Comments about 'Whiteness' prompt controversy at Sparrow Women conference

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

A Christian organization whose mission is to equip women to be peacemakers has been accused of trying to erase comments by a black Christian speaker about white supremacy.
During an onstage interview, Ekemini Uwan, a Nigerian-American public theologian, told an audience at the recent Sparrow Conference for Women in Dallas that their concept of race was incompatible with the Bible.
In response, several women walked out....

Uwan, a Westminster Theological Seminary alumna, was interviewed at the conference by Elizabeth Woodson, Sparrow Women’s resources coordinator.
“Race is not a category in the Bible. It did not exist because it is not something that will be redeemed — it was meant to hold and hoard power,” Uwan told Woodson, according to a transcript of the interview provided by conference attendee Carmen J. Caccavale.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2019/04/06/comments-about-whiteness-prompt-walkout-at-sparrow-women-conference/

Ms. Uwan speaks to the concept of race, and how that concept is used.

[Kind of Blue]

1. "I'm just telling the truth, which in and of itself is controversial," she said.

Brava, Theologian Ekemini Uwan.
Well worth the read. Thanks for posting!
Looking forward to her essay "The Blood of Jesus is the Bridge; Not My Back."

[guillaumeb]

2. And her comments made people uncomfortable.

Sometimes the truth can be uncomfortable to hear.

[Kind of Blue]

3. I'm just glad there were only about 5 to 10 people who left.

Good, the majority stayed and there is where the discussions and healing begin.

[trotsky]

4. Very difficult to reconcile two different religious opinions.

Some might say it's darn near impossible.

Especially since each side can base their belief on "faith" and therefore do not need to provide any evidence whatsoever to back themselves up.

Right, g?

[MineralMan]

5. Well, that was pretty rude of those who walked out.

They seem to have forgotten the messages they read in Matthew, I guess. Par for the course, I suppose. Everyone seems to interpret their religious beliefs based on their own personal prejudices. That seems odd to me, but that's the way things are, i suppose.

To every person his or her own faith and beliefs about what it means to be a Christian. You get to pick your own path, it seems.

I think the word I'm thinking of here is "vainglorious." I guess they missed another verse or two, as well.

"Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." Galations 5: 26

[guillaumeb]

6. Each person finds a path.

And to attack "whiteness" is to attack one of the foundational ideas of this country.

[trotsky]

7. It's also one of the foundational ideas of European/American Christianity.

With verses that support it. But even if there weren't, they can just have "faith" and then no evidence is needed, right g?

[guillaumeb]

8. Whiteness as a concept is relatively new in history.

There are Christians in every country, and in every color.

[trotsky]

9. What you said has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Try again.

[guillaumeb]

10. What you wrote has nothing to do with Christianity,

which started in an area that would not be considered white by those who invented the idea of whiteness. But you are free to build.

[trotsky]

11. Oh are we back to you defining Christianity now?

That's neat.

Remember when you said that no one gets to define a religion for anyone else?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[guillaumeb]

12. You seem confused.

I said,

What you wrote has nothing to do with Christianity,

which started in an area that would not be considered white by those who invented the idea of whiteness. But you are free to build.

That literally describes the area where it started, which is different from defining what it is in any philosophical sense.

[MineralMan]

13. Oh, no, he's not confused...

[guillaumeb]

15. Sure.....

[trotsky]

14. I'm not.

I'm talking about the version of Christianity that MOST European and American Christians believed in as they "explored" and took over the "New World." The version that's just as valid as yours, because as you have stated, no one can define a religion for someone else. Besides, as you also have stated, with faith, who needs evidence?

But anyway, thanks for showing once again that you would rather just insult my intelligence by calling me "confused."

You keep showing everyone what YOUR version of Christianity is like, g. I'll let readers of this forum decide for themselves what YOUR definition of the religion is.

[guillaumeb]

16. You wrote:

Oh are we back to you defining Christianity now?

That's neat.

Remember when you said that no one gets to define a religion for anyone else?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

And I explained to you why you are incorrect.

And now, you wish to divert from the actual topic so you can construct your argument about the evil of theism.

[Lordquinton]

17. No you didn't

You said some stuff that was completely separate from what he said. Unless you are contradicting yourself and declaring that there are some definitions of christianity?

[guillaumeb]

18. I did not define Chrstianity. The "charge", as it were.

What you wrote has nothing to do with Christianity,

which started in an area that would not be considered white by those who invented the idea of whiteness. But you are free to build.

[Lordquinton]

19. That is a historical fact

But like you keep saying, faith doesn't need facts.

[marylandblue]

20. It's a implicit definition.

To say that something has nothing to do with Christianity, you must have at least an implicit definiton that excludes whatever you want to exclude.

[guillaumeb]

23. We disagree.

If I identify as a Christian, do you have any idea what "race" I am?

Do you have any idea of what sex I am?

No. You know only that I identify as a Christian.

The term Christian is an identifier, but it does not define any other characteristics of the individual Christian

[marylandblue]

25. You said that racism had "nothing to with CHRISTIANITY"

We are not talking about individual Christians but Christian theological movements. And any detailed study of Christian theology or history would necessarily include theological attitudes towards race. You don't have to look far to find this.

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/the-christian-imagination-theology-and-the-origins-of-race

[guillaumeb]

28. What I said:

The term Christian is an identifier, but it does not define any other characteristics of the individual Christian

There is nothing about race that is intrinsic to Christianity. And various movements do not define Christianity.

[marylandblue]

29. I was quoting an earlier statement, which is where your implicit definition lay

Not your subsequent misframing and misstatements based on your own highly idiosyncratic and virtually unrecognizable declawed version of Christianity.

[guillaumeb]

30. Certainly.

The implicit definition.

[marylandblue]

31. Is that one of your sarcastic non-answers,

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2019, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

where you pretend that what 99.9999% of all Christians for 2,000 years have done has nothing to with Christianity but is merely billions of personal interpretations created independently?

[trotsky]

32. Narrator: "Yes, it is." n/t

[guillaumeb]

34. It is a reply.

So 99.9999% are white supremacists?

[marylandblue]

35. No, 99.9999% of Christians believe that there is a definition of Christianity

that should apply to all Christians. Your are the only one of the many Christians I have met, encountered online, or read about in books who pretended to believe that they could only define Christianity for themselves. But you just slipped up and provided a definition that does implicitly apply to others.

[guillaumeb]

36. An elaboration on a claim.

And it is a powerful assertion.

All that is lacking, of course...…...

[marylandblue]

38. I provided my evidence in summary in my previous post.

But there's evidence everywhere in theology, in the Bible history, from actual Christians. The only place I HAVEN'T seen it is from you, but in unguarded moment you did it, and we noticed, whether you admit or not.

[guillaumeb]

39. Yes, the evidence.

And the unguarded moment.

Excellent use of language.

[marylandblue]

40. Would you rather leave yourself as the only Christian in the world

who doesn't think Christianity has a definition? That hardly seems any better.

[guillaumeb]

41. "The only Christian in the world...etc"

Very nicely done.

[marylandblue]

42. Okay welcome to your own religion with zero followers that

worships a quantum fluctuation. As befitting a quantum religion, all doctrines are held to be simultaneously true and false. Any nonbeliever who identifies an actual doctrine shall be treated with smug condescension and then shunned until the next thread.

[guillaumeb]

43. Define what you perceive to be "the essential Christian".

[marylandblue]

44. You are the Christian, not me. You are apparently the only Christian in history

who doesn't know who else is a Christian, has no definition of Christianity, has only a deist conception of God, holds no doctrines, denies that anything any Christian does has anything to with Christianity, takes no part of Bible literally except for the two most innocuous and generic verses in the entire book, cannot answer any questions about his faith but constantly claims to have already answered them, and behaves as if an eye for eye is always true but turn the other cheek is always false.

Now, I realize I may be wrong about you and what you believe, but your post is an exact illustration of your uniquely indeterminate beliefs. Faced with the simple reality that you have a huge array of choices to define your own Christianity, you refuse to choose one, instead asking a non-Christian to provide a definition for you. Why you think a non-Christian would have any suggestions on for you is a mystery in itself.

I never said I perceive anyone or anything to be "the essential Christian." I only said that every Christian in history, except you, is able to provide a definition of Christianity. Now, being that there have been billions of Christians in history and at present, I suppose it's possible there are a few other singletons such as yourself, but there can't be many because I've never met one, they don't seem to post in online forums, have apparently never written any books, and other Christians seem to have no awareness of them. Perhaps all the others keep their thoughts to themselves? That might be wise since other Christians who have definitions might suspect that the singletons are not actual Christians and shun them, try to convert them, or do something really horrible to them.

[guillaumeb]

46. I think that I understand your question.

I define what I believe. And that definition is my personal definition of how I live as a Christian.

And because no two Christians are identical, what it is to be a Christian is not identical for every Christian.

[trotsky]

47. So yes, racism can be part of Christianity for some Christians.

Glad you finally came around.

[marylandblue]

48. That just supports my claim: You are the only Christian in the world who thinks that.

The rest all think that other Christians should do certain things and refrain from other things. There is a lot of disagreement on what things are in which category, but they are unanimous that certain behaviors or beliefs apply to all Christians.

[trotsky]

21. You're defining what Christianity is. (Or more specifically, what it isn't.)

But you don't get to do that.

White supremacy is part of Christianity for millions of Christians. You don't get to tell them they're wrong unless you admit you're a raging hypocrite.

So what's it gonna be?

[guillaumeb]

22. I defined where it started.

And it started centuries before the concept of whiteness.

And while there may be Christians who are white supremacists, that proves nothing intrinsic about a relationship between the two. There are Christians who are male. Does that prove that maleness defines Christianity?

[trotsky]

24. Then why are you arguing with me? Of COURSE the Christianity of 100CE...

didn't include the concept of white supremacy. I never claimed anything so ridiculous. You're arguing with at straw man. AGAIN.

But the Christianity of the people who walked out of the room in your article DOES include whiteness. And Christianity has contained elements of white supremacy since its early days in Europe.

You keep trying to have it both ways - that you get to define an essential "Christianity" for everyone, but at the same time insist no one gets to define a religion for anyone else.

You've chosen hypocrisy, it seems.

[marylandblue]

26. Christianity today is not what it started as, any more than America today

is what it was in 1776.

[Lordquinton]

27. It's funny you bring up the relationship between Maleness and Christianity

Because to a lot of christians, most notably the RCC, it does. They believe that because Christ was male, that only males can represent him, which is why they only allow men as priests, and similarly the pope. And while they don't exclude women, christianity, and in fact all abrahamic religions distinctly place women as second class citizens. In fact the whole thing is based on women being responsible for all our troubles.

[trotsky]

33. Yeah kinda strange he would go there.

But I just figured it was another piece of bait to further distract and stop discussion on the issue of Christianity and racism.

[guillaumeb]

37. It is a strange comment for you to make,

considering that I posted the article.

But I am quite familiar with this type of response.

[trotsky]

45. You posted the article, but not to discuss racism in Christianity. n/t