Neoplatonism, symbols, and the issue of icons

All expressions of God, the lowly and sensible no less than the exalted and intelligible, participate in him and are thus “similar.” (Eric D. Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 103)

All things, then, are in effect symbols of God and are so used in the scriptures, and this is simply a restatement of the doctrine that being is theophany. (p. 103)

The Platonic doctrine of participation, which Dionysius invokes in justifying the suitability of all things as symbols of God, makes it clear that the symbol is a genuine presentation of the symbolized. (p. 104)

A symbol, then, in being finite, available, in not being God and thus in leaving him behind, in concealing him, reveals him as beyond being and thought. … Only by being concealed in symbols can God be revealed (p. 104)

Hence, as Dionysius here indicates, there can be non-symbolic knowledge of God, no knowledge of God without the concealment of symbolism. (p. 105)

The Second Council of Nicea of 787 AD, known in Eastern Orthodoxy as the "Seventh Ecumenical Council," mandated the virtue of holy icons (two-dimensional images) and anathemized those who reject icons (the iconoclasts). For Protestants who see idols of any kind as a violation of the Second Commandment, Nicea II contradicts Scripture and is thus an illegitimate council. Therefore, we would not call it the "Seventh Ecumenical Council" except improperly. Nevertheless, Eastern Orthodox promotion of icons and treating the issue as of the essence of faith stems from this council.

For a Reformed person like myself, I had found it puzzling why Eastern Orthodoxy is so adamant on the issue of icons. Reading Eric Perl on Dionysius however has shown me the likely backdrop for this fascination with icons. This is not to argue that any Eastern Orthodox is a neoplatonist or that any of them hold to full-blown neoplatonism, but rather that the philosophical underpinnings of the Eastern theology of icons is found in the neoplatonism of Dionysius.

In Dionysius' neoplatonic ontology, symbols mediate the divine. Since God is not "being" neither is he "not-being," being the unity of all as the necessary condition for being, being as such is a "theophany," an appearance of the divine (Ibid., p. 32). All things are symbols mediating the divine. To use Christian terminology, all matter is "sacramental." Since God is "beyond being" and "unknowable," to get to the "hidden God" is to go through the symbols mediating the divine. As Perl said, "Only by being concealed in symbols can God be revealed." In other words, Dionysius asserts that there is no way to reach the divine if the symbols are gone.

Once we see this, it becomes clear that a main reason why icons are so important in Eastern Orthodoxy is due to its fear of losing the connection to God. If symbols are necessary to reveal the hidden God, then removing the symbols would be akin to removing God. Seen this way, Nicea II is understandable, albeit it shows us the tragic consequences of adopting an unbiblical ontology which leads to gross idolatry.

Neoplatonic ontology: Being as Intelligibility and God as unknowable

Plato’s understanding of being as form or idea (εἶδος, ἰδέα) is a direct consequence of this identification of being and intelligibility. [Eric D. Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (New York NY: State University of New York Press, 2007), p. 6]

Intellect, therefore, is perfect consciousness in that it is the knowledge of being as its own content and therefore as itself. (Ibid., p. 85)

Dionysius adopts his doctrine of God as “nameless,” “unknowable,” and “beyond being” from the Neoplatonic tradition established by Plotinus, and his thought can be understood only in that context. His “negative theology” is not fundamentally a theory of theological language but a philosophical position taken over directly from Neoplatonism, although, as in Plotinus, it has implications for language in that words are discursive expressions of intellection and hence cannot apply to God. (Ibid., p. 13)

Similarly, Dionysius is not content to say simply that God is ineffable, unknowable, or incomprehensible. To say “God is ineffable” is to describe him, to ascribe the attribute of ineffability to him, and thus to contradict oneself. (Ibid., p. 14)

… God is not some being other than all things (the very formula is an absurdity) but is rather the entire content of reality, i.e. all things, without differentiation, without the distinctions from one another by which they are all things. (Ibid., p. 31)

The knowledge of God, then, is given to sense no less than to intellect. Conversely, since God is the object of all cognition and of none rather than merely the object of the highest cognition, the cognitive ascent does not end with intellect. It extends beyond intellect to culminate in “the darkness of unknowing” … (Ibid., p. 93)

Platonism and neoplatonism are important philosophies at the base of the Western philosophical enterprise. For the purpose of church history, Neoplatonism plays an important role in the formation of certain philosophies and theologies in the church. Specifically, as I read more into Eastern Orthodoxy, the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius played an important role in the formation of Eastern Orthodoxy theology, as mediated by Eastern fathers such as Gregoras Palamas in his Triads. Dionysius is not actually written by the real Dionysius the Aeropagite (thus a "false writing" - pseudepigrapha), but it was thought to be so for a long time. The writer of these false writings was a Neoplatonist, and through him Neoplatonism influenced the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy.

But what does Neoplatonism believe in, besides the usual things we associate with Plato? In his book, Eric Perl brought forth certain aspects of Neoplatonism that can be seen in the writing of Psuedo-Dionysius. Concerning ontology, one thing that struck out was the absolute identity between being and thought. Whether Plato taught that to be the case I am unsure, but certainly this strong identification of one to the other was surprising. Note that Perl is not merely stating that Neoplatonism teaches that being and intelligibility are associated or linked, but that they are to be identified. Thus, it is not the case that things exist are intelligible, but rather that to begin to exist is to be intelligible, and to not begin to exist is to be unintelligible. In set theory, all elements of the set "having being" map exhaustively onto all elements of the set "being intelligible." This strict identification implies a collapse of epistemology into ontology, and I suppose that is why the issue of "being" is so prominent in many philosophical discussions.

In Perl's analysis of Dionysius as read alongside Plotinus and Proclus, this identification of being with intelligibility is the reason why Dionysius calls God (the philosophical "the One") "beyond being." To call God a "being" is to imply that he is derivative and not ultimate. To say that one can speak about what God is, is to likewise make God knowable and thus derivative, since being is intelligibility. Thus, in Dionysius, God is "beyond being" and we can describe him only using "negative theology" or apophatic theology. But unlike today's classical theists who use the term, apophatic theology in the Dionysian sense implies a total rejection of any description of God, such that even "ineffable" cannot be predicated of God, for to predicate something of God (even "ineffable") is to reduce him from cause to derivation. Dionysian apophatism is thorough and cannot be squared with any Western theology save mysticism.

Not surprisingly, Dionysian apophatism logically leads to a form of naturalism. The One is not separate from the world, but rather is the supreme unity of the world, in a descriptive manner of speaking (since it technically *is* not anything). While Neoplatonism would baulk at any determination of the One, both Proclus and Dionysius would reject the view that God can exist apart from the world (aseity), and thus no matter how apophatic they want to be, "the One" is certainly not a se therefore Neoplatonism would be considered a form of naturalism. Since Dionysius influenced Eastern Orthodoxy, it would be interesting to see to what extent Gregory Palamas and Eastern Orthodoxy in general utilized those ideas from Dionysius, but that is for another time.

Big Eva, Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, and passive aggressive posturing

Christianity Astray Today (CT) had put up a series of podcasts on The Rise and Fall of Mars Hills quite some time back. On the surface, the series does highlight problems with the defunct Mars Hill Church and especially its founder Mark Driscoll. The toxic "hyper-masculinity" and pornification of religion promoted by Driscoll is indeed contrary to true Christianity. The podcasts promote egalitarian views, but that should be expected of the broad evangelicalism that is CT, so the podcasts should be fine, or are they?

The problems with the podcasts come about when you consider the timing and context of the podcasts. First, consider that Evangelicalism had no problems with Driscoll back in 2009 when Driscoll was all the rage. When John MacArthur, a complementarian pastor by the way, criticized Driscoll for his degradation of the Songs of Songs, he was criticized by Evangelicals. Evangelicals had no problems with Driscoll back then, and the reason why CT can run this series of podcasts now is because Driscoll has been disgraced and out of mainstream Evangelicalism for a long time. "After all, who are you to judge Pastor Mark Driscoll?" Where was CT when MacArthur criticized Driscoll for his disgusting treatment of the Songs of Songs? Nowhere! CT only attacks people when they are out of power and influence in Evangelical circles, kicking them when they are down. This is not a defence of Driscoll, but rather a statement that shows how Evangelicalism (Big Eva) deals with people they disagree with. CT applies "judge not" to those in power and influence even if they disagree with them, but go after them when they are out of power and influence.

Second, consider that in episode 5 entitled "The Things We Do to Women," feminists are brought in to critique Driscoll, while those who had criticized him before like MacArthur were overlooked. Here, we see CT has an agenda in mind when it comes to the timing of these podcasts. American society had its #MeToo movement and the airing of former President Donald Trump's past misogynistic remarks. It is clear that CT is using this to push egalitarianism, noting that it has the Americo-centric social "historian" Kristin Du Mez in the podcast commenting on the evolution of the emphasis on men and male headship in the American church. I say "historian" because Du Mez does not actually do history. She starts with a conclusion and reads her thesis into history, since it is clear from Reformation writings and even patristic sources that patriarchy (understood in its neutral sense) of some form is the historic Christian view of gender relations. CT is capitalizing on the current social moment (celebration of victimhood and the dismantling of "hegemony" and oppressive systems of power) and bashing Driscoll (who does deserves to be bashed, but that's not the point of contention) in order to stealthily promote egalitarianism. Instead of dealing with Driscoll's error, complementarianism is tarred by association with Driscoll, such that anyone defending complementarianism is seen as a misogynist who promotes porn and "rape culture" by default. The worst thing is that CT is right in its exposé on Driscoll, but its narrative poisons the well against complementarianism, and all this by appeal to emotions without any appeal to the mind.

To go deeper into the tactics of Big Eva, we see here the way Big Eva deals with those they disagree and/or dislike. Many Evangelicals today prefer to be non-confrontational. Calling people heretics is considered socially unacceptable. Talking frankly about disagreements, disagreeing and fighting openly — these are rejected by Evangelicals. But it is not as if Evangelicals are all about love and fun and roses. The human heart does not change, and disagreements still happen. But instead of the open confrontations of the past, today's Evangelicals engage in passive aggression and other forms of scheming and politicking as a way of dealing with their problems and disagreements. Instead of openly and honestly confronting Driscoll in 2009, CT waited until 2021 to bash Driscoll, when it is more or less socially acceptable to do so. Instead of openly discussing the debate between complementarianism versus egalitarianism, they underhandedly used their podcast to create a visceral antagonism against complementarianism, all under the banner of caring for women. Does anyone seriously think that the passive aggressive posturing, the scheming, the conniving, is way better than open confrontation and disagreement?

Much has been said against the bad and horrible "white conservative evangelical men." While certainly "white conservative evangelical men" are not perfect, I prefer their company over the schemers and passive-aggressors where pretense is everything and backstabbing is laudable. Better a straight talker than one of those politicians.

The issue of "white privilege" and self-condfidence

"Who are you? You are not [e.g. Carl Trueman]" - Someone

The issue of "white privilege" is treated as the original sin of the radical liberal Left. Insofar as it is ideological, it reads the concept into every interaction between individuals of different ethnicities, particular when one or more of the participants are considered "white." Nevertheless, there is some empirical evidence that would seem to support the concept. But just as in dealing with metanarratives, the argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent, in the sense that empirical data that would seem to support Critical Race Theory (CRT) could be legitimately interpreted in another manner to support a different narrative.

What are the empirical evidences that would seem to support "white privilege"? Consider how people of the Caucasian ethnicities are treated differently in places like Singapore. Behavior that are not tolerated if committed by locals are tolerated when whites do it. White theologians like Carl Trueman can criticize other theologians like Bruce Ware and are still treated as godly men, but we know what happens if a Singaporean does the same. White pastors like David Platt promote division in their own church, and yet their books continue to be promoted. Does anyone sincerely think that a Singaporean pastor can get away with what Platt is doing in his own church and also have their books promoted?

These, and many more examples of social interactions that others can provide, seem to show that "white privilege" is alive and well. But I would suggest that the evidences point elsewhere. Specifically, it points to a veneration of whites (a concept most aptly conveyed by the Chinese term 崇洋) by Asians in general coupled with a lack of self-confidence in oneself in comparison to whites. In other words, it is because we do not practice color-blindness but instead make ourselve inferior that "white privilege" comes about. If we have self-confidence, then there is one standard for both whites and non-whites (i.e. color-blindness). If we do not accept such behavior, then it should not matter who commits that behavior. If it is wrong to criticize other Christians, then please go ahead and condemn Carl Trueman et al as schismatics. If you claim that it is wrong for a godly Christian to criticize other Christians, yet exempt these theologians from your judgment, you are a hypocrite!

What is the solution to "white privilege"? Stop treating whites differently from non-whites. Do not treat them as superiors, and do not treat them as inferiors. Treat people with no regard to their skin color and ethnicity, and you would solve the problem immediately. The question is: Will you do it?

Book Review: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (Part 5): Induction and the History of Religions

Part 5 of my book review of Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is up at the Daily Genevan site, here. In this central part of my review, I point out the main problem with Harari's telling of history, which is the problem of induction. While the problem of induction is minimized in normal historical reconstruction since we can get an appoximation to the truth, looking especially into pre-history erases guide posts that alllow us to make such an approximation, as I argue in the review here.

After demonstrating Harari's problem with induction, I shift to the issue of religions, noting how Harari's view on religion is disrespectful towards all religions, and pays zero heed to what those religions actually say. You can read more about it in the review.

The Sovereignty of God and our emotions

In light of my opposition to Vincent Cheung, I received a feedback concerning this post. Specifically, this sentence was singled out: "We live in a fallen world, not in the realm of God's decrees and sovereign will." How can that sentence make sense if one believes that God is sovereign over the world?

Seen out of context, such a sentence does in fact undermine God's sovereignty. But this sentence has to be read in context. When I use the words "world" and "realm" here, I am not using this to be referring to the world in its cosmological sense. Rather, as it should be seen in context, the focus is on the world as conceptually perceived, the way "world" is used in Thomas Kuhn's analysis in his epistemic anti-realism. We do not live in the conceptual world of the decrees of God, in the sense that all these are hidden from us and are not on us apart from mediation. Since God does work through secondary causes, He is not directly acting on us. In Cheung's theodicy, since God is diretly acting on us, the only response is resignation. Whereas where there are real secondary causes, we can rage aginst the secondary causes while trusting in God the primary cause.

In life therefore, our faith in the sovereign God is meant to instill trust and confidence in our Lord. It is not meant for us to decipher into the mysteries of the sovereign will, to become fatalistic, or to become stoic in our emotions. Cheung's theodicy however fails to do either of these, and thus necessarily leads to fatalism and stoicism.

Why being "apolitical" does not help in Christian discipleship

Pastors, as those entrusted with the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1) you are ministers of Word and Sacrament. Not political pundits. https://t.co/bwuSXYrIMw

— Brian Onstead (@brianonstead) August 19, 2021

Christianity as a religion focuses on spiritual things. Christianity is also a worldview that seeks to explain all of life. After all, if the God who created the world and ordered it is the same God who redeems sinners from sin, then it follows logically that all of life and the things in this world must be present in the scheme of God. To relegate Christianity to the private realm, unconcerned with the things of this world, is a denial that God is the God of creation.

That said, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). The primary focus of Christians should be on the things of God. Thus, while God is the God of creation, our emphasis should be on God as the God of redemption. Herein lies the tension for Christians in this age: On the one hand, we worship the God who is Creator and King. On the other hand, our focus is on God as our redeemer and the one who mandates that in this period of the Gospel Christians ought to be focused on proclaiming the Gospel of salvation from sin. Both are true, and both cannot be denied. Those that focus on the Gospel alone while ignoring creation are inbalanced in their faith, just like those who do not focus on the primacy of the Gospel due to concern over creation. How then should Christians live in this world?

The tension between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of creation, and between the City of God and the City of Man, has occupied pastors and theologians since the beginning of the church. A recent view attributed to Reformed theologian David VanDrunen, the "Two Kingdoms" view, state that God is ruler over both the kingdom of creation and the kingdom of the church, but He does so separately. One implication of this view is that the Church in her assembly ought to be focused on spiritual things and not the things of this world. Activism of all sorts are to be proscribed by the church in her gathering, a corrective to both right-wing and left-wing activism found within American Evangelicalism. In this general sense, the Two Kingdoms view is biblical. Complications arise however when we look at the specifics.

Recently, Baptist theologian Owen Strachan wrote a tweet stating that pastors ought to teach their congregants how to understand the world, and that failure to do so is a failure in Christian discipleship as the sheep will look elsewhere for guidance on these matters. Strachan of course is thinking in terms of social issues like Critical Race Theory, in light of the shocking abandonment of biblical orthodoxy by former YRR (Young, Restless, Reformed) adherents for the mirage of "social justice." Many Evangelical Christians in turn turn to conservative political analysts and Fox News for their catechesis on socio-political issues. It seems clear that many people in the church learn about society and politics not through the lens of Scripture, but through partisan lenses. Now, if one believes that there is such a thing as a Christian worldview, then this fact should be seen as problematic.

In response to this tweet, Brian Onstead has reminded us that pastors are not political pundits. That of course is true, but I am unsure the relevance that has to the original tweet. The focus in on Christian worldview, and the shocking abandonment of the Reformed faith by many New Calvinists for "social justice" shows that they had lacked a biblical worldview. Somehow "Gospel-centered" has devolved into "Gospel-only," and it seems that they learn their sociology and politics from the culture rather than the Scriptures. On the right, the reaction to the Left has reached fever pitch, and it is not helpful to be trained by them in one's worldview, even though they are correct on many matters. Are these not evidenct that the Church ought to disciple her members in the Christian worldview, instead of allowing the culture to teach us about such matters? After all, Strachan is not asking for political activism or guidance from the pulpit, but Christian instruction on such matters.

It is of coure true that there is a category called "wisdom" as one deals with the things of the world. But as opposed to this ivory-tower theologian, it is a fact that calling for wisdom is insufficient to actually ajudicate on a practical level between a biblical theory and an unbiblical theory. This author has seen first-hand how a pastor can agree with biblical doctrines on many things but consistently promotes left-wing social issues as being merely concerned with "social justice," while simultaneously claiming to be apolitical and not interested in doing politics. What is going on here, you might ask? What is happening is that left-wing views have so permeated society that they became seen as the "default" view; it is considered being moderate and "not political" to hold to that particular left-wing view. In other words, the Overton window has shifted so much leftwards that anyone who has not thought through the issues are by default politically left.

In exegesis, "tradition" is the idea that nobody comes to the Bible "just as they are." We all come with preconceived notions and lenses through which we read our Bibles. The one who is uncritical about that and who claims no tradition is often the one so bound by tradition that he is blind to it. Likewise, the one who does not recognize that they have a default inchoate "sociopolitical theory" are the ones that are most blind to their own political biases. That is why Strachan's call for biblical discipleship in this area resonates with me, not because Christians ought to be political or to be partisan, but because most Christians are not taught how to think through these matters from a biblical perspective. Wisdom is of course necessary, but calling for wisdom without showing how wisdom is seen is like the man who knows he needs food but is unable to recognize food from poison.

It is of course correct to desire to be apolitical, since the kingdom of grace is not of this world. But desiring to be apolitical is not the same as BEING apolitical. Ironically, one has to be educated on socio-political issues from a Christian worldview in order to be apolitical. Just as knowing one's tradition helps one to better interpret the Bible from a more objective standpoint, likewise knowing the Christian worldview on political matters helps one to be properly apolitical. Without such education, one can call for all the "wisdom" one desires, but there is no escaping the forces that have swallowed up people like Christina Edmonson, Jemar Tisby, and the others who have fallen away from biblical Christianity.

The social liberalism of David French

David French, once a conservative, has shifted ever leftward. That is less of an issue if the leftward movement was on issues that Scripture does not explicitly address. However, in his attack piece on the "new right" over their "embrace" of Hungary, he took positions contrary to Scripture, and thus showed that he has shifted towards being more theologically liberal. Hungary of course is not immune to criticism, and this piece should not be construed to taking any position on Hungary. The focus here rather is on French and the values he shows in his attack piece.

The key passaage from French's attack piece lies here:

The regime doesn’t recognize gay marriage. Only heterosexual couples may adopt. And the regime just passed a law sharply limiting any promotion of homosexuality or gender transition to children. He has banned gender studies programs at Hungarian universities

Besides the banning of gender studies programs (a conntroversial issue), all the other policies would be uncontroversial in America in the 1990s. Notice how French thinks that all these are normal for what he holds to be his "conservative" viewpoint. Nevermind that all these are considered abominations by Scripture; evidently having biblical morality is considered to be merely engaged in the "culture wars" which of course is reprehensible. So French evidently thinks that having biblical morality is part of the "new right" and to partake of the taint of authoritarianism.

This is of course part of the problem with the so-called "culture wars." The Overton Window has shifted so much that what was considered normal and acceptable in social discourse is now considered to be part of the "far-right" or "new right" or whatever nonsense the real culture warriors of the left have come up with. French's liberalism is as much a fact as well as a sad indictment over the state of spirituality in America. In any society where biblical morality is taken as a norm, French would be considered a left liberal for his abandonment of biblical morality, and treated as such by society.

Book Review: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (Part 4): Neanderthals and Harari's misinterpretation of Scripture

Here is Part 4 of my review of Yuvah Noah Harari's book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Once again, we look at Harari's views, this time concerning human evolution as it regards the Neanderthals. As we go deeper towards the main problem with Harari's narratives, I took a short detour and deal with Harari's misinterpretation of Scripture. Harari, being a non-Christian, is of course free to reject Christianity. He is not however free to misinterpret Scripture to say what he wants it to say.

The key point here is that Harari is not quite the vaunted historian or scholar others paint him out to be. A good historian will not make elementary errors on the history of science. A good scholar will not make elementary errors in the interpretation of the Christian Scriptures. We will continue further in further installments of the review.

Book Review: Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind (Part 3): History of Primeval human development - Preliminary Concerns

Primeval human history is an interesting topic, intersting particularly as it is a topic with a comparative paucity of evidence. In Part 3 of the review, I note some preliminary concerns I have on Yuvah Noah Harari's take on primeval human history, which can be read here.

David French and the fiction of systemic racism

David French, once a conservative, has drifted towards a more liberal position due to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrone). In an article on The Dispatch, French sought to argue that "systemic racism" is reality and not wokeness. French of course charge the critics of systemic racism with being "biblically and historically wrong." On the part of history, what French says is nothing more than the liberal idea of "racism without actual racists." There is nothing new under the sun that French brings to the table, and what he says is no different from critical race theory. No doubt racial disparities do exist, but to claim that it is always due to racism is ridiculous. Again, racism without actual racists. It is thus French who is historically wrong, since to prove the charge of racism as defined historically, there must be actual racists involved.

More egregious is French's eisegesis of Scripture, distorting what it says in order to prop up the lie of systemic racism. French appeals to the episode of the Gideonites whom King Saul had persecuted, thus resulting in famine in the land. In 2 Samuel 21, the restitution for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites was to hand seven sons of King Saul over to be killed by the Gibeonites. On the surface, French's reading seems plausible. The Gibeonites were systematically annihilated, and even after one generation, God demanded restitution for the crime. Surely that proves that one can have systemic sin, does it not, where the "innocent" sons of Saul have to pay for their father's sin?

The problem with this reading of Scripture is that it ignores what the real crime of King Saul was. Why was the account of the Gibeonites included in the Scriptures in 2 Samuel 21 but not the other peoples Saul had probably killed? The reason why is seen in the relation the Gibeonites had with Israel, as narrated to us in Joshua 9. Gibeon had tricked Israel into forming a covenant between the two peoples. The covenant was made with God as a witness, thus Israel was unable to put them to the sword. The covenant made between Israel and Gibeon had a binding effect all the way down through the centuries. Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites was a violation of the covenant made with God as the witness. Therefore, Saul and his descendents have to pay for their violation of that covenant.

When one actually reads Scripture properly in context, it can be seen that the issue with the Gibeonites was not systemic sin, but rather covenant violation. The covenant curse inflicted by God through the famine has nothing to do with "systemic sin," or "sin without sinners" (since Saul was already dead), but rather the enforcing of treaty violations by God. The right analogy of the Gibeonites is not to "systemic racism," but rather present treaty violations between countries. The right lesson is that God will punish the breaking of covenants, not that God teaches systemic sin of any kind. This applies to all the other examples of confessing "ancestral sin," which was not confessing that one is culpable for the father's sins, but rather that one assumes the covenant responsibilities and guilt of the Mosaic Covenant.

In his hatred of Trump, David French has jetissoned his credability and join in the distortion of Scripture by the woke crowd. Contrary to what David French says, Structural Racism is unbiblical and unhistorical. French's tarring of this as "right-wing" is slander. His distortion of Scripture is sad, and may God lead him to repentance for distorting His Word.

[ADD: French doubled down on his defense of systemic racism here. He does this by (1) ignoring Scripture, and (2) retreating to the more defensive position that institutions do sin and institutions that sin must make restitutions. Note however that French is engaging in bait-and-switch, or the motte-and-bailey fallacy. NOBODY denies that institutions do sin and institutions that sin must make restitutions. "Systemic racism" is not the same as saying there are racist systems and institutions. "Systemic racism" states that racism is so prevalent that all institutions are involved in racism (even if they do not seem racist) unless they are actively "anti-racist." French thinks his audience are morons that have zero critical thinking skills, and sadly, he might be right.]

Book Review: Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind (Part 2: History of Science)

What do the progressive globalists believe as it relate to science? Through an examination of Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens, I continue to explore the supposed history of humankind, as it relates here to the history of science here.

British Equalities Minister on the term "white privilege"

When it comes to secular matters, God has given humanity wisdom, expresed in common sense for those who still have their rational faculties working intact. Critical Race Theory, with its Gnostic idea of "critically" seeing things that nobody has ever seen before, is contrary to common sense. Thus, in the British Telegraph newspaper, we see an article about why the term "white privilege" is careless and divisive. It is obvious to anyone with common sense that the worst way to deal with racism is to make people focus on race and what each race is either entitled to or guilty of. From the article by Kemi Badenoch:

The phrase “white privilege” is unnecessarily antagonistic. Much as some theorists think it is essential for tackling racism, there is an active and fairly toxic political debate around it.

Ditto for the term "Chinese privilege," or any "X privilege" anyone can think of. You may read the article here.

Book Review: Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind (Part 1)

In collaboration with Rev. Shane Anderson, the first installment of my review of Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind has been posted at the Daily Genevan here.

The main lies Justin Gibony of TGC tells us about Racism and Critical Race Theory

Over at TGC (The Gospel Corporation), Justin Gibony did a video on the lies that serve American Christians. While he is right in pointing out that racism was a terrible blight in American Christianity, and he is right that we should not have a knee jerk reaction against any call for "racial justice," the problem is that his presentation itself has two major lies within it.

4 minutes into the video, Gibony states that it is false that "[racism] existed so long ago that it couldn't possibly still linger in our system and institutions" (04:30-7), and later he says that "Today many are using the threat of Marxism as pretext to avoid reckoning with the church's race problem. They are conflating biblical sound pleas for justice with clear distortion" (08:06-20). Taken on a superficial level, it is true that the effects of racism can still linger in America, and that it is also true that many could be using the threat of Marxism to avoid the issue of racism. However, that is not exactly what he had said. The claim is not that the effects of racism is present in America. The claim is that racism (not just its effects) is still present today in the American system and institutions. This is where Gibony embraced the falsehood of "systemic racism," where any actions that negatively affects someone of a minority race is taken as prima facie evidence of such "systemic racism." To be fair, Gibony lists down some racist events in America history, but note they last until the 1960s or at worst 70s. Guess what year is it today? 2021. If we take the year 1970, that is a time gap of 51 years, and 51 years is 2 generations. In other words, what Gibony is saying is that racism is still present BECAUSE racism was present TWO generations ago. Does that even sound rational to anyone not in the woke movement? So the sins of the father are to be visited on the grandson? Someone needs to read up Ezekiel 18 to see what God thinks about this kind of "justice"!

Next, the claim that many are using Marxism as pretext to avoid talking about race might be true. However, how does anyone know that? Absent reading the heart, that is impossible to know. What is possible to know is that Gibony sees that the church has a "race problem." Now, it is not to be denied that people in churches can and do struggle with racism. But to state that there is truly a "race problem" in the church implies that this "race problem" is pervasive throughout the churches, and especially "white churches." In other words, it is the issue of "systemic racism" again. So if there is this pervasive "race problem" in the church, where is the proof? Where is the smoking gun? Instead, what is happening is that reactions against calls for "racial reconciliation" by black racists like Jemar Tisby are rejected, and such rejections are taken as proof that the church has a "race problem"?! Why not think that the rejection of such calls is because we actually reject racists even when they have black skin? Now, I do not know whether such is the case, but Gibony has not given us any example of the church's "race problem" so I will just speculate as to what it is.

Speaking of the church's "race problem," if the fact that historically white churches are not diverse enough, then what are we to make of all ethnic churches? Is someone going to condemn black churces for not being diverse enough and include more whites and Asian and others? Who is going to condemn Korean churches for not being inclusive of non-Koreans, or Chinese churches of not being inclusive of non-Chinese? While I do agree that historically white churches should be welcoming to all ethnicities, the hypocrisy regarding TGC stands. Gibony states that we must reject lies, so perhaps he will give some of his air time to condemn all mono-ethnic churches including the black church for not being diverse enough?

In conclusion, I agree with Gibony that Christians can tell lies that serve their own interests. I happen to think however that Gibony needs to heed his own advice. Stop lying about systemic racism and be a truthful Christian. True racial reconciliation is done through actual reconciliation, not lies about racism and fellow Christians.