mine. l am talking about the woild l live in.
One last thing, closely ielated. Tabiti iemaiked that my posts weie "so heavy with
concein foi potential negative iesults that" l wasn`t allowing myself "to come down to
the conveisation" that Tabiti was "tiying to have with" me. Tis is a faii ciiticism, and
l ieally do undeistand why Tabiti feels this way. But l don`t think this is because l am
being a bonehead, not able to be "easily entieated." Rathei l think it is because we aie
having this discussion on the hfy yaid line in a full stadium. l hope eveiyone iecalls that
we oneied to begin this piocess with piivate conveisations that could lead up to public
ones. l have the sense that the place it has taken Tabiti and me a couple weeks to get to
is a place we could have gouen to in one evening of face-to-face discussion.
Talking to Tabiti in peison would enable me to talk to Tabiti. Tis blog exchange,
as fiuitful as l believe it has been, has also been much moie challenging and dimcult.
Reconciliation is not easily ciowd-souiced.
Tink of it this way. Suppose we weie not talking about iacial ieconcilation, but iathei
talking about alcohol consumption. l have an absolute duty to go the ninth and tenth mile
with some biotheis (Rom. 1421
8
). Do not destioy youi biothei foi the sake of wine. l
also have an absolute duty to not bend an inch with othei biotheis (Col. 221
8
). Why
submit to aibitiaiy and legalistic deciees` l might be able to come to an agieement with
a ieasonable biothei in the couise of an evening. But if we weie talking about it with the
galleiies packed with legalists glaiing and libeitines yelling, along with the judicious
piaying it might take a bit longei.
l want veiy much to be at peace with Tabiti, and with everyone like him. l want to
continue to be a pain in the neck foi eveiyone who, wiuingly oi unwiuingly, wants us to
apologise oui way to peidition. You see my dilemma.
8
lt is good not to eat meat oi diink wine oi do anything that causes youi biothei to stumble.
8
Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"
101
30 A Black and Tan Round-Up
abiti Anyabwile
8
April 2, 2013
Foi the past couple of weeks, Douglas Wilson and l have caiiied on a discussion of
his book, Black and Tan. Te book and its piequel, Southern Slavery As It Was, tiiggeied
contioveisy that`s lasted these last ten yeais oi so. Oui exchanges have been chaiitable
and fiequent. l thought it might be good to include a post-by-post iound-up foi anyone
wishing to follow the discussion as it evolved. l think l`ve gouen them all, but theie have
been a lot of posts, sometimes seemingly posted only minutes afei one oi the othei of us
have hit post." So, if l missed one oi moie, please chaige it to my head (and eyesight) not
my heait.
88
Why Respond Publicly to Douglas Wilson`s Black and Tan"` (TA)
A biief post explaining how l became involved in this discussion and listing
hve ieasons l think it wise to pioceed with a public discussion iathei than a
piivate one.
Douglas Wilson`s Views on Race, Racism, Slaveiy and the Bible (TA)
l auempt (successfully, accoiding to Wilson) to summaiize the main aigument
and points included in Black and Tan. l quote at length Wilson`s comments
iejecting iacism and slaveiy, and auempt to summaiize Wilson`s motivation
foi wiiting Black and Tan.
Does the Diiving Logic of Black and Tan" Hold Up` (TA)
l auempt to addiess thiee basic aspects of the book (1) the undeilying logic
guiding the entiie book, (2) the exegetical case foi slaveiy as a peimissible
institution, and (3) the histoiical claim that the South as a nation and the
slaveiy it piacticed was compaiable to the Roman piactice the apostle Paul
addiessed. l contend that the authoiity of the Bible was not widely challenged
leading up to the Civil Wai, and that fedeial action to end the Civil Wai cannot
be causally linked to oui contempoiaiy cultuie wais.
Patiick Nostiadamus" Heniy (DW)
8
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/04/02/a-black-and-tan-iound-up/`com-
ments-comments
88
Editoiial comment Typically posts aie footnoted with iefeience to theii place int he conveisation.
Given the foimat that Tabiti woiks with heie, and that all the posts are contained in this document, theie
will not be the typical footnote accompanying each post. Subsequent posts will ietuin to the standaid
foimat.
102
Wilson iesponds to my hist ciitique by distinguishing between the foimal
authoiity and the functional authoiity of Sciiptuie. He expiesses his concein
that the ieal issue was not the doctiine of Sciiptuie among slaveholdeis and
abolitionists but the doing of sciiptuie, actual obedience.
Slaveiy and the Bible Te Peispective of Tis Abolitionist (TA)
l auempt to account foi the biblical texts ielevant to the question of slaveiy, its
piactice, and its end. l call foi an immediatismto slaveiy`s end, contiaiy to the
giadualism Wilson pioposes. We covei the commandment to love, Philemon,
1 Tim. 110; 1-2, and the household codes.
Love ls Nevei Latei (DW)
Wilson iesponds to my exegesis of the biblical texts with almost complete
agieement. He agiees that we should piivilege the command to love and
that obedience to that command should not be delayed. Wilson points to
some hypothetical situations wheie he suggests that love might not mean
immediate manumission.
How Koinonia Conqueis (DW)
Wilson oneis this aiticle, oiiginally published in Omnibus, as evidence of
his tieatment of Philemon and evidence of how closely aligned oui undei-
standings of the text aie. He believes Philemon ieceived Onesimus back as a
biothei, most likely fieed Onesimus, that Onesimus became a co-laboiei with
Paul, and that Onesimus is likely the same Onesimus addiessed by lgnatius.
Te Designated Ambition Pole (DW)
89
Wilson ieminds us of the oiiginal context foi publishing Black and Tan. He
iecounts Paul Hill`s muidei of an aboition clinic doctoi, the questions Hill`s
actions piovoked, and his desiie to avoid the maiketing shiink wiap of so
much evangelical cultuie.
Sometimes the Exceptions Reveal How Fai We`ve Gone with the Rule (TA)
A iesponse to Wilson`s neai complete agieement with my biblical exegesis
of peitinent texts on slaveiy. Wilson imagines situations wheie a giadual
manumission might be moie loving, while l ask, Why not fiee the slave im-
mediately and still piovide the kinds of suppoit that expiess love`"
Adoni-bezek`s Tumbs and Toes (DW)
89
Appendix B
103
Wilson explains why he continues to believe that cuiient obligations to do
things like denounce iacism cannot be disentangled fiom messy histoiy." He
also intioduces the notion of piogiessive ievelation as he discusses a poition
of Lev. 2s commands iegaiding slaves.
Te Cost of Oui Chosen Entanglements (TA)
l auempt to explain why l think Wilson`s association with the civilian anaiis"
of the South`s secession impaiis his ability to value Afiican-Ameiican life
and to extend to Afiican Ameiicans the same iight to puisue the fieedom he
cheiishes.
Watei ls Tickei Tan Blood (DW)
Wilson explains why we mustn`t go to wai with caitoons but iecognize the
humanity of oui opponents and explains why he doesn`t think constitutional
issues aie easily disentangled fiom veiy ieal lives that have been disenfian-
chised.
Resisting the Slaveis (DW)
ln iesponse to thiead comments, Wilson takes up the issue of whethei the
Wai of lndependence could be consideied just and the Civil Wai not.
Te Histoiies of the Ameiican South A Caution Against Hegemonies (TA)
Afei auempting to avoid a discussion of the histoiical issues at play, l felt
compelled to make an assessment of the assumed histoiy in Black and Tan. l
aigue Black and Tan fails to piovide us any histoiy while auempting a majoi
ievision of oui undeistanding of the Ameiican South and slaveiy. l also con-
tend that the book`s failuie to inteiact with dineiing peispectives amounts to
a biased view and an oveily optimistic view due to Wilson`s postmill peispec-
tive. l conclude with a postsciipt on histoiical and cultuial hegemony.
With Jello in My Haii (DW)
Wilson ieplies to my conceins about the histoiy in Black and Tan by admiuing
the book is not and is not intended to be a woik of histoiy, that he believes
the book would have been stiongei to inteiacting with dineiing viewpoints on
the histoiy, and explaining his postmill peispective. He pushes back against
a postmodeinism and multicultuialism" that denies God`s metainaiiative on
histoiy.
Anothei Point Wheie Wilson and l Almost Entiiely Agiee On Doing Histoiy and
Multicultuialism (TA)
104
l ieasseit my basic ciitiques of Black and Tan`s undeilying histoiy by iespond-
ing to Wilson`s defenses. l also auempt to discuss how many Afiican Ameii-
can and White discussants have two dineient things in mind when they talk
about multicultuialism."
A Good Luck Wave Won`t Cut lt (DW)
Wilson iesponds to my ciitique of Black and Tan`s histoiy, agiees with my pie-
vious post`s comments about multicultuialism, and ietuins to a compaiison
of slaveiy and aboition, maintaining that aboition is fai woise than slaveiy
in its death toll. He also explains why he doesn`t think his postmill views lead
to a iosy" pictuie of slaveiy.
lllustiating Racial lnsensitivity in Black and Tan (TA)
l auempt to dehne iacial insensitivity" and to comment on seveial minoi and
moie seiious comments in Black and Tan that l think fail to lovingly considei
diveise ieadeis and iacial sensitivities.
Haidei Tan lt Looks (DW)
Wilson iesponds to my dehnition of iacial insensitivity" with a pioposed
amendment and ieplies in tuin to my citations of iacial insensitivity. He
oneis an apology while distinguishing between peisons genuinely onended
and those who may be fopping". He calls foi the kind of enoit at ieconcil-
iation wheie paities say what they want to say and iemain at the table afei
they have said it.
A Teology of Apology (DW)
Following up on Haidei Tan lt Looks," Wilson uses thiee biblical incidents
to explain why his apology came with qualihcations and explanations.
l Can Be lnsensitive, Too (TA)
l onei an apology to ieadeis who took onense at a passing iefeience to Tiayvon
Maitin.
Once Moie lnto the Bieach (TA)
l iespond to Wilson`s call to stay at the table" by pointing out thiee pioblems
with his apology post and seeking to get a cleai sense of whethei Wilson
though he`d wiiuen anything insensitive in Black and Tan, accepts iespon-
sibility foi those comments, and would ietiact them. l iefei to some useful
piinciples foi apologies and foigiveness fiom Peacemakei Ministiies.
A Tiiggei Aleit Study Bible (DW)
10
Wilson pushes back against an apology l oneied ieadeis at Puie Chuich. He
then ieasseits the need foi a full and complete acceptance of sciiptuie and
a way foi undeistanding oui cuiient cultuial stiuggles in histoiical context
befoie he could apologize foi Black and Tan acioss the boaid.
Oh, So Close. And Yet So Fai Away (TA)
l claiify that l was not asking himto ietiact Black and Tan acioss the boaid, but
iespond specihcally to the chaige of insensitive comments. l also speculate
about whethei feai of negative iesults might hindei Wilson giving a moie
complete apology.
Anothei Rose Hedge Awaits (DW)
Wilson accepts that l was not asking him to ietiact Black and Tan and apolo-
gizes foi misieading me. He iestates his apology by admiuing that he believes
himself to have wiiuen some insensitive things in Black and Tan. He cieates
a placeholdei foi some futuie comments.
Heckleis Gonna Heck (DW)
As piomised, Wilson ietuins with moie thoughts about the kinds of feais
he has in public conveisations of this soit and why dineient tones might be
appiopiiate foi dineient peisons in such a discussion. Pait of his concein is
that evangelical capitulation to insistence on polite" speech ofen comes a
step oi two befoie evangelical capitulation to the demands of those iebelling
against God`s iule.
31 What Do the Noseguard and the Center Talk About?
abiti Anyabwile
90
April 2, 2013
Somewheie along the way l lost tiack of the many posts Douglas Wilson and l have
exchanged iegaiding his book, Black and Tan, so l posted a iound-up" of them all. While
l lost tiack of the posts, by God`s giace, l don`t think l lost tiack of the conveisation itself.
We`ve coveied a lot of giound. Te tone has been chaiitable. Te engagement has
been on the issues and not an auack on peisons. We`ve ieached a faii amount of impoitant
agieement, and we have some signihcant disagieements iemaining. l think that`s beuei
than we might expect any time a foimei Afiican Ameiican Muslim and a self-desciibed
paleo-Confedeiate" stait talking about slaveiy, iace," and the like. Piaise God foi the
Spiiit`s woik in iedeemed clay!
90
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/04/02/what-does-the-noseguaid-and-the-
centei-talk-about/
10
l`ve coveied pieuy much all the giound l`d hoped to covei in my ciitique of Black and
Tan and then some. But l want to onei one last post, not so much about Black and Tan
but about how we talk about these things publicly. Tis will have all the coheience of a
iamble, so l ask youi patience and youi giace. But, l hope it`ll be useful on some level. l
thought Wilson`s last post
91
seived us all when he shifed the conveisation to the issue of
the watching public.
l like Wilson`s gif with language and metaphois. l wish l could title my posts with the
kind of cieativity he uses! lf this thing weie judged on post titles it would be a complete
shut-out in Wilson`s favoi! l don`t noimally like to aigue using analogy because they
always bieak down and then theie aie those who seize on eveiy detail of the analogy and
miss the main point (kinda the way some pieacheis pieach paiables). But l`m in a iaie
analogy using mood. But, the best l can do heie is boiiow an analogy Wilson used. One
l like veiy much and think captuies one aspect of oui discussion.
Wilson wiites, we aie having this discussion on the hfy yaid line in a full stadium."
Tat`s well-said. Teie aie a lot of onlookeis to this discussion. Te stadium feels hlled
with foui types.
Teie aie those weaiing Doug Wilson jeiseys who cheei foi his eveiy play and hnd
a way to blame the iefs eveiy time he appeais to sunei a setback. Teie aie the folks
weaiing Tabiti jeiseys who cheei his eveiy play and hnd a way to blame the iefs eveiy
time he appeais to sunei a setback. Tese aie the paitisans, haid to be won ovei, watching
the game with a jaundiced eye, as eagei to boo" as to cheei. Tey make suie the team is
suppoited and the stadium is hlled. Butand this is a but" the size of Aunt Fanny`s on
Robotspaitisans don`t make good discussion paitneis. Teams need them and woik haid
to gathei them. But paitisans hate close calls, disdain the hnei points of the game, and
tend to want winneis by wide maigins. Tis makes them dimcult to woo with anything
othei than the othei teams head on a stick. But they`ll maich out single hle and singing if
said head could ieally be on a stick caiiied out as a totem of theii piowess and dominance.
Paitisans can be the death of discussion. But we love them, and we have to be caieful how
we couit them when we`ie helmet to helmet on the 0-yaid line. Tat`s one pait of oui
stewaidship in public discussions.
Teie`s also a type of fan who makes foi oui puiposes a second gioup. Tat`s the guy
who iefeis to his team with the pluial pionoun we." When he gives the iepoit on the
game he says, We lost" oi We won." When his team loses, he`s unable to go to woik
Monday moining. When they win he is unbeaiable all week. He`s the kind of guy who
takes eveiything happening on the held peisonally, as if he`s on the iostei with the othei
guys. You`ve heaid the joke about the guy who sits in the stands with 30,000 people and
believes the playeis aie talking about him when they meet in the huddle. He`s the guy
who watches a play unfold on the held and can`t help but say, Tat`s just what l was
thinking they should do," and believes his thinking it (oi his watching oi not watching
the play) has something to do with how the play unfolded. He`s an empath, like Deanna
Tioy on Star Trek Next Generation, and a witch. And he shows up feeling eveiything the
91
Wilson, Heckleis Gonna Heck".
10
team should feel but without any ieal involvement in the game.
Ten theie aie those folks who came to game looking foi a good afeinoon`s entei-
tainment. Tey`ie not ieally fans of eithei team. Tey`ie peihaps loyal to anothei team
in anothei town. But they enjoy the game. Tey like the aitistiy as well as the funda-
mentals. Tey`ie the kind of auendees who caiiy yeais of stats in theii heads and know
something about the chaiactei of the teams and theii owneis. Tey`ie gieat people to
take scoie, indineient as they aie to the teams themselves and capable as they aie of com-
piehending the issues in the game. Now, many paitisans think they`ie these kinds of
indineient ahcionados simply because they know stats and won-loss iecoids. Te dinei-
ence between a paitisan and an ahcionado isn`t a mauei of statistical iecoid-keeping but
of heait`s auachment. Te ahcionado`s heait is auached to the game while the paitisan`s
heait is auached to the team. Now, the peisons most ofen needed in the 0-yaid line
discussion is the ahcionado. Tey`ie the peisons that can help keep oui view of things
stiaight, hll in the action foi those with bad seats, and calmly toss a fag against eithei
team as occasion iequiies. But the pioblem is this when you`ie in Philly and you`ie an
ahcionado you`ie piobably beuei on keeping youi mouth closed! ln othei woids, the
gieat ciowd of fans/paitisans iooting foi theii teams don`t want to heai fiom the smallei
pack of ahcionados, who hnd themselves pushed to the maigins iathei than invited into
the analysis and enjoyment of the game. Teie`s a contest going on in the stands, too, and
it`s not just paitisans against paitisans but also paitisans against the iightly dispassionate
and faii. lf we lose the faii-minded, the open to leaining and changing, the willing to
listen and considei, then we lose the whole shootin` match (to mix metaphois).
Tiid, in the stands of a football game theie`s anothei kind of auendee. Tat`s the
giilfiiend (usually, steieotypically; tiust me, l know women can be and aie eveiy bit as
passionate and knowledgeable about football as the guys; but peimit me the admiuedly
steieotypical analogy). She only came to the game to get some time with the ex-jock
boyfiiend. She cheeis foi his team but she ieally isn`t a fan. She`d iathei be aloof about
the whole thing but she doesn`t have the ahcionado`s histoiy and undeistanding. She
simply showed up and found heiself engulfed in a smash-mouth football game with beei
sloshing, face-painted, shiitless paitisans shouting all aiound hei. She`d iathei be at home
watching HGTV oi Lifetime oi some such thing, but she`d do anything foi hei man. And
that`s hei dimculty. She`s got a decision to make. All the blustei and bantei suggests
something ieally impoitant is happening on the 0-yaid line. She should piobably pay
auention. Te ahcionado next to hei seems to have a good giasp on things but she can`t
tell fiom his dispassionate comments who`s iight oi wiong, and talk about completion
peicentage has hei wondeiing if any of the playeis hnished school. Te fans scieaming
theii heads on have made up theii mind who they`ie foi," but they seem to oveilook
some pieuy signihcant happenings on the held and to hxate on a couple othei things that
seem to be ovei now. Does she follow hei boyfiiend, does she pietend the ahcionado`s
indineience, oi does she make up hei own mind, even if that means picking the team with
the pieuiest colois` You see, theie aie a gieat many people new to the game, new to all
the paity lines, tiying to hguie things out and make a ieasonable decision. And piecisely
108
because they`ie ieasonable, they may just decide to bail on the whole soidid thing. Oi,
they may be swept up with the mobs iathei than think thiough an issue. Oi, they may
choose theii pieuy colois, complain the game is too violent to begin with, and watch only
foi the pieuy" plays.
All that to say this When the nose guaid and the centei line up at the hfy yaid line,
they`ie going to have to make themselves blissfully unawaie of the people in the stadium
and obseive the playei in fiont of them and the iules of the game on the held. lt`s the only
way to lead, infuence, and actually win the game. Te iiony of spoits peifoimance is that
winning the fans iequiies ignoiing the fans. Te fella kicking the held goal can`t allow
himself to get distiacted by the end zone ciazies waving towels and howling ugly things
about his mothei. Te quaiteiback and ieceivei looking to connect on a timing pauein
can`t listen to the thundeious cheeis and boos coming fiomthe iafeis. Tis singulai focus
helps us in a numbei of ways.
First, it keeps us from playing the impossible game of answering critics. l leained this
fiom anothei waiiioi in today`s cultuie baules John MacAithui. He said he leained long
ago nevei to answei his ciitics. When l hist heaid it l thought, How do you not do that.
Ten l became a senioi pastoi. lt became veiy appaient veiy quickly that if l weie to
answei my ciitics it would be a full-time job and the main thing would nevei get done.
But heie`s the tiicky pait of all this Answeiing ciitics may either be diiect ieplies to them
oi anticipating and adjusting my comments to guaid against them in some way. Eithei
way, the ciitic sets the agenda foi some pait of my ministiy and life iathei than God`s
calling. Tis is why Paul tells the Coiinthians, But with me it is a veiy small thing that l
should be judged by you oi by any human couit. Foi l am not awaie of anything against
myself, but l am not theieby acquiued. lt is the Loid who judges me. Teiefoie do not
pionounce judgment befoie the time, befoie the Loid comes, who biing to light the things
now hidden in daikness and will disclose the puiposes of the heait. Ten each one will
ieceive his commendation fiom God" (1 Coi. 43-). Te apostle focuses instead on being
faithful as a stewaid of the mysteiies of God (41-2). We can`t answei oui ciitics. Teie
aie too many of them.
Second, playing the game between the lines keeps us focused on the ball. Tat was what
my daddy said when he was paiticulaily pleased with me. Son, you`ie on the ball." He
meant l had my head in the game and was doing what was expected of me. As Chiistians
and ceitainly as ministeis we have a moie impoitant taskto be faithful to the deciees
of God and the pioclamation of His eveilasting gospel. Te playeis on the held have to
undeistand that most of all. lnevitably the news iepoitei hnds them in the lockei ioom
befoie they`ie even diy fiom the showei and staits asking oi blaming on cameia. lndeed,
the iepoiteis and the fans have alieady begun theii second-guessing while the game is
being played. But the playei has to keep his mind on what the coaches and the captains
aie instiucting. Te most iidiculous thing in all of football is an on sides penalty oi an
illegal motion penalty on the nose guaid oi the centei. Tey`ie the guys closest to the
ball. One of them even has his hands on the ball and knows the snap count! Losing tiack
of the ball is an inexcusable eiioi foi them. Tey must maintain a singulai focus on the
109
ball, and if the do they`ie able to be faithful to theii calling. Win oi lose they have done
that most impoitant thing piotect oi get the ball.
ird, being focused on the game and playing by the rules of the game keeps us consis-
tent with all the fans in the stand. We know the bleacheis aie paitisan. We know theie
aie obseiveis wanting oui heads foi this oi that ieason, oi foi know ieason at all. And
we know theie aie people in the same bleacheis looking at things caiefully and those
watching cluelessly. How do we play the game in a way that honois them all` We line up
and we play without cheating. Cheating souis eveiy fan. Even the fan whose team won
thiough the missed call oi the indiscietion can`t talk in loud tones about the win." Te
whole thing is suspect and they know it in theii heaits. Only when eveiything is faii and
squaie," by the book" can playeis on the held and people in the stands hold theii heads
up in dignity. But to have dignity in eithei victoiy oi defeat, we have to play by one set of
iules obseived by all, whethei on the held oi on the held. A holding penalty has to be a
holding penalty, even when it`s close. Alate hit has to be a late hit no mauei wheie you`ie
siuing, even if it`s a nanosecond afei the quaiteiback ieleases the ball. Lining up on sides
has to be an infiaction no mauei whethei you`ie fanboy, ahcionado, oi hapless spectatoi
and no mauei whethei you`ve got 0-yaid line seats oi you`ie in the nosebleeds. When
an infiaction is calledespecially when the playeis admit it, and even when they hate that
it huits theii team oi disappoints theii fans oi gives joy to theii opponentssubmission
to the iuling has to apply to all. We don`t have penalties that only anect the centei but
not the iest of the team, oi only benehts one playei but not all.
One peison in the comments thiead, a paitisan, l think, asked if l thought chaiges
of iacial insensitivity" weie objective such that the Wilson`s humble apology (and l do
think it was humble to make an apology on the 0-yaid line) should be made to all without
iespect to whethei they weie themselves honest oi oppoitunistic. My answei to that is,
Yes." lf l`ve wionged one biothei with a iemaik, theie`s no ieason foi me to assume the
iemaik doesn`t haim otheis, even otheis l iegaid as paitisans on the othei team always
howling against me and my team. Heie`s the thing Floppeis have feelings, too (again, to
mix spoiting metaphois). So, too, do the uniedeemed fiom whom we may even expect
fopping because it inheies in theii fallenness. Even if foppeis have faked a hundied
chaiges like Bobby Huiley of Duke days gone by, that does not mean the next time we see
him spiead eagle counting ceiling tiles that no chaige occuiied . We don`t get to onend
oui enemies. We don`t get to ignoie the enect of oui woids on otheis. We get to love
them, onei them the othei cheek, and piove ouiselves to be unlike sinneis by doing good
without expectation of ietuin and being meiciful to those who aie not meiciful to us (Luke
2-3
92
). Sometimes love looks like the coal hot kindness of an apology sinceiely oneied
92
But l say to you who heai, Love youi enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who cuise
you, piay foi those who abuse you. To one who stiikes you on the cheek, onei the othei also, and fiom one
who takes away youi cloak do not withhold youi tunic eithei. Give to eveiyone who begs fiom you, and
fiom one who takes away youi goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that otheis would do to
you, do so to them.
lf you love those who love you, what beneht is that to you` Foi even sinneis love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who do good to you, what beneht is that to you` Foi even sinneis do the same.
110
to all, especially oui detiactois (Rom. 1219-21
93
).
Fourth, playing the games by the rules and focusing on the ball makes us winsome with
fans and enemies alike. Let me admit something. l was a Michael Joidan hatei foi half his
caieei. l went to NC State, Joidan to Caiolina. ln the spoits woild that is the ACC, that
was enough to make us moital enemies and iule out any favoiable iemaiks one might
have towaid Joidan. But l was indeed a hatei. About hve yeais into his ieign in Chicago,
l too had to admit the obvious. Te man was gieat as gieatness goes in the woild of
piofessional spoits. l had to stop quaiieling and admit it. l wasn`t being veiy giacious
and l wasn`t winning any fiiends who could see the obvious tiuth.
Even in football theie is something called unspoitsmanlike conduct." lt`s not the kind
of obseivable infiaction like being on sides, but it is a conduct unbecoming a playei on the
held. lt`s unspoitsmanlike." We may think it subjective, but it`s ieal nonetheless. Racial
insensitivity" and insensitivity of eveiy soit has the same iealness" as unspoitsmanlike
conduct. Afei all, the seivant of the Loid must not quaiiel but be kind to eveiyone and
coiiect his opponents with gentleness (2 Tim. 223-2
94
).
lf my infiaction was an infiaction, then it was an infiaction against the Gamemakei,
the game, the othei team opposed to me, and against the onlookeis who may be taken in
my sin. lf l behave in an unbecoming way then l need to take the ten yaid penalty, line
it up again, and iun the next play. But l shouldn`t complain about the ief oi auempt to
comply with the penalty only with those l like. l should admit and ieceive the penalty
like a son being chastised by His Fathei and look foiwaid to the haivest of iighteousness
that will suiely come (Heb. 12-11
9
). To do otheiwise is to deny the giace of God in
coiiection and it is possibly to set an example we don`t want followed by those watching
in the stands.
Fih, and nally, playing the game by the rules and staying on the eld delivers us from
fear. Wilson was quite humble and tianspaient to talk about his conceins in the bioadei
And if you lend to those fiom whom you expect to ieceive, what ciedit is that to you` Even sinneis lend to
sinneis, to get back the same amount. But love youi enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in
ietuin, and youi iewaid will be gieat, and you will be sons of the Most High, foi he is kind to the ungiateful
and the evil. Be meiciful, even as youi Fathei is meiciful.
93
Beloved, nevei avenge youiselves, but leave it to the wiath of God, foi it is wiiuen, Vengeance is mine,
l will iepay, says the Loid." To the contiaiy, if youi enemy is hungiy, feed him; if he is thiisty, give him
something to diink; foi by so doing you will heap buining coals on his head." Do not be oveicome by evil,
but oveicome evil with good.
94
Have nothing to do with foolish, ignoiant contioveisies; you know that they bieed quaiiels. And
the Loid`s seivant must not be quaiielsome but kind to eveiyone, able to teach, patiently enduiing evil,
coiiecting his opponents with gentleness. God may peihaps giant them iepentance leading to a knowledge
of the tiuth,
9
lt is foi discipline that you have to enduie. God is tieating you as sons. Foi what son is theie whom
his fathei does not discipline` lf you aie lef without discipline, in which all have paiticipated, then you
aie illegitimate childien and not sons. Besides this, we have had eaithly fatheis who disciplined us and we
iespected them. Shall we not much moie be subject to the Fathei of spiiits and live` Foi they disciplined
us foi a shoit time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us foi oui good, that we may shaie his
holiness. Foi the moment all discipline seems painful iathei than pleasant, but latei it yields the peaceful
fiuit of iighteousness to those who have been tiained by it.
111
cultuie wais, conceins oi feais that have shaped some of his comments in this discussion.
l think l undeistand and appieciate his conceins. What l want foi him and foi us all is a
ceitain kind of feailessness. l think it comes moie enectively by simply auending to the
conveisation oi issue at hand and leaving the iesults to the Loid. We play football one
snap at a time. Suiely those plays build to the game`s conclusion, but we can`t piedict the
conclusion by the next thiid-down meeting at the line of sciimmage. We line up, make
the snap, iun the play, and tiust the Loid that the game iides on lots of such plays. Even
when we`ie in the ied zone on the game`s hnal diive, that diive is only hnal" because it
followed lots of othei diives and plays that put us in the position. All that to say fieedom
comes fiom iunning the play, foigeuing the fans, and tiusting God with the outcome.
Afei all, who of us is sumcient foi these things` Who can aiiest the decay of the Chuich
oi peifect its health` Who of us can guaid against the auacks of detiactois oi change the
heaits of one onlookei` None of us. But God can and He suiely will cause His chuich to
pievail against the gates of hell. We need not feai. We might even be a bit moie postmill
and optimistic. Te Loid ieignseven at the 0 yaid line when the fans aie going wild.
Conclusion
So let me biing this to a conclusion, long oveidue by now. Tank you foi ieading thus
fai and foi contiibuting in whatevei way the Loid has piompted you to beyond ieading
leaving comments, passing along links, piaying foi me and Wilson. l think l can safely
say that he and l both appieciate youi engagement with us.
lf l have one hope in addition to deep ieconciliation of God`s people, it would be that
we leain to talk with one anotheiespecially when it comes to maueis touching upon
iace." Peisonally l don`t like talking about iace." Yet l hnd myself fiom time to time
diawn into such discussions. Peihaps the Loid sees me as a kind of Jonah and he keeps
piepaiing hsh to swallow me and spit me out on the banks of these discussions. l don`t
know. But insofai as He keeps me involved in these kinds of exchanges, l hope to be an
ambassadoi foi Him, to do some liule thing that models His giaciousness, and to call us
all to a faithful embiace of His woid.
ln that sense, this discussion with Wilson hasn`t been solely about Wilson and me.
lt`s about you, the ieadei. lt`s about the Loid`s Chuich, made up on eveiy tiibe, nation,
and language. lt`s about oui collective sanctihcation and tiusting that oui iacial waits
aie theie not by accident but by God`s piovidential design to confoim us to the image of
His Son whom He loves. l think Wilson and l may tiy to onei a joint summaiy post with
agieements, disagieements, and conclusions. We`ve talked about that; we`ll see if we can
pull it on. But you`ie still wiiting this seiies foi us in all the conveisations you have with
otheis about these things and in the conveisations you even have with youiself. May
those conveisations beai the peaceable fiuit of wisdom and love. Giace to us all.
112
32 Nothing In My Experience Like It
Douglas Wilson
9
April 2, 2013
Tabiti and l have been discussing a volatile subject foi a few weeks now, and nothing
has blown up. Tis moining he published a veiy giacious and veiy helpful assessment
of the conveisation up to this point, which you may hnd heie
9
. He and l aie going to
auempt, by God`s giace, to biing this in foi a landing with oui next iound. We don`t want
to piesume anything, so please continue to piay foi us. We want to end well, soit of like
Asa didn`t.
l wanted this post to be biief, but theie aie a few things that l ieally need to say at this
point.
Te hist is to say something again. l have expiessed this sentiment iepeatedly, but l
ieally am giateful to God foi Tabiti, and l am giateful to Tabiti foi his walk with God,
as it was plainly demonstiated thioughout oui exchanges. His speech has been tiuly
giacious, seasoned with salt. We have talked about angulai passages of Sciiptuie, but
in the body of Chiist theie aie also some angulai saints. l know that foi many of God`s
people, l amone of those, and Tabiti`s exegesis of my woids has neveitheless been caieful
and wise.
Te second thing is that l have been in a lot of contioveisies in my life (yes, it`s tiue).
ln saying this l am just pointing out my expeiience in this iealm, and am not discussing
whethei oi not l should have been in them. Te point is that l have been theie, iepeat-
edly, and l have nevei had a ciitic come at me fiom such a completely dineient point of
the compass who has neveitheless tieated me with as much giace, justice, faiiness, in-
telligence, and love, as Tabiti has. l have nevei expeiienced anything like it, and l am
piofoundly giateful foi that as well.
We aie biotheis in Chiist, and we both know it, and so the following should be iead
with the necessaiy adjustments made, but the spiiit captuies something l did want to say.
My sentiments aie veiy similai to those of Emeth in e Last Bale, when he meets the
high king Petei
"`Sii,` he said to Petei, `l know not whethei you aie my fiiend oi my foe, but
l should count it my honoui to have you foi eithei. Has not one of the poets
said that a noble fiiend is the best gif and a noble enemy the next best`
"Sii,` said Petei, `l do not know that theie need be any wai between you and
us.` (TLB, pp. 183-184)
98
.
9
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/nothing-in-my-expeiience-like-it.html
9
Anyabwile, What Do the Noseguaid and the Centei Talk About`"
98
C.S. Lewis, e Last Bale (HaipeiCollins New Yoik, 2000).
113
33 A Final Wrap-Up: abiti Anyabwile and Douglas
Wilson
abiti Anyabwile and Douglas Wilson
99
April 18, 2013
Introduction
When oui discussion hist staited, we weie both suipiised at how well it went, and
both of us aie veiy giateful to God, and to one anothei, foi this gieat blessing. We have
also been giateful to the ieadeis and commenteis who paiticipated in this discussion in
the same spiiit, piaying with us, and laboiing to pieseive the unity of the Spiiit in the
bond of peace (Eph. 43).
Agreements
We wanted to biing oui discussion to some soit of foimal close, and so this is it. As
we undeistand it, oui points of agieement aie
1. Mankind is one in Adam, which means we shaie a common humanity, and a com-
mon slaveiy to sin. We togethei believe that mankind cannot come togethei in a tiue
unity until they do so in the second Adam, the only one who is capable of oveicoming the
soits of things that divide us.
2. We both believe that iacism is a giievous sin, and we believe that it is a sin that has
the piactical enect of undeicuuing the gospel. Jesus came to cast down the middle wall
of paitition, not only between Jew and Gentile, but also to cast down any othei walls that
exist between any othei iaces, nationalities, tiibes, oi tongues. Woithy is the Lamb, foi
only He could do this. But even He had to do it with the piice of His own blood (Rev.
9
100
).
3. Te logic of the gospel is jubilee logic. Tis means that the messianic piomises all
looked foiwaid to the day when the libeiation of the woild fiom eveiy foim of slaveiy
would begin, and the aiiival of Chiist was the inauguiation of God`s kingdom. Tis libei-
ation fiom slaveiy begins with libeiating men fiom theii slaveiy to sin, but it necessaiily
99
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/a-hnal-wiap-up-thabiti-anyabwile-and-
douglas-wils.html
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/04/18/a-hnal-wiap-up-thabiti-anyabwile-
and-douglas-wilson/
100
Afei this l looked, and behold, a gieat multitude that no one could numbei, fiom eveiy nation, fiom all
tiibes and peoples and languages, standing befoie the thione and befoie the Lamb, clothed in white iobes,
with palm bianches in theii hands
114
and inexoiably includes all othei foims of slaveiy as wellwhethei the foims of slaveiy
as they existed in the ancient woild, oi the moie iecent foims in oui countiy.
4. We agiee that the leuei of Philemon is satuiated with the idea of koinonia fellow-
ship, one that Paul and Philemon and Onesimus all shaied, and that Paul uses this spiiitual
ieality as the foundation of his aigument, uiging manumission foi Onesimus.
But Dierences Remain
ln the aieas wheie we continue to dinei, those dineiences aie signihcant, although
some of them may well be dineiences of emphasis.
Tabiti continues to believe that
1. Te histoiy of slaveiyeven the existence of Ameiican chauel slaveiy, especially
among Chiistiansiepiesents a fai moie egiegious tiansgiession of love, the gospel, and
humanity than iepiesented in Black & Tan, which auempts a dangeious ievision without
sumcient histoiical evidence. He believes piivileging man-made constitutional aiguments
ovei the libeity and full fouiishing of fellow human beings betiays the gospel, betiays
the command to love oui neighboi, and fails to considei the balance of all the ielevant
biblical texts. Tat combination of ievising the iecoid of slaveiy`s inhumanity and piivi-
leging only the piima facie ieading of texts compatible with one`s position leads to gioss
misjudgment and siding with the oppiessoi against the oppiessed in the case of Ameiican
chauel slaveiy.
2. Adefense of state`s iights" oi the South`s withdiawal fiomthe Union is tantamount
to a defense of Ameiican chauel slaveiy. Te inevitable consequence, had the South won
the Wai, would have been the peipetuation of iace-based slaveiy and all its concomitant
evils. Teie`s no way to ciedibly defend the South`s position without also pioviding means
foi the continuation of its sins and oppiession of Black people. Teie`s no way to ciedibly
defend the South as a Chiistian nation" while toleiating its piactice of iace-based chauel
slaveiy, even if we hold to an emancipative giadualism. Only an immediate end to slaveiy
would have been consistent with the jubilee logic" of the gospel and iepentant of the
giievous sin" of iacism upon which the piactice was based.
3. We need an unembaiiassed and stalwait acceptance of eveiy jot and tiule of the
Bible, including dimcult texts that pieice and challenge oui own favoied positions and
cheiished histoiies. Afei all, the woid of God is a pieicing double-edged swoid which
heals by slashes and cuts. We need to embiace what Wilson calls the angulai texts." But
we need not do that in a way that makes us impeivious to chaiges (i.e., iacism, insen-
sitivity, etc) that we ought to heai oi foigetful of the fact that dineient angulai texts"
challenge each side of a dispute. Angulai texts" and all, as seivants of the Loid we must
be gentle, not quaiielsome, and ceitain that what we`ie defending is the tiuth of sciiptuie
11
iightly undeistood and not just oui favoied positions oi oui piide.
4. Te Constitution of the United States was nevei a peifect document. lts guidance
then (antebellum South) as well as now (baules against aboition) is insumcient and in
need of modihcation fiom time to time. To asseit that the Constitutional issues at the
time of the Civil Wai aie diiectly contiibutoiy to the Constitutional issues suiiounding
aboition is a massive logical mistake. Despite some paiallels, it`s beuei to iecognize that
the document has and continues to fail us at vaiious ciitical points in histoiyslaveiy,
women`s iights, and now the piotection of unboin life. Te Libeity Bell has been ciacked
fiomthe beginning, a ciack put theie by the hypociisy of iinging foi libeity while holding
slaves. Te hx is not to ioot oui cuiient discussion in debatable maueis involving the
countiy`s iacial past, but to puisue a moie peifect union" by moie fully applying and
defending the high ideals and values the Constitution does embody. We don`t need to
look back to go foiwaid, especially if we`ie looking back with a biased eye to a histoiy"
that did not exist. We need to be faithful in oui own day, and that means not sticking
youi hngei in the eye of people who would and ought to be cobelligeients but showing
genuine love in woid and deed" (1 John 318
101
) as we woik togethei on life-and-death
maueis of mutual concein.
Douglas continues to believe that
1. Te angulai" texts of Sciiptuie must be handled and undeistood in a way does full
justice to them on theii face. l believe this is possible to do in the light of iedemptive
giadualism, but this in tuin means that not eveiy Chiistian slave ownei was bound to the
duty of immediate manumission. Afei all, how do we inteipiet the text that says that
the lsiaelites could hold foieign slaves foievei` We can`t just agiee to face these texts in
piinciple we have to actually face them and say out loud what they mean. Aie these
some of the woids that aie piohtable foi instiuction (2 Tim. 31
102
)` Fuithei, because
in oui piesent day, such commitment to all the texts of Sciiptuie is sumcient to get any
Chiistian tagged as a iacist, any a piioii commitment to avoid chaiges of iacismat all costs
will necessaiily moiph into a iegieuable sofness when it comes to the issues of biblical
authoiity on the contioveisies of oui own day aboition and homosexuality chief among
them.
2. We have allowed oui indignation at sins commiued one hundied and hfy yeais ago
to hide oui complicity in the atiocities of oui own day. l believe that the constitutional
implications of the Wai and the Reconstiuction amendments paved the way (in the iealm
of constitutional inteipietation) foi Roe v. Wade, and has iesulted in a fai gieatei evil
being peipetiated on blacks in the 21st centuiy than slaveiy evei was in the 19th. While
101
Liule childien, let us not love in woid oi talk but in deed and in tiuth.
102
All Sciiptuie is bieathed out by God and piohtable foi teaching, foi iepioof, foi coiiection, and foi
tiaining in iighteousness,
11
it is good to be coiiect about idols toppled long ago, it is fai beuei to be iight about
the idols that aie cuiiently demanding the blood of innocents, including many millions of
black innocents. Oui obedience befoie God will be ieckoned in howwe dealt with the sins
of oui own eia, not the sins of anothei. My cential inteiest in all these histoiical issues
has to do with how the legal piinciples that weie laid down then aie being undeistood
and applied today.
3. l do undeistand the point that suppoit foi the South would have had the down-
stieam enect of continuing the institution of slaveiy, at least foi a time. While the point
is easy to make fiom this distance, it imposes, l believe, an extia-biblical iequiiement,
and fuitheimoie, it is one that nobody piactices in oui cuiient situations. l believe it is
too simplistic and is unwoikable. Foi an Ameiican soldiei to go the Middle East today
and hght foi demociacy" is also to hght against nations that don`t allow aboition-on-
demand, and it is to hght foi a nation that does. To help Ameiica is theiefoie to help
aboition. Well, we would say, quite iightly, it isn`t quite that simple. l completely agiee .
. . but would also add that it wasn`t that simple in Viiginia one hundied and hfy yeais
ago. We ieally must use equal weights and measuies. Te Loid was quite insistent upon
it the judgment we use will be the judgment that is used against us (Mau. 1-2
103
).
Conclusion
ln conclusion, we believe a faii summaiy of oui conclusions would be this. lt is pos-
sible foi Chiistians to disagiee about volatile issues. Moieovei, it is possible indeed
necessaiy to do so chaiitably. Te stiong disagieement makes us feel like enemies and
stiangeis, while the chaiity ieminds us of oui biotheihood in Chiist. Te stiong disagiee-
ment tests the bonds of oui fellowship and love foi one anothei, while genuine love coveis
ovei a multitude of sins and holds all viitues togethei. We believe we have expeiienced
both the testing stiain of stiong disagieement and the pieseiving bonds of biblical love.
We thank God foi it even as we disagiee about some things, agiee about otheis, and hope
to be faithful to oui common Mastei in it all. We believe that this is what it looks like
to laboi to pieseive the unity of the Spiiit in the bond of peace it is kind of messy
sometimes, but we believe it pleases God.
103
Judge not, that you be not judged. Foi with the judgment you pionounce you will be judged, and with
the measuie you use it will be measuied to you.
11
Appendix
A How Koinonia Conquers
Douglas Wilson
104
March 15, 2013
Reprinted by permission from Omnibus III, p. 275.
Philemon
Have you evei been watching a football game on television, and the game is being
played in a city hundieds of miles away` But the team is youi team; when they fumble
the ball, you fumble the ball. When they give up two touchdowns in a iow, you thiow
pillows acioss the family ioom (that`s why they aie called thiow pillows). When they
come back in the fouith quaitei to win in the hnal seconds, you stiut aiound the couch,
whooping. Now why is this`
Te team is fai away. You don`t know any of the playeis peisonally, and if you did,
it would piobably dampen youi enthusiasm. Te whole thing is being played out with
pixels on an electionic scieen in the coinei, and is not ieally theie with you at all. So how
does this woik` Te answei is found in the poweiful woid identication. We identify
with those aiound us, and because the team is fiom youi city, oi is a college team fiom
the college youi mothei auended, you ioot foi them. We even do this with weathei. Go
anywheie in the woild, and the people theie aie piobably pioud of theii weathei. What an
odd thing to be pioud of! How cold it gets in Minnesota, how muggy it gets in Alabama.
We do this because we identify. And we identify because this is how God cieated us; this
is how He made the woild.
ln the New Testament, God does not abolish this cieational featuie of the woild. But
He does intioduce, on a giand scale, a new piinciple of identihcation. Tis identihcation,
called koinonia, oi fellowship, is destined to tiansfoim the woild. And we aie given a
glimpse of how this is to woik in the iemaikable book of Philemon.
Author and Context
Te wiitei of this leuei is the apostle Paul, although he also mentions Timothy as
being with him in the salutation. Te leuei is wiiuen to Philemon, a fiiend of Paul`s,
and one who is piobably a chuich omcei foi the chuich that meets in his home. Te
leuei conceins the ietuin of Onesimus. An inteiesting histoiical detail that plays into
this is the fact that c. 110-11 A.D. the eaily chuich fathei lgnatius wiote to the chuich
at Ephesus, and addiesses the bishop theie, a man who was also named Onesimus. Tis
leuei of Philemon was wiiuen fiom Ephesus aiound A.D., and it is quite possible that
a young iunaway slave could be a iespected senioi chuichman hfy-hve yeais latei. Some
104
hup//www.dougwils.com/Te-Bible-Cultuie-and-Race/how-koinonia-conqueis.html
118
have detected allusions to the leuei of Philemon in the leuei of lgnatius, which would
seem to indicate the connection is at least a possibility.
Signicance
Tis leuei showcases in a iemaikable way the dineience between how the gospel
tiansfoims a society, and how seculai iefoims go about auempting the same thing. One
of the tiuly gieat evils of the ancient pagan woild was theii institution of slaveiy, and
the gospel came into that woild. How aie Chiistians commanded to iespond to social
evils like this, even gieat social evils` We have numeious places in the Bible wheie we
aie given instiuctions on what to do, but heie we aie given an example. Jesus taught us
that when the salt loses its saltiness, it becomes woithless, and is ht only to be tiampled
on by men. Philemon gives us a potent and Chiist-like example of Chiistian chaiity in
an extiemely dimcult situation, and is an impoitant way of leaining how to keep oui salt
salty.
Main Characters
Te main chaiacteis in this shoit diama aie Paul the apostle, Philemon his fiiend, and
Onesimus the iunaway slave. Seveial othei people aie mentioned at the beginning of this
shoit leuei, and while we cannot be dogmatic about theii identity, we still have a pieuy
good idea. Tese identihcations aie not iionclad, but they aie ceitainly ieasonableand
iepiesent what most Chiistians have assumed about theii identity fiom the hist centuiies
of the chuich. Apphia is piobably Philemon`s wife (v. 1), and Aichippus is likely theii
son. Chiysostom points out that since Epaphias was sent by the Colossians" (Col. 412)
it appeais fiom this that Philemon was also at Colossae" (v. 23).
Summary and Seing
Onesimus was a iunaway slave, who had appaiently taken some things fiom his mas-
tei, Philemon. Te apostle Paul had eailiei biought Philemon to faith in Chiist, and now
has been piivileged to do the same thing with Onesimus. He then makes the deteimina-
tion that he needed to ietuin Onesimus to his mastei, but in a way calculated to assuage
the likely angei of the wionged Philemon. Not only did Paul want to assuage that angei,
he also wanted to do fai moie.
ln the Gieco/Roman seuing of the hist centuiy, the condition of slaves was absolutely
appalling. While some slaves would have decent masteis thiough the luck of the diaw,
the institution of slaveiy in the Mediteiianean woild was completely pagan fiom fiont
to back. Slaves had no legal iights, no iight to maiiy, the paterfamilias of the household
could execute them foi tiivial causes if he wished, and they had no iight to ieject sexual
abuse. Tis was iadically dineient fiom the slaveiy" of the Old Testament, which was
liule moie than a foim of indentuied seivanthood. Tis is why it is impoitant, when we
119
talk about things like this, to qualify the phiase slaveiy in the Bible." ln one case, we
aie talking about laws as God gave them to His people, and in the othei we aie dealing
with how God instiucted Chiistians to iespond to an unbelieving pagan institution. Te
book of Philemon gives us an outstanding example of how the apostle Paul put his own
teaching on this impoitant subject into piactice.
Worldview
Te book of Philemon has iemaikable depths. lt is veiy shoit, and at aiound 430 woids,
it is about ten times shorter than this essay auempting to explain it. But this is not to say
that Paul was somehow uncleai and that we have to come afei him latei to stiaighten
it all out. Rathei, this leuei of Paul is a woik of genius, and he was cleai about so many
things, in so few woids, that it might take us a bit of time foi us to covei eveiything that
he biings up. Although it is also addiessed to the chuich that meets in Philemon`s home,
it is cleaily a highly peisonal leuei to Philemon fiomhis deai fiiend Paul. And yet, despite
its paiticulai and occasional natuie, and the bievity of it, the book is still piofound.
Te physical ciicumstances aie not haid to deciphei. Philemon was a wealthy man
in Colossae, with a house laige enough foi a chuich to meet in. lf he ht in with the
aveiages foi a man of his class at this time, his household could have had seveial hundied
people in it. One membei of that household, a slave named Onesimus, appaiently stole
something, and then ian away fiom him. Philemon was a Chiistian and Onesimus was
not. Te apostle Paul was the one who had pieviously biought Philemon to Chiist, and
now, in a stiange twist, he was used by the Loid to do the same foi the iunaway slave
Onesimus. Tis happened while Paul was a piisonei in Ephesus, which makes it likely
that Onesimus had foi some ieason sought Paul out. He must have known how deai Paul
was to Philemon. Peihaps guilt oi some othei motive led Onesimus to contact Paulbut
at any iate, since Paul was a piisonei theie, it is unlikely that they ian into each othei by
accident on the stieet.
Te leuei is wiiuen by Paul to Philemon to peisuade him to ieceive Onesimus back,
not just as a slave, but now as a deai biothei. But the way Paul sets about doing this is
quite stiiking. Although Philemon was a compassionate man (v. ), the delicacy that Paul
uses in the leuei shows that it is veiy likely that he had been angeied and huit by what
Onesimus had done to him. Eithei that, oi Onesimus believed him to be veiy angiy and
communicated this to Paul. Consequently, Paul does not come into the situation baiking
oideis, but iathei seeks to peisuade Philemon with tendeiness and identihcation.
Tis woid identication needs to be developed fuithei. Te Gieek woid koinonia is
usually tianslated as fellowship, which is good enough, but ovei time the woid has lost
some of its textuie and depth foi us in the modein chuich. We modeins think that fellow-
ship is the conee and donut time" afei the main seivice, wheie we all chat each othei
up a bit, and then head out foi the paiking lot. But the woid koinonia involves much
moie than just being fiiendly foi twenty minutes once a week. Te woid, as it is used of
Chiistians in the New Testament, involves communion, identihcation, union, iecipiocity,
120
and intei-dwelling. As Chiistians we aie called to eat togethei, and talk, and give, and
saciihce, piecisely because we aie membeis of one anothei.
Tis koinonia is the foundation of Paul`s appeal to Philemon. Te phiase is sometimes
tianslated the shaiing of youi faith" (v. ) and this makes us think of an evangelistic
shaiing. Tat is how we shaie oui faith," but it is unlikely that Paul has evangelism in
mind heie. Philemon lives as a giacious Chiistian in the midst of Chiistian community,
and this means koinonia, oi intei-dwelling. ln the chuich, oui lives aie all woven togethei.
Paul is able to appeal to Philemon on this basis conceining Onesimus because he knows
that Philemon alieady undeistands and piactices this with otheis.
Te heait of Chiistian ethics is found heie. God does not point to a bunch of people
ovei theie, and say, See` Tose people think similaily to you. Be nice and polite to
them once a week." Rathei, He biings us all togethei so that we become one people. We
indwell one anothei. We exchange life. We aie membeis of one body. When one pait of
the body huits, the entiie body huits. Now this sense of identihcation, oi intei-dwelling,
is the entiie basis of Paul`s aigument in Philemon. Paul does not make the mistake that
many modein counselois do, that of taking sides." When theie has been a disagieement
oi quaiiel, the task of the pastoi oi counseloi is not to take one side oi the othei as an
advocate, but iathei to iepiesent Christ in the situation. Tis does not pievent the naming
of sin when it occuis, but it diastically anects how the sin is named.
So considei all the identihcations that aie made. Paul staits by identifying with Phile-
mon in the stiongest possible way. He addiesses Philemon as beloved (v. 1). He piays foi
Philemon (v. 4), and when he does, he thanks God foi Philemon (v. 4). He has heaid good
iepoits about Philemon (v. ), and he tells Philemon about it. Paul has ieceived much joy
and comfoit fiom the consistent Chiistian love of Philemon (v. ). ln shoit, it appeais
cleai fiom this that Philemon was an exemplaiy Chiistian, and a close fiiend of Paul`s.
Paul is not ashamed to be identihed with Philemonthe slave-ownei. Paul is not ashamed
to be identihed with Philemon, even though Philemon was now embioiled in a confict
with someone else, someone that Paul had come to know and love.
And this is how Paul then makes a point of identifying (equally stiongly) with Ones-
imus. He does this both explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly he says that Onesimus is
his son, begouen while Paul was in bonds (v. 10). He hopes that Onesimus will become
beloved to Philemon, just as he was beloved by Paul (v. 1). ln this we see that Paul is as-
suming the iole of Chiistnot as a competitoi to Chiist, but as a iepiesentative of Chiist.
Philemon was beloved to Paul. Onesimus was beloved to Paul. But the two men weie
estianged fiom one anothei. Now what` Paul piesses this two-way identihcation, and
does not back away fiom eithei man.
He also identihes with Onesimus in a moie subtle way. lmplicitly he emphasizes ie-
peatedly the fact that he, Paul, is in piison. Why does he do this` Tis means that Paul,
just like Onesimus, is a slave. He begins the leuei by pointing this outthe second woid
in the leuei is piisonei (v. 1). He biings it up again when he appeals to Philemon (v. 9),
and when he says that he begat Onesimus, he did so while in his bonds (v. 10). He then
mentions that Epaphias is his fellow prisoner (v. 23). He assumes that he will be ieleased
121
shoitly, and that Philemon is piaying foi this to happen (v. 22). Te implicit aigument is
poweifuldo foi Onesimus what you would do foi me (v. 1), and this means that Phile-
mon should wish foi Onesimus what he wishes foi with Paul. And Philemon has been
piaying foi Paul`s freedom.
Paul then makes the stiiking point that Philemon, who identihes so completely with
Paul, would want to ministei to Paul and help him out. Tis Philemon was able to do
(though unbeknownst to him) thiough his iepiesentative Onesimus. Onesimus was Phile-
mon`s iepiesentative (he and Philemon weie identied in Paul`s mind) even though Ones-
imus had iun away fiom Philemon, and had appaiently taken some of the family silvei. ln
fact, Paul had wanted to keep Onesimus with him so that Onesimus could be Philemon`s
iepiesentative in giving to Paul (v. 13). At the same time, he did not want to coeice any-
thing fiom Philemon, and so he ietuined Onesimus to him, so that the choice (to seive
Paul thiough Onesimus) would be completely and fieely Philemon`s.
Since this seiies of identihcations is so complete, it follows that what Onesimus owes
to Philemon must be added to Paul`s account (v. 18). And the welcome that Philemon
would have been glad to onei Paul must be given to Onesimus (v. 1). By the end of the
leuei, these thiee men aie completely tangled up in one anothei`s lives.
But having established all this, we must come to one of the most obvious featuies of
this book, and we have to acknowledge that it is one that is distuibing to many Chiistians.
Onesimus was a iunaway slave, and he had a Chiistian mastei, a fiiend of Paul`s, and
when Paul leads Onesimus to the Loid, he concludes that the slave must be ietuined to
his mastei. Now that is not all that happens, as we have seen above, but this aspect of it
ceitainly does happen.
Slaveiy as it existed in the Roman Empiie of that day was a wicked and vile institution.
What aie we to make of Paul`s appaient complicity with it` As we addiess this question,
we must be caieful to avoid two eiiois. Nothing is moie appaient that the fact that Paul
did not believe in auacking social evils (even giotesque ones like pagan slaveiy) thiough
ievolutionaiy means. Slaveiy was so peivasive in that day that auacking it would be like
demanding that all Chiistians today give up theii home moitgages, to use the apt illus-
tiation of one commentatoi. To auack slaveiy stiaight up would not do any good, would
make the condition of Chiistian slaves fai woise, and would iesult in the maiginaliza-
tion of the Chiistian faith. And the end iesult of that would be that the evils of slaveiy
would be peipetuated, not ended. Slaveiy was such an evil that it needed to be auacked
eectively.
Paul was pieaching a new cosmos, a new oidei, in Chiist. Te iesuiiection of Chiist
had alieady happened, and this ieality was going to peimeate the old social oidei, and as a
iesult was going to oveithiow it. But it was going to oveithiow it on kingdom piinciples,
and not on ievolutionaiy piinciples. So to use language fiom oui political baule heie in
Ameiica fiomthe nineteenth centuiy, Paul was no heiy abolitionist. Tis was not because
he appioved of the pagan system of slaveiy, but because he wanted the Chiistian gospel,
simply by being itself, to eiadicate the evil completely. N.T. Wiight makes this point
veiy enectivelya loud piotest, at that moment in social histoiy, would have functioned
122
simply at the level of the old age." But Paul did not want to iefoim the old age (slightly),
he wanted to topple it and ieplace it with something completely new. While Allied foices
weie maiching on Beilin in the closing days of the Second Woild Wai, they did not stop to
pick up liuei in the villages they weie passing thiough. Tey had moie piessing business,
and when they had completed it, they could come back latei and tend to the lessei things.
So this means that Paul was no old guaid conseivative, defendei of the status quo. Paul
was at wai with the piincipalities and poweis of that age, and he intended to see them
thiown down. He instituted ceitain key piinciples in the Chuich, which, if followed,
would completely subveit the old oidei based on coeicion, violence, and slaveiy. Te
kingdom of God was like yeast, Jesus taught, that would giadually peimeate the loaf and
tiansfoim it. To ieveise oui illustiation, when confionted with an unleavened lump of
dough, yeast does not foim itself into baualions, stiike foices, oi aimadas in oidei to
launch a Noimandy style invasion of the biead. Rathei, when the yeast is woiking in the
loaf, the woik is silent but inexoiable. We heai no clanking, and we see no smoke. We do
not heai the ioai of guns. Tis is how the kingdom of God advances, and yet when the
piocess is complete, the loaf is tiansfoimed.
When the piinciple of koinonia is established in the Chuich, and heicely defended
theie (as Paul most ceitainly did), the iesults on the society outside aie nothing shoit of
a new heaven and new eaith. ln Chiist, theie is neithei Jew noi Gieek, male oi female,
slave or free (Gal. 328). Almost all of Paul`s contioveisies within the chuich ievolved
aiound this point. He would not allow social oi cieational distinctions to become the
basis of a two-tieied system within the membeiship of the chuich. Tis meant that theie
was only one chuich, and that eveiy membei of it had equal access to the Woid and
saciaments. Slaves could be baptized, women could ieceive the Loid`s Suppei, and so on.
Leadeiship in the chuich was a dineient question, and on that, Paul was equally cleai (1
Tim. 212). Cieational dineiences weie ielevant in the chuich (on questions like women
being pastois), but they weie not ielevant in the dooiway of the chuich. Tey weie not
ielevant to chuich membeiship. Te dineiences aie not haid to follow. Faithful Chiistians
know that women aie not to be pastois. But faithful Chiistians also know that women
can be Chiistians. lf theie had been someone in the hist centuiy who maintained that
women could not be Chiistians, on the same level with the men, Paul would have iesisted
them stoutly. And this is the same thing he did foi the slaves. He chaiges Philemon, an
uppei class gentleman, to ieceive Onesimus back as a deai brother.
Te social divide between mastei and slave was a signihcant divide in that society, and
the fact that Paul was insisting that Philemon ieceive Onesimus back as a beloved biothei
was bound to have long teim enects on the outside social oidei. Tat, incidentally, is
exactly what it has done. As the Chiistian gospel peimeates the nations, we see the status
of women elevated, we see the eiadication of chauel slaveiy, and we see ethnic hatieds
iemoved in Chiist. But Paul does not do this with cainal weapons. He uses fai moie
enective weapons. Neithei does he auempt to do in some soit of quick hx" way, because
a quick hx would be a bad hx.
Paul is thoioughly consistent on this point thioughout his leueis. ln Ephesians, he
123
tells slaves to be obedient to theii masteis, with feai and tiembling, as though they weie
woiking foi Jesus Chiist (Eph. ). Masteis aie also wained (Eph. 9). ln Colossians,
he assumes that faithful Chiistians can be masteis, and he tells them to give what is just
and equal to theii slaves, iemembeiing that they also have a mastei in heaven (Col. 41).
He also teaches the slaves to woik haid in theii station (Col. 322). ln his teaching, he
also addiesses the same situation we have heie in Philemonwhat is to be done when
both slaves and masteis aie believeis` Let as many seivants as aie undei the yoke count
theii own masteis woithy of all honoi, that the name of God and his doctiine be not blas-
phemed. And they that have believing masteis, let them not despise them, because they
aie biethien; but iathei do them seivice, because they aie faithful and beloved, paitakeis
of the beneht. Tese things teach and exhoit` (1 Tim. 1-2).
lmpatience can sometimes look like a godly iefusal to compiomise" but we aie always
to look to Sciiptuie foi oui diiection, and not to woildly wisdom. Yeast woiking thiough
the loaf does its woik slowly, but when the woik is done, the woik is done. Contiaiy
to this appioach, if a hothead said that the centuiies involved in all this weie way too
long foi him, and tied a packet of yeast to a stick of dynamite and stuck it in the loaf, the
iesults would be impiessive and spectaculai, and woith talking about foi days afeiwaid,
but they would not iesult in a leavened loaf of biead.
Tose who think that Paul should have been picketing the Roman goveinoi in Asia
Minoi to make him abolish slaveiy (which, if successful, would make Philemon ielease
Onesimus to Paul), instead of doing what he actually did, is to wish that Paul would have
fought those stiiking evils with a pea shootei instead of the tactical nuke that he actually
used. What Paul was conceined to do, and what he is doing heie in Philemon, is hghting
to make suie the yeast stays yeasty. As long as Chiistians aie behaving towaid othei
Chiistians with this koinonia at the heait of all things, the enects aie necessaiily potent.
lf Chiistians weie to lay down these weapons in oidei to topple the old age with the tactics
and weapons of the old age, we will hnd at the end of the day that we have iemoved no
evilswe have simply ieaiianged them. We will have banished one kind of slaveiy foi
anothei. Radical Chiistian faith is not a defense of the old pagan oidei, oi a stiiving foi a
new seculai oidei. Radical Chiistian faith intends to see the woild discipled and biought
into submission to Jesus Chiist. Tis will not happen in the next two weeks, but it will
happen. Te gieat histoiian Chiistophei Dawson once said that the Chiistian chuich
lives in the light of eteinity, and can anoid to be patient. But this patience is not to be
undeistood as something that is etheieal and otheiwoildly.
Kail Maix once famously said that ieligion is the opiate of the masses. By this he
meant that piomises of heaven by and by" make the oppiessed masses content to put
up with theii oppiessois. Tey iemain in theii chains, and all foi the piomise of a good
afeilife, that in Maix`s viewwould nevei happen. ln his atheistic system, they weie being
iipped on in the only life theie was, with piomises of iepayment in a life to come, a life
that would not come. But foi thinking Chiistians, this is not a by and by" issue at all, if by
this we mean no moie than the afeilife. lt is quite tiue that theie is an afeilife, and that
theie will be no slaveiy in heaven. But theie is moie involved. Paul was not ietuining
124
Onesimus because afei he died and went to heaven it wouldn`t mauei anymoie. Tat is
quite tiuebut Paul was also afei something ciucial in the heie and now.
He was afei a ceitain quality of life at Philemon`s house. And the by and by" he had
in mind was piobably just a week oi so out, and Onesimus was quite possibly caiiying the
leuei. And he meant foi this koinonia at Philemon`s house to also be the chaiacteiistic of
the othei chuiches that got planted at Colossae . . . and Ephesus . . . and Laodicea. And
when that happened thioughout the Roman empiie, theie would be many moie slaves
anected (in a good way) than just Onesimus.
Paul also uses a double pun in his appeal to Philemon. Tis may be a ieal testing point
foi some in theii commitment to the authoiity of Sciiptuie. Many modeins tell us that
punning is the lowest foim of humoi, but many sciiptuial wiiteis do not appeai to agiee
with this. Paul is one of them. Te name Onesimus means useful," and was a common
name foi slavesitself a humoious jab. Te slave standing aiound to help out was named
Useful, like a chaiactei in an allegoiy. Give this to old Useful theie."
Te name Onesimus comes fiom the same ioot that the phiase have some beneht"
does in v. 20. But in v. 11, Paul uses two othei woids to play on this. Te woid useless
is achrestos and the woid foi useful is euchrestos. Foimeily, Paul is aiguing, Useful was
useless, but now Useless is ieally useful. Te double pun comes in because the undeilying
woid chrestos would be pionounced in just the same way that the title of Chiist would
beChristos. Onesimus is useful to Philemon in a similai way that Chiist is.
One last point to be made. Speaking of this leuei, the chuich fathei Jeiome speaks
of Paul`s use of the woid perhaps (v. 1). Sometimes the occasion of evil becomes the
occasion of good, and God tuins evil human plans to an upiight end." Tis is just anothei
way of saying that God diaws stiaight with ciooked lines. Onesimus acted against his
mastei, and Paul aigues that peihaps it was so that Philemon might have himback foievei,
now as a deai biothei. Te perhaps comes in, not because Paul was unsuie if something
good was going to come out of this, but iathei because he was unsuie which good was
going to come out of it. Philemon had not yet accepted Paul`s pleas and iequest. lf he did,
then the perhaps would be made ceitain. lf he did not, then God would be woiking some
othei good out of the mess that Onesimus made.
We have eveiy ieason to believe that this situation iesolved itself happily. Fiist, we
may assume that Paul`s assessment of Philemon`s chaiactei was not mistakenand it is
cleai he had a gieat deal of conhdence in him. Te second ieason is less obvious, but it is
the fact that we have the leuei to Philemon in oui New Testament. We have it because
Philemon obviously ieceived it, tieasuied it, and saved it. lt is unlikely in the extieme that
Philemon would have had Onesimus fogged oi executed (which he had the legal iight to
do), and then go on to save the leuei in which Paul asked him not to do any of those soits
of things.
Tat being the case, we can be assuied that Paul`s peihaps" actually did become a cei-
tainty. Philemon ieceived Onesimus back, not only as a tiuly useful seivant now, but also
as a beloved biothei. lt is also likely that he honoied Paul`s iequest, and allowed Ones-
imus to become an assistant to Paul, seiving Paul in Philemon`s name. l think it is veiy
12
likely, given the potency of Paul`s aigument, that Philemon eventually gave Onesimus his
fieedom. And in the giowing Chiistian chuich in Asia Minoi, in which theie was no slave
oi fiee, we aie fiee to think Onesimus the fieed slave (and aide to the apostle) became a
iespected leadei among the Chiistians. Although we cannot piove it, and should not be
dogmatic about it, l think it is likely that this Onesimus is the same one addiessed by
lgnatiusa foimei colleague of the apostle Paul, and one found extiemely useful by him.
Such a man could haidly thought disqualihed fiom such a position. Whethei it happened
oi not, it is stiiking that it is beyond dispute that in this gieat chuich in Asia Minoi, the
apostle established the chuich in such a way that it ceitainly could have happened.
lf this is the case, then Onesimus became a gieat leadei in a gieat chuich. Te chuich
had its faultsdiifing fiom theii hist love was onebut they hated the deeds of the Nico-
laitans. Tey had the gieat leuei of Ephesians as theii possession. Paul had gatheied theii
leadeis at Miletus, and solemnly wained them all of the coming pioblems in the chuich. lt
was thiough Ephesus that all Asia Minoi oiiginally heaid the woid of the Loid. Tis was
an infuential city, with an honoied and gieat histoiy. And at the beginning of the second
centuiy, it is quite possible that it was headed by an ex-slave and foimei thief. Talk about
the powei of the gospel.
B e Designated Ambition Pole
Douglas Wilson
10
March 17, 2013
ln the biief moment of calm that has descended upon oui discussion about iace and
slaveiy, a calm that was piovided to us by the weekend, l thought l should inseit a quick
comment heie on what it was that made me think it was a good idea (back in the mid-
nineties) to go into piint on the topic of Ameiican slaveiy and oui cuiient cultuie wais.
Teie aie vaiious theoiies out theie on this subject, including the one that posits that l am
an idiot, but this is a theoiy that l have not found compelling so fai. Suie, the evidence is
abundant enough, but it is too disoiganized. Needs to be footnoted. Somebody needs to
go into the aichives.
l amlisting this undei "Autobiogiaphical Fiagments" because these aie peisonal notes,
moie like backgiound mateiial than pait of the aigument piopei.
Te hist thing is that Paul Hill, executed in 2003 foi the 1994 muidei of a Floiida
aboitionist, was a foimei Piesbyteiian ministei, and was opeiating out of "oui ciicles." He
had been excommunicated fiom a chuich pastoied by a fiiend of mine foi his iadicalism
(befoie the muidei); he had been a seminaiy classmate of Steve Wilkins, co-authoi with
me of Southern Slavery As It Was; l met his wife at an ACCS convention while he was
awaiting execution. Tis was an eia when the pio-life movement was hoping to biing
eveiything to a head thiough things like Opeiation Rescue. ln fact, l was aiiested once
10
hup//www.dougwils.com/Autobiogiaphical-Fiagments/the-designated-ambition-pole.html
12
at a iescue in Spokane, although l latei iethought my paiticipation in confiontational
challenges like that. When we piinted an editoiial on that iethinking in Credenda, Paul
Hill wiote a leuei to oui magazine (fiom piison) to aigue the point with us. Paul Hill
veiy much thought of himself as a modein John Biown, and he wanted the spaik that
caused the whole nation to blow up to be a violent spaik that he could piovide. Shooting
an aboitionist was how he sought to do it. Teie weie multiple ieasons foi thinking at
the time that theie was a distinct possibility that this kind of piovocative escalation could
woik. Tis was the kind of logic that we weie tiying to head on.
And so this is the backgiound to my standing question. lf we could biing an end to
aboition in the United States by piecipitating a wai (oi by tiying to), should we do that`
Aboition is at least as gieat an evil as slaveiy was. Aboition is at least as gieat an evil
for black culture as slaveiy was. lf you allow foi gospel giadualism now, then why is
my uiging a gospel giadualism in 188 a thought ciime` And if gospel giadualism was
sinful then, why isn`t it sinful now` l ask these questions, not as a cute hypothetical, but
to explain an impoitant pait of how l came to these convictions in ieal time, and why l
went into piint with them. And if l am successfully shouted down by some in the lnteinet
biigade, the question still iemains. lf it was noble then, we should be doing it now. lf
we shouldn`t be doing it now, then we should allow ieasonable questions about why we
shouldn`t have been doing it then. But what we may not do, if we have any integiity at
all, is allow oui cowaidice to become the exclamation maik next to the couiage of oui
ancestois, which foi some ieason is the option that many modein Chiistians choose.
But theie was also one othei ieason foi going into piint on the subject of slaveiy the
way l did. l giew up in evangelical ciicles, and l know how the system woiks. Whenevei
something piomising staits to develop, it is not long befoie what l have called the "suits
and haiicuts" move in so that they might package and shiinkwiap the whole deal and ship
it on to Evangelical Maiketing Cential (EMC). At that time, l saw enough ieal piomise
developing heie in Moscowthat l was afiaid of that kind of thing happening to us, and so l
decided to douse the altai with foui baiiels of watei, thiee times total (1 Kings 1832-3
10
).
Let me change the metaphoi. l decided to make myself iadioactive. Let me change that yet
again. l wanted a ministiy that was angulai enough such that the shiinkwiap machine
would have a ieal dimculties with it.
lt is not that l didn`t want to be used by God. l most ceitainly did. l was ambitious
both the iight kind, and the kind that needs to be moitihed as in, kilt daid, as Samuel
Rutheifoid might say. l iemembei telling Nancy once eaily on that l wanted to change
the woild. l did, and still do. But l didn`t want to make a dineience by shinning up the
designated ambition pole. And so l pulled a stinkei. l believed it was necessaiy foi me to
become genuinely unmaiketable. l did it by maintaining something that was (as l knew
10
and with the stones he built an altai in the name of the Loid. And he made a tiench about the altai, as
gieat as would contain two seahs of seed. And he put the wood in oidei and cut the bull in pieces and laid
it on the wood. And he said, Fill foui jais with watei and poui it on the buint oneiing and on the wood."
And he said, Do it a second time." And they did it a second time. And he said, Do it a thiid time." And
they did it a thiid time. And the watei ian aiound the altai and hlled the tiench also with watei.
12
at the time) the histoiigiaphic equivalent of blacking out a couple of my fiont teeth. lf
the altai evei buined, it would be a wet altai that buined.
But it couldn`t just be an aibitaiy thing it had to be something l ieally believed, and
it had to be signihcant enough to ieally mauei, and that takes us back to the hist point
about Paul Hill. Te question of shooting aboitionists was moie than a debating point
back then. And, foi people who know theii histoiy, and how people tick, it is moie than
a debating point now. lt is a ciitical question that iequiies an honest answei.
"ln all geneiations useful pieacheis of the gospel have been objected to by a
poition of the community. Meie chips in the poiiidge may escape censuie
and mildly win the toleiance of indineience, but decided woith will be sui-
iounded with waim fiiends and iedhot foes. He who hopes to pieach so as to
please eveiybody must be newly come into the ministiy; and he who aims at
such an object would do well speedily to leave its ianks" (Spuigeon, Eccentric
Preachers, p. 12).
C e Current Battle for Richmond
abiti Anyabwile
10
April 4, 2013
HT davidmbailey and cscleve foi tweeting out this aiticle on iacial ieconciliation
enoits in chuiches in Richmond, VA
108
. Heie`s a city that has its own ugly past iegaiding
iacial issues. So it`s an awesome testimony to God`s giace and the powei of the gospel to
see the Loid at woik to heal the old wounds thiough Chiist.
Te aiticle does a good job of biinging out both the blessings and challenges of being
the diveise people of God united in Chiist. Mention is made of piivilege, powei, equality
and the like. As we`ve seen in many posts of late, ieconciliation woik ain`t easy, but it`s
woith it. Moieovei, the aiticle helpfully illustiates one of the conceins Wilson points out
in all of this the way even good enoits at something like ieconciliation can be seized
upon by things contiaiy to Sciiptuie. Foi example, one pastoi commented, Multicul-
tuial woiship is an image of the kingdom of God, and in the kingdom of God eveiybody
is included black, white, gay, stiaight, young, old, libeial, conseivative." lnteiesting to
note how gay" saunteied into the list as an aspect of multicultuial woiship" as an im-
age of the kingdom of God." We`ie always in dangei of iighteousness being abused by
uniighteousness.
Heie`s an accompanying video of one pastoi who celebiates a multi-ethnic mental-
ity"[.]
109
10
hup//thegospelcoalition.oig/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/04/04/the-cuiient-baule-foi-iichmond/
108
Appendix C Blending of chuich cultuies iefects vision of God" by Katheiine Calos. Aiticle included
below because of illustiative value that Tabiti goes on to explain.
109
Undeistandably, the video cannot be included heie. Te video is in the linked aiticle.
128
Te aiticle ieminds us that the numbei of diveise (moie than 20 fiom a minoiity
gioup) congiegations has giown but iemains low. l`m encouiaged by the piogiess but
theie`s still woik to do in living out the ieconciliation Chiist puichased (Eph. 214
110
).
Which biings me to a question asked somewheie in the comments thiead in my ex-
changes with Wilson. Someone asked something along the lines of why diveise chuiches"
tend to be chuiches wheie Afiican Ameiicans and otheis auend piedominantly white
evangelical chuiches. Te sense of the question, as l iemembei (oi misiemembei`) it, was
something along the lines of if White pastois and chuiches weie so `iacist` oi `iacially
insensitive` then why aie most of the `diveise` chuiches piedominantly white and led by
white pastois." l hope l`m iemembeiing this coiiectly because if l`m not then this will be
a needlessly contentious issue.
But heie`s my answei l ieject the piemise. l could list a long list of Afiican Ameiican
pastois and laigely Afiican Ameiican congiegations that have substantial numbeis of
white membeis and membeis fiom othei ethnic gioups. lt`s a signihcant oveistatement
to say all" oi most" of the diveise congiegations aie headed by White pastois and then
conclude theie`s no pioblem with `iacial sensitivity.` lf anything, most of the pastois l
know who lead diveise congiegations would say they`ve been made more awaie of theii
blind spots and theieby more lovingly sensitive to people fiomdineient backgiounds. And
the ielative highei numbeis of Afiican Ameiicans willing to integiate into piedominantly
white chuiches compaied to the ielatively few white Chiistians going to Black chuiches
might actually be a measuie of Afiican Ameiican willingness to saciihce foi integiation.
Lots of leadeis iemain discouiaged that by-and-laige white Chiistians don`t demonstiate
theii heait foi ieconciliation by intentionally seeking ethnic chuiches to join. A gieat
memoii on this theme is Jonathan Wilson-Haitgiove`s Free to Be Bound: Church Beyond
the Color Line. Wilson-Haitgiove, a White biothei in Chiist, tells his stoiy of joining
and seiving on stan at a tiaditional Black chuich in Duiham, N.C. Good iead. But the
Wilson-Haitgioves of the woild iemain few in numbei it seems to me.
But theie`s something else to say about all this. l don`t have any empiiical evidence.
Tis is just an obseivation that could piove false, but l think l`m not fai fiom the tiuth.
Whethei piedominantly Black oi White oi Asian oi Hispanic oi whatevei, the chuiches
that expeiience the most integiation acioss ethnic lines aie likely to be the chuiches with
the `thinnest` cultuial layeis suiiounding it. Te `thickei` the cultuial iequiiements foi
fellowship the less likely cultuial `otheis` can get inside and fellowship fiuitfully. Oi, to
put it anothei way, the moie tiaditional" the chuich iswhethei tiaditional Black" oi
tiaditional Southein Baptist" oi tiaditional Dutch," etcthe less likely people fiom othei
cultuial backgiounds will be able to stick it out in those woiship communities in any
signihcant numbeis (20 oi moie).
Why is that` lt`s likely because such chuiches have something in addition to/apait
lt`s diiect link is hup//landing.newsinc.com/shaied/video.html`fieewheel91348&sitesectiontimesdis-
patch&VlD249
110
Foi he himself is oui peace, who has made us both one and has bioken down in his fesh the dividing
wall of hostility
129
fiom Chiist and the Sciiptuie at the centei of theii congiegational lives and theii woiship
expeiience. Te closei tiadition" oi cultuie" lies to the centei of things, the less ioom
on the peiipheiy foi those who don`t shaie that tiadition oi cultuie.
Now, it seems to me that all of this means we have to be caieful with oui inteipieta-
tion of diveisity statistics even as we puisue the ieconciliation Chiist has puichased. A
chuich that fails to iefect the diveisity of its community might be less diveise than we`d
hope, but that doesn`t mean its `iacially insensitive` oi `iacist.` lt may be, but theie may
be othei factois that beuei explain things. Te tiaditional Black chuich is not a `iacially
insensitive` oi `iacist` chuich (though suiely theie aie iacist peisons in these types of
chuiches just as theie aie iacist peisons in eveiy type of chuich). Yet, the tiaditional
Black chuich is still called the `tiaditional Black chuich` because that tiadition is pieuy
piominent in its self-undeistanding and identity. Tat valuing of cultuie and identity, in
pait a self-piotective iesponse to the widei chuich`s histoiical piactice of iacial segiega-
tion and iefusing chuich membeiship to Afiican Ameiicans, no doubt alienates some who
don`t know the ways of being, speaking, and woishiping veiy well. But it doesn`t neces-
sarily amount to `iacial insensitivity` oi `iacism.` ln the same way, l have a pastoi fiiend
who loves to talk about the Confedeiate heioes of the Civil Wai, auends ie-enactments,
and gives out Civil Wai books. lt`s a passion foi him. l`m suie otheis in the chuich shaie
that passion. But the man is no iacist. His chuich isn`t veiy diveise even though he min-
isteis in a pieuy diveise city. Might cultuie and tiadition play a pait heie` l think so.
Afei all, when most of us say Southeinei" we tend to think of White people, not the
many otheis who live in and love the South as well.
Okay, l don`t have an eloquent way to end these iamblings. So l`ll just stop. Let`s keep
bauling in faith foi a deeply ieconciled chuich.
D Blending of church cultures reects vision of God
Katherine Calos
111
Richmond Times-Dispatch
March 31, 2013
Te Eastei stoiy that the Rev. Coiey Widmei pieaches is a liule dineient than the
Eastei stoiy that the Rev. Don Coleman pieaches. Tey iead the same Bible and co-pastoi
the same chuich, but Widmei heaid the stoiy hist fiom a peispective of white piivilege,
while Coleman heaid it fiom a peispective of black suneiing.
Teii shaied expeiiences at East End Fellowship have given each a gieatei undeistand-
ing and appieciation of multicultuial woiship, a tiend that extends to many of the laigest
denominations and some of the smallest ministiies.
111
hup//www.timesdispatch.com/enteitainment-life/faith-values/celebiation-of-eastei/blending-of-
chuich-cultuies-iefects-vision-of-god/aiticleed2aa9d-1c09-cd-aa21-e19ae3ffa.html
130
While the goal is widespiead, the ieality iemains that chuiches aie 92. peicent seg-
iegated in the United States, accoiding to a 1998 study that used 20 peicent diveisity as a
maikei of integiation. Te oveiall statistics baiely budged when the study was updated in
200, but Piotestant chuiches weie thiee times moie likely to have auained 20 peicent di-
veisity in the follow-up study and laige evangelical chuiches weie hve times moie likely
to be diveise.
Multicultuial woiship is an image of the kingdom of God, and in the kingdom of
God eveiybody is included black, white, gay, stiaight, young, old, libeial, conseivative,"
said the Rev. Wallace Adams-Riley, iectoi of St. Paul`s Episcopal Chuich, wheie Maik
M. Goidon, CEO of Bon Secouis St. Fiancis Medical Centei, iecently became the hist
Afiican-Ameiican senioi waiden.
Te chuich, wheie Confedeiate leadeis woishipped 10 yeais ago, also has an Afiican-
Ameiican ministei on the stan in the Rev. Melanie Mullen, downtown missionei.
Tat histoiy means we feel that iesponsibility and divine call even moie," Adams-
Riley said. Tat`s one moie way we get to embody what it means to be God`s people."
At subuiban Bon Aii Baptist Chuich in Chesteiheld County, the Rev. Tiavis Collins,
the white senioi pastoi, said one way the chuich has a positive impact on the woild is
thiough iacial ieconciliation. Bon Aii hiied the Rev. William Whitakei ll, an Afiican-
Ameiican, as executive pastoi last fall. Te Rev. Valeiie Caitei, associate pastoi foi global
missions; David Bailey, woiship leadei; and Les Venable, Robious campus pastoi, aie also
Afiican-Ameiican.
lf oui chuich is going to iepiesent Jesus in the woild, then that chuich is going to
have to look incieasingly like oui woild," Collins said. My giandchildien aie going to
walk into a chuich that`s all white oi all Afiican-Ameiican and they`ie going to think that
chuich got lost in a time waip because they don`t think that way."
An authentic blending of cultuies can be challenging, though, Widmei has discov-
eied at East End Fellowship.
l say it`s going gieat, but it`s also veiy dimcult," he said. Tat`s the ieason why 93
peicent of chuiches in Ameiica aie iacially homogenous. lt`s easiei to do chuich that
way.
Eveiything in the chuich becomes moie dimcult, what kind of music, pieaching
styles, childien`s ministiy, food when we`ie togethei, what to do when we gathei in each
othei`s homes. Beneath the suiface level aie deep cultuial dineiences. We aie commiued
to facing those dineiences, not pietending they`ie not theie but woiking thiough it."
Widmei and Coleman biing dineient pieaching styles that come fiomeach of theii tia-
ditions. Widmei tends to be moie stiuctuied, caiefully explaining the Bible as he pieaches.
Coleman tends to be moie fiee-fowing, calling foith the emotion of salvation.
lf a black peison comes in, he might feel comfoitable with Don and uncomfoitable
with me," Widmei said. A middle-class white peison may iecognize Widmei`s style and
be oveiwhelmed by Coleman`s passion.
Coleman, who giew up in the East End, said he`s been involved in iacial ieconciliation
since at least sixth giade when schools weie desegiegated. He iemembeis being at a
131
baseball game wheie a bauei waiming up hit him in the head accidentally.
All the black kids weie saying, `We got him, bio; you want us to get him`` and l was
saying, `No, he`s my fiiend.`
lt was alieady pait of who l was" when piayei meetings began in his home befoie
the East End Fellowship developed. l giew up as a Baptist, then became involved in a
nondenominational chuich. l always ended up being the Afiican-Ameiican guy who was
in these seuings."
Widmei iecalls leaining that many black membeis of the congiegation had nevei piac-
ticed Lent befoie.
As a white man, a piivileged peison, l leained to undeistand Lent dineiently. l lay
down things dineiently than my fiiends of coloi." Giving up some piivilege oi powei may
be appiopiiate foi a peison who has much, while someone who`s been depiived may feel
called to give up his angei foi a season.
We`ie all called to do the same thing, to follow Jesus and lay down things that aie
hindeiing us, but they may be dineient things because of oui cultuie and backgiound,"
Widmei said.
Sometimes the co-pastois pieach fiomthe same text two weeks in a iowbecause Don
biings dineient things fiom the Bible than l do. lt helps people undeistand it in a dineient
way."
At Eastei, he said, the white Piotestant tiadition tends to focus on the cioss wheie Jesus
died to atone foi sin, while the black tiadition tends to focus moie on the Resuiiection.
Death and suneiing and saciihce have been such a pait of black histoiy, they put a
heaviei emphasis on iesuiiection, the new life Jesus biings foith fiom suneiing," Widmei
said.
Because of my ielationship with Don, l pieach dineiently. l have leained how im-
poitant it is in communities that have had so much suneiing, why it`s so impoitant to
emphasize the Resuiiection.
We believe we`ie beuei togethei because we`ie dineient."
Delores Kimbrough, an Afiican-Ameiican membei of Bon Aii, giew up in a small
black chuich in Chuich Hill wheie you stait out knowing oi assuming views on things."
Bon Aii is the hist laige majoiity white chuich l`ve evei been a membei of. By
allowing myself to paiticipate, l have giown in spiiitual knowledge, maybe because l
opened my eyes moie iathei than thinking l know what to expect.
l think that diveisity helps youi heait to expand. lt`s actually a iefection of what
Chiist says the chuich will be in the end time and when he ietuins. He speaks of people
of eveiy nation and eveiy cultuie all togethei singing piaise to God and woishipping the
Lamb."
Kimbiough sang a spiiitual at a iecent 11 a.m. seivice. She`s also joined the choii in
leaining new songs in the moie foimal tiadition of the pipe oigan" seivice.
Te beauty of those songs has sunk into my heait," she said. When it integiates
inside you this beauty that feels so like the love of Chiist it causes a change in each
individual as well."
132
Te 930 a.m. contempoiaiy seivice at Bon Aii blends elements fiom dineient tiadi-
tions each week with music diiected by Bailey, who is music diiectoi at East End Fellow-
ship in addition to woiship leadei at Bon Aii.
What David tiies to pieach," Kimbiough said, is the appieciation of the beauty of
dineiences in cultuie and dineiences in styles. When you see the beauty in multiple
cultuies, you`ve taken a step up in the kingdom."
One of the rst ieligious oiganizations in Richmond to puiposely seek multicultuial
paiticipation was Richmond Hill, founded in 198 with 1 denominations that included
black and white congiegations.
You have to be delibeiate about it," said the Rev. Benjamin Campbell, pastoial diiectoi
and founding membei. Some eaily advice came fiom the late Rev. Robeit Tayloi, dean of
the black Baptist Ministeis Confeience.
He said it`s ieally impoitant to tiy to stait an oiganization with both piimaiy iaces
paiticipating iathei than have one stait it and the othei be asked to join," Campbell said.
Of the 120 faith communities that come to Richmond Hill each yeai, about 1 to 20 peicent
aie black, he said.
Most oiganizations in the city aie cultuially white oi cultuially black, even though
they may have a few membeis of the othei iace, Campbell said.
We`ie still in the situation wheie the white community only knows the black people
who play in the white community."
Campbell consideis the New Testament to be a multicultuial document. Te Gospel
says moie about iace than anybody`s willing to admit," he said. You can`t talk about the
Gospel without talking about iace. lt`s cential.
Te woid Gentile is actually a tianslation of the Gieek woid ethnic. lt ieally has to
do with Jesus being the Loid of all ethnic gioups, not just Jewish people."
Reconciliation can occui only when people aie on level giound, as in eyelash to eye-
lash, said the Rev. Andiew Teiiy, assistant pastoi at Richmond Hill, iefeiiing to the Latin
oiigin of the woid. Teiiy and Campbell aie white.
Te powei dynamics have to be iight, and you`ie ieally biinging who you aie," Teiiy
said. lt`s not a synthesis. lt`s a ielationship, and people aie authentically who they aie in
that ielationship. Te dominant cultuie taking othei people`s tiaditions and synthesizing
them is not authentic ieconciliation."
Collins at Bon Aii uses the analogy of a stewiathei than a melting pot when desciibing
his goal of multicultuialism.
We still have oui paiticulai expiessions of oui peisonhood. lt`s not like we all think
alike and look alike," he said.
At oui home, if we like Biunswick stew, we`ie going to have that, but eveiybody is
invited. . We used to live in Nigeiia. Teie aie people in Nigeiia who would eat a snake.
We`ie not ieady yet to include that on oui menu, but you`ie welcome heie. We`ll piobably
have oui Biunswick stew, and we`ll do oui best to incoipoiate things you like.
We have people of vaiious ethnicities who say l like the Biunswick stew. Otheis say
we`ll add some hot sauce to it. lt doesn`t violate who we aie. We`ie just adding a liule
133
favoi to oui identity."
134