Neobabelists, Lying Traitors, or Christians?
Sometimes you come across something that just stops you in your tracks. It’s so unbiblical that you can’t believe someone actually wrote it trying to justify themselves with Scripture. Recently I had just such an experience.
I am preaching Genesis and a recent sermon focused on the fact that creation itself reveals God’s majesty and His care for His people. I was looking for a good quote towards the end of the sermon. I am a fan of John Piper, so I was hoping to find a quote relating God’s glory to His creation, but instead I stumbled on an article entitled John Piper Forsakes His People: Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage with Comments by Harold Seabrook.
The article is in response to this sermon: “Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage” preached on January 16, 2005 covering Deuteronomy 7:3-4 & Colossians 3:9-11. Piper argues “from Scripture and experience that interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated.” I don’t know who Harold Seabrook is, but he cerainly takes issue with Piper’s comments
While I have neither the space nor the stomach to deal with all Seabrook’s comments, I want to touch on his basic arguments. Seabrook’s comments speak for themselves when he argues that “The problem with “separate but equal” is that the races were neither separate nor equal.” Seabrook’s arguments center against “miscegenation” which Wikipedia defines as ” the mixing of different ethnicities.” This is the true target of Seabrook’s ire, not only within marriage, but within churches. He argues:
No multiracial church will ever become a monoracial church. In the near future, pastors will face increasing pressure to explicitly distance themselves from the folkways of their ancestors. They will abandon millennia of heritage and wed themselves to an alien people. Why would anyone do this unless he is ashamed of how God created him? Is it any wonder that so many have lost faith? They don’t know who they are.
In response to the argument that all races have one ancestor, Seabrook simply chides “It was necessary for all men to come from one blood because Adam was the federal head of all men, and in Adam all men died.” In response to the argument that all men bear the image of God, bearing what Piper calls “beautiful, God-designed ethnic and cultural diversity,” Seabrook has the audacity to remark:
we absolutely agree that there is “beautiful, God-designed ethnic and cultural diversity in the world.” We distrust anyone who prefers global uniformity to diversity. The irony is that we, and not the neo-Babelists, are called racists. We love the races and want to preserve them.
That last sentence appears to be the core of Seabrook’s proposed but not actual argument: preservation of the races and much of his argument seems to be based upon Acts 17:26:
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place
Seabrook argues that the fact that God determined the “allotted periods” and “the boundaries of their dwelling place” means that the races are to remain within those appointed boundaries and are not to mix. He bases this on the account of Babel, arguing that God did not want mankind to come together, which was the real sin of Babel. Fleshing out his argument, he goes on to ask “Why do neo-Babelists always ignore Ezra and Nehemiah, who forced Jews returning from exile to divorce their foreign wives and send away their mongrel children?” He goes on to try to explain his position:
There are many members in one body, many races in one world, and this is why the peace of Christ is called the peace that passes understanding. In Christ alone we may have common purpose. Our Triune God desires worship that befits His character. He decreed distinctions among mankind, and then He told us to be unified, even as the three distinct Persons of the Trinity are unified. The neo-Babelist denies the distinctions that God Himself imposed and seeks to undo them in the name of love. This is evil. We ask that he be consistent enough to call for one universal language and an end to national borders. The separation at Babel makes absolute unification impossible, and this minimizes the effects of our sin on a large scale.
While I could continue to quote Seabrook’s meanderings, it’s best that we actually get back to Scripture rather than mankind’s sinful presuppositions. The astute reader will have already noted that Seabrook is either a liar, confused or both. While claiming to cling to God-ordained distinctions between the races for their “beauty” and “protection,” Seabrook let his racism poke its ugly head with the passing comment “”The problem with “separate but equal” is that the races were neither separate nor equal.” That statement alone negates any other Scriptural arguments Seabrook might try to make and shows the true nature of his heart.
While I would like to deal with Seabrook’s arguments more in-depth at some point, let me simply cut to the heart of this issue: It is both foolish and wicked to claim any sense of superiority in the name of Christ and we must not allow racism to continue to wear the sheep’s clothing. God’s love transcends ethnicities (John 3:16), it shatters man-made barriers (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:9-11, etc.) and we may not once again erect those barriers in the name of anything. Favoritism of all kinds is against the heart of the Gospel (James 2:1, Jude 1:16, etc.). Seabrook’s argument that we show favoritism to our families is a moot point and must be shown to be such.
The Body of Christ is one but with many members (Romans 12) and we look towards that day when “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9) will, even against Seabrook’s wishes will together, without borders, without boundaries, without discintion, be made “a kingdom” (Revelation 5:10). We cannot allow hatred to clothe itself in love and we cannot allow that racism has any place in the Kingdom. In the words of Revelation 22:20-21:
He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
- Read Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage by John Piper.
- Listen to Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage by John Piper.
- Read John Piper Forsakes His People (John Piper is a Lying Traitor): Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage, with comments by Harry Seabrook
- Read my previous post against racism: Trouble in Paradise.
I have little patience for Kinists.
Question: What do you think the redemptive hermenutical approach? Do you think interracial marriages are such an example?
I wholeheartedly embrace the redemptive historical hermeneutic (read my post here), and if anything, I would say that adopting it would actually support Piper’s position, underlying the organic unity of all mankind, transcending different cultures. What are your thoughts there?
What I am thinking of here is the trajectory/redemptive hermenutic that some see present within the scriptures. I.e. God gives Moses laws against interracial marriages in order to prevent idolatry, but as we move to the NT and more so to our day, this law is undone. Or Paul’s statements on slavery. Good for his day (an upward trajectory) but I would not want to support slavery of anykind today.
My struggle is to find a way to say that Wilberforce was throughly Christian in working to end slavery, by means of some sort of trajectory/redemptive hermenutic, even though he clearly goes beyond the ethic in the NT.
Kinists with their racism press this point and I’m not sure how to respond in a way that is faithful to scripture.
Your thoughts regarding the “upward trajectory” are right. The push to end slavery is a much easier argument to make than the one against interracial marriage because the NT clearly asserts the equality of all (following in OT footsteps, I would assert) and the institution of slavery (in the modern understanding) is based upon the notion if inequality.
With that being said though, while I don’t think I’ll be preaching on interracial marriage anytime soon, I do think that most of Piper’s arguments are sound, though a bit undeveloped. If you go through Seabrook’s exegesis as he traces Piper’s arguments, his handling of the Scripture is very poor, simply choosing at random what is normative (for example, ethnicity was clearly linked to religion in the OT in a way not currently seen, so Nehemiah becomes a moot point in the discussion unless Seabrook is willing to argue that the ethnicity/religion link is still in effect).
Adopting the redemptive historical approach, the only place to start is Genesis which affirms the underlying unity and worth of all mankind, for all mankind bears the image of God. As we trace the progressive revelation, any “splits” that occur among peoples was always the result of sin. Therefore, the argument that we must maintain Babel’s “boundaries” is a poor argument indeed. The fact that we see thriving cultures is common grace, God bringing beauty from man’s chaos. But the underlying theme is the unity, not the distinction, we are all brought ultimately into one Body and all of those boundaries will again be erased, so Kinists are essentially arguing against Scripture by maintaining boundaries the Gospel (and God all along at the fundamental level) opposes.
I’d like to develop some of this a bit further, but the comment box is not the ideal place to do so. What are your thoughts here?
[...] John Piper is a liar and a traitor, and you have no reason to listen to a word he says. This rubs Steve Schlissel Jr the wrong way. He calls my beliefs "unbiblical" but has "neither the space nor the stomach to deal" with them. He seems to think that quoting my "meanderings" is enough to prove my "sinful presuppositions." And by merely quoting what I’ve said, "The astute reader will have already noted that Seabrook is either a liar, confused or both." Incredible. Steve Junior especially dislikes my statement that "The problem with ’separate but equal’ is that the races were neither separate nor equal." Since no one thinks equality existed under Jim Crow, the problem must be with desiring separation. Yet even Abraham and Lot separated when their people were at each other’s throats. And how does Steve Junior respond to my desire for peace? "That statement alone negates any other Scriptural arguments Seabrook might try to make and shows the true nature of his heart." And then he tells more lies about me, saying that "It is both foolish and wicked to claim any sense of superiority in the name of Christ…" I’ve done no such thing. Race is not higher than grace. I agree that "God’s love transcends ethnicities" and "shatters man-made barriers." I disagree that "Favoritism of all kinds is against the heart of the Gospel… Seabrook’s argument that we show favoritism to our families is a moot point and must be shown to be such." Is this guy serious? Here comes the neo-Babelism, so get ready: He anticipates the day when "every tribe and language and people and nation…even against Seabrook’s wishes will together, without borders, without boundaries, without discintion [sic], be made ‘a kingdom.’" He then quotes from the last chapter of the Bible, which makes clear that even in heaven there are multiple nations/races. So at no time on earth will there ever be a kingdom "without borders, without boundaries, without distinction," except spiritually. [...]
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I don’t know who Steve Schlissel Jr. is, so if that’s a jab of some sort I must say it’s lost. I assume that you’re responding to me since you’re on my blog responding to my post. If you were addresing the lack of equality under the “Jim Crow,” you did a poor job of clarifying that, so if I misread your argument at that point I do apologize. Again, if I have told lies about you, I repent. Pointing out your pride however is neither a lie nor worthy or repentance. Your entire tone calls into question your “desire for peace.”
I would argue that there is a strand of pride running through both your initial arguments as well as your post here that demonstrates that your heart is not in ine with the true Gospel. Your treatment of other believers is sorely in need of the love and grace that only comes with Christ’s work in our hearts.
Both in your dealings with Piper’s sermon and your post here you have forth nothing positive, you’ve simply made snide remarks worked into other people’s comments. That proves nothing. If you think the separation of Abram and Lot proves the separation of the races, you’re mistaken. I would also caution that you’ve imported a “one-world” government concept into my statements that’s not there.
In the interest of fairness, I would like for you to Scripturally demonstrate that race is a non-negotiable which must be kept separate. Not only that, I think the burden of proof is on you at this point to prove from Scripture that interracial marriage is sin, something I don’t think you’ve done. In addition, I think it’s necessary that you demonstrate where John Piper has lied and to what he is a traitor.
I look forward to your comments and continued dialogue.
Hey man, I don’t know if you saw this, but I picked up on your blog and posted about it. It was highlighted by “The Monday Morning Insight” blog and has made news on several other blogs. Great job of calling these guys out.
Most of my thoughts on this topic are coming about as I read through Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. I think he does a great job and very much agree with the concept that he is developing. My main questions surround the way he applies it (particulary his understanding of Paul’s reading of the creation account of Adam and Eve.)
I think that one of the good things that come about from interaction with those like the Kinists is that evangelicals are forced to realize that our ethics are different than that of the scriptures. We tend to ignore or gloss over the places that don’t square with our current practice. (i.e. try fitting the ethics of the year of jubilee into GOP/SBC politics). Whether they agree or disagree with Webb on the issue of moving beyond the ethics of the scriptures, facing Kinists-like folks will at least force us all to reflect on the question a bit less flipantly.