A response to Thabiti Anyabwile

This is a response to Thabiti Anyabwile’s article, "The Myth of Impeccable Individualism." Although he makes good points and uses Scripture, his interpretation raises questions. 

To whom is God speaking in Isaiah 1?  

Thabiti Anyabwile quotes Isaiah 1:11-17 to back up his contention that God deals with us not just as individuals, but as societies. This verse, like many often quoted in questions of social justice, is from the Old Testament. What has changed since then, and how do New Testament believers apply these verses? While such questions may seem unnecessary, they are important in light of the fact that these verses were not addressed to any old nation, but to Israel as the people of God. In our day and age, Israel is not the people of God in the way it was in the Old Testament. So, to whom is God speaking in this verse? Can this verse be applied to whole societies consisting of professing Christians along with those who do not call themselves believers? I would say no, for several reasons. First, no nation today is really the people of God the way Israel was. Israel was to be a theocracy. For them, theocracy was no violation of human rights but God’s will. The kings had the right and duty to do the following: persecute people for their religious beliefs and practices, punish sexual encounters between consenting adults, and finance religious behavior. In ancient Israel, such things were right and good because Israel was the people of God. Unless we, as a nation, wish to hold the whole nation to the standard of God’s word through legal force, we cannot equate our nation with Israel. Such a view does not cause us to fall back on the notion of individualism. We, as Christians, are part of a community, the community of faith, the visible church, consisting of both the truly regenerate and those who profess Christianity but are deceived. I believe this community corresponds to Israel because those who rule over it may hold those in it to the standards of God’s Word. Religious diversity could not be tolerated in Israel, as it cannot be tolerated among church members. You cannot be a member of a proper, Bible-believing church and be a Hindu, for instance. 

For this reason, I see corporate responsibility as definitely existing within the church, particularly within each denomination, and especially within congregations, where people are more likely to know one another’s business. If church members fail to confront one another about sin, they are failing their duties. If church leaders fail to exercise church discipline, they are culpable for their failure to take a stand against evil. And there come times when the church must come to an official position on questions of evil. In this way, the Church has failed to confront evil, and corporate repentance may be fitting, assuming those who take up that responsibility really do speak for the church, and act out of true contrition, not merely a fit of teenage rebellion. (See C. S. Lewis, "On the Dangers of National Repentance")

Unlike Israel, the Church lacks the wide variety of institutions and responsibilities which a sovereign nation has. Instead, believers participate in the broader economy, national government, and cultural life. As long as this world continues in its fallen state, these institutions will be marred by sin. Our duty to confront sin in these areas of society is the dicy question. 

 

Why I Don't Like the Emphasis on White Privilege

Any system of social change that focuses on demonizing what the haves have instead of lamenting what the have-nots lack risks contenting itself with the equitable distribution of oppression and misery, rather than with actually amending the social ills it deplores. For this reason, I am disturbed at the focus on white privilege. Such a focus makes the benefits whites enjoy the problem, rather than the oppression from which nonwhites suffer. If white privilege is ended, and whites are also subjected to being gunned down by the police, being overlooked for hiring and promotions, having to attend substandard schools, and being unjustly and inaccurately stereotyped, the job will be far from over. Such a state of affairs will be no better than the current one, and I doubt it is anyone’s goal. Yet I fear that popular philosophies will lead to such a conclusion. Demonizing other people’s benefits provokes envy and resentment, sentiments that are more apt to cause destruction of others’ benefits than construction of one’s own freedom and happiness. 

Take the story of Solomon and the two prostitutes arguing over a baby. While we usually focus on the affection which prompts the mother of the live baby to be willing to give up her child rather than see him killed, there is another streak in this story. Note the other woman’s reaction to the suggestion that the baby be cut in half. She consents readily, greedily. Her baby is dead, and it is enough for her that they both have dead babies, although the killing of the live baby does not make hers any less dead. 

Consider also this Ukrainian joke. An angel came to this one man and said to him, “I will grant you one wish, but, whatever I give you, I will give twice over to your neighbor.” The man thought a bit, then said, “Take out my eye.” The joke ends here, but you can guess the rest, and the moral. The man saw gain to himself in having more than his neighbor, even if that meant losing something. This is not to say that we should not desire equality in society, but an equality achieved by taking away the benefits of one group without changing the circumstances of the oppressed helps nobody. It is not enough to make everybody equally miserable. The problem in our society is not that whites enjoy certain freedoms. It is that these freedoms are not given to all.