A church announces it’s giving up “whiteness” for Lent. Zo Rachel and Bill Whittle offer a red-letter assessment of this holy sacrifice on the part of these virtue-signaling religious people.
The Virtue Signal analyzes the morality behind the news twice weekly, thanks to our Members. Join us now when you click the big green button above. To support this work without becoming a Members, click the big blue button to give with your PayPal or credit card.
17 replies on ““Whiteness”: Will Giving It Up for Lent Redeem a Church?”
““Whiteness”: Will Giving It Up for Lent Redeem a Church?”
No. It will not. Wokeness is a religion of all sin and no redemption. No matter how you try to appease, it will not work, because appeasement is impossible. In fact, they take it as admitting your guilt, so you become a “blue check” racist at that point, making you open and eligible for direct fire for the rest of your life.
According to the Smithsonian (follow the science!) the following is “white culture):
https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/07/JF-US-AFRICAN-AMERICAN-COMP-02.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=1200&h=800&crop=1
So if they’re giving up “whiteness,” then let’s see…
They should shun self-reliance.
The parents should abandon their children.
They should shun rational thinking.
They should stop working hard.
They should reject the church itself, because it is Christian.
They should not show up on time.
They should not actually give up anything at all for Lent, because “delayed gratification” is bad.
They should not respect church property.
If the members of the congregation actually look up what is being said about “whiteness” and try to avoid it, I don’t think the church hierarchy will be very pleased.
Churches virtue signal when they don’t recognize true virtue, allow obvious untruths to promulgate as long as they are politically correct, and pander to the woke mob.
Woke-ism is popping up in churches all over. They are teaching false doctrines to satisfy itching ears. God is flushing all of this to the surface so we will know. At the same time, He’s separating the wheat from the tares. Stay tuned.
How dark do you have to be to “not be white”? I don’t know, ask a “White Hispanic”. Remember, you can “act white”. Again. Fundamentally racist concept.
“Whiteness” and “Blackness” are fundamentally racist terms. They strongly suggest — more than strongly suggest that race determines behavior. Now I don’t know about you, but I was taught that if you thought race determines behavior … that was practically the very definition of racism.
Wait, you mean that was “Not The Bee”?????
Well done, Bill and Zo, as usual.
As one of those ‘Evangelical Born Again’ folk, I particularly appreciated Zo’s pointing out what has become of the concept of “fasting” during Lent. It’s become comparable to what the Pharisees added to the “Law” as given to Moses. There seems to be a universal human compulsion to fix things which aren’t either inadequate or broken!!
My response to all of this idiocy is:
“Have you ever flown in an airplane? STOP IT! That’s cultural appropriation.
Have you ever ridden in a car? STOP IT! That’s cultural appropriation.
Have you ever used indoor plumbing? STOP IT! That’s cultural appropriation.
Have you ever used electricity? STOP IT! That’s cultural appropriation.”
Have you ever turned on a light bulb? STOP IT! That’s cultural appropriation!
Have you ever taken penicillin? STOP IT! That’s cultural appropriation!
Zoe talks about Ethiopians. One early convert, non Jewish, to Christianity was an Ethiopian. The most important division to Jews was not our definition of race; but Jew vs Gentile. Then comes Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Ooops.
.All the same in Christ. The Temple where sacrifices were made had more than one court, one inside the other. The outermost court was the court of the Gentiles. Anyone, Jew, Gentile, male, female, slave or free could enter. Then the court of Women. Any Jew, male, female, slave or free could enter. But no Gentiles. Then the court of men. Any Jewish man, slave or free could enter. Beyond that, is the court of priests, the Holies,and the Holy of Holies. Ever more restrictive. But Galatians 3:28 says it’s all irrelevant. We one one in Christ. White vs Colored? They didn’t care. And by the way, white is a color. White light is all hues together. And I am “White”. But not white. I’m brownish pink. All races have the following pigments in their skin, just in different proportions: Black, red, yellow and white. All races.
Aha. Very funny opening. Go on and keep at it if you want.
In defense of suffering as beneficial and NOT as an evil being returned, haven’t you read the phrase, ‘These wounds I received at the house of my friends’ or the psalm that says, ‘thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me’. You, Zoe, might look on pain as if it were the worst of fates, paradoxically, bit I know Bill has it in him to recognize past suffering as lessons that have made us better. And that, I would never call an evil.
Now before we enter into the controversy of what suffering qualifies as edifying, first admit that when The Lord heals Paul’s blindness, he says, I will show him how much he must suffer for my name’, that suffering can come from the Lord himself, for our good. That we can be brought to say, It was for my own good and I deserved it.
And before you complain about the word ‘directly’ don’t ignore that He uses men for the same, as his chosen instruments, just as he said to the one sent to heal his sight.
And don’t be hypocrites yourselves, to judge am entire faith by the actions of particular men who fail to represent it as well as they should. Shame on you.
About a year ago, I found a photo which featured Jane Fonda and Patrisse Kahn-Cullors (the founder of BLM) together in the same photo. With that, I did a color analysis of the skin tones of these two women in order to try and quantify the term Person of Color.
First, using RGB color (sometimes called additive color) these were my results:
Jane (213, 166, 149)
Patrisse (136, 96, 94)
Interestingly, Jane Fonda has much more (62% more) “color” than Patrisse.
Next, I did a CMYK analysis (subtractive color) and got these results:
Jane (0.0, 22.07, 30.05, 16.47)
Patrisse (0.0, 29.41, 30.88, 46.67)
Here, the CMY (cyan, megenta, yellow) are very close (about 15%) but Patrisse has 2.8 times more black (which is the absence of color.)
Comparing the two skin tones in RGB with black removed, the two women’s colors compare like this:
Jane (255, 199, 178)
Patrisse (255, 180, 176)
They are almost the same, but Jane still has a bit more “color” than Patrisse.
So, what does Person of Color really mean? Apparently, it means a person with the most *absence* of color. Follow the Science.
Noice! 😀
100% correct. Pure black is the absence of color.