The perspectives of men like James Brown and Scott Adams are overt appeals to skin color. While the motivations for these appeals vary, the goal is the same: self-help, pride, and temporal well-being. A question like “Is it okay to be white?” and its provocative musical counterpart, “Say it loud, black, and proud,” are short-sighted appeals at best.

Recorded in 1968 at the Vox Studios in Van Nuys, California, “Say It Loud, I’m Black, and I’m Proud” would be released to the public. James Brown and Alfred “Pee Wee” Ellis were working on what would soon become another hit. The song, released in August 1968, would spend six weeks at the top of the R&B chart and reach number ten on the Billboard Hot 100.
In the aftermath of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968, Brown wanted to give black people a reason to take pride in themselves, and he believed that music was the best way to express that pride. The song would become an anthem for the black power movement that took root after King’s death.
Following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., social unrest broke out in more than 200 cities across the nation, causing millions of dollars in property damage and business losses. Far from being an anthem for unity, James Brown’s song was about self-empowerment and standing against the forces of racism.
With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many in the “white community” believed they had done enough to combat racism. Many whites marched with King and fought against Jim Crow laws and racism in the South. At the cost of black and white lives, their efforts led to a change in how the rest of the country felt about civil rights for black people. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one in four whites favored civil rights. In the months following the legislation, 50% of ​​whites supported the bill.
By 1968, as cities burned in the wake of King’s assassination, many began questioning whether it was worthwhile to help black people achieve the equality they had fought for.
“Black and Proud” by James Brown is an old example of the continued ethnic tribalism that arises when people discuss “race” nowadays. Once ethnic pride is tied to a person’s sense of empowerment, it becomes necessary to defend it. When guilt is assigned and sacrifice demanded based solely on a person’s skin color, a lack of respect can transform into indignation.
From Woke to Reality
For American cartoonist and novelist Scott Adams, his indignation was peaked by a Rasmussen poll in which 46% of respondents disagreed with or were uncertain about the statement, “It’s okay to be white.” Adams took to Twitter to express his outrage. In his Twitter video, upon reading the results of the poll, Adams labeled the 46% as a hate group, advising whites to stay away from black people.
Read More
Related Posts:

It is obvious now, looking back at the post-9/11 and pre-Obergefell era, that the leftward drift of this movement was inevitable. The end of Renn’s “neutral world” and the beginning of a negative world hostile to Christianity began soon after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015  and accelerated rapidly with Trump’s 2016 victory. Changed circumstances undermined the attractive witness model as previously practiced. The neutral-world ethos could not hold in the negative world; the era of open debate was gone.

I converted to Christ in the year 2000, leaving behind my atheistic contrarianism. I entered American Protestantism completely unaware that something unique was occurring. In the 1980s, Calvinism reemerged as a potent intellectual force in evangelicalism, spearheaded by Baptists John Piper and John MacArthur and Presbyterian R. C. Sproul. In the early 2000s, young Gen X seminary graduates and writers who were influenced by these men became a movement known as the Young, Restless, and Reformed (YRR). New personalities and publishers emerged, and megachurches were formed. Centered on Calvinistic doctrines of salvation, these Baby Boomers and Gen X Calvinists achieved a good deal of theological unity. 
Their cross- and intra-generational unity was most evident in the Together for the Gospel conferences (T4G), which began in 2006 and held every other year. It was organized by four friends, already well-established in their own  circles in the pre-social media days—Mark Dever (Baptist), Ligon Duncan (Presbyterian), Albert Mohler (Baptist), and C.J. Mahaney (Charismatic), along with three invited speakers: Piper, MacArthur, and Sproul. What unified them were belief in biblical inerrancy, male headship of families, and the “five points” of Calvinism, which can be reduced (albeit simplistically) to the traditional Reformed doctrine of predestination. Thus, they were opposed to feminism, modern “critical” biblical scholarship, and the freewill doctrines of Arminianism. The conference grew over the years to include younger pastors such as David Platt (Baptist), Matt Chandler (Baptist), Kevin DeYoung (Presbyterian), Thabiti Anyabwile (Baptist), and others. 
I attended the 2008 T4G in Louisville, Kentucky, seeing the men I had read for several years joyfully sitting on panels together, despite their important differences. This togetherness was real. But it was also entirely a product of the time. It was in the middle of what Reformed writer Aaron Renn has labeled the 20-year “neutral world” period from 1994 to 2014—a world in which Christianity no longer had a privileged status but was not disfavored. Most everyone in these evangelical circles was a political “conservative” or typical evangelical voter, against abortion and homosexual marriage. Nevertheless, on political questions, the YRR leaders approached politics very differently. Piper was an outspoken Christian pacifist who would have even refused to defend his own family against violence. MacArthur regularly proclaimed his sentiment that “government can’t save you.” In contrast, Mohler (along with thePresbyterians) devoted attention to “engaging” the culture. But in the neutral world these differences were seemingly less pertinent; the glue of their unity was opposition to theological liberalism.
The late Timothy Keller also rose in prominence at this time in communicating the Gospel to coastal elites. His neo-Calvinism spread far and wide among the Gen-X world, establishing an ethos centered on “winsomeness” and a “third-way” politics above (not between, so he claimed) the political left and right. 
Under Keller’s influence, the YRR era was not retreatist but activist—pursuing “cultural engagement” by demonstrating that orthodox faith is the key to a coherent, good, and complete life. The purpose of “public theology” was more evangelistic than political; and most adherents, even if they disapproved of “neutrality” language, still approved of the possibility of debate within a shared public square. That is, entering public discourse offered Christians the chance not so much to win politically as to demonstrate their serenity, through a politics that appeared attractive, heavenly, and pleasantly aloof, and devoid of anxiety, overreaction, and anger. To the urban liberal, this was a quirky but safe political stand that checked the boxes on most “social justice” concerns. 
Hence, Christians who followed Keller’s approach could downplay or overlook questions of political power and focus instead on verbal and aesthetic persuasion. The principle regarding politics, especially for followers of Keller, was that political commentary and activism was an extension of “witness,” not fundamentally a means for good political outcomes. Every decision in ministering this witness tended to defer to whether it resulted in making Christianity attractive to non-believing urbanites. Politics was an extension of cultural apologetics, built around “authenticity” as opposed to the kitschy, suburban “seeker-sensitive” movement of the ’90s. The assumption was that secular people will become dissatisfied with the secular identities on offer and look for a coherent alternative. This approach made sense in that neutral world that no longer exists, where the Christian identity was one viable alternative among competing identities.
The Gospel Coalition (TGC), founded in 2005, exemplified this approach. A “coalition” of likeminded mostly neo-Calvinist churches, TGC served mainly to platform rising stars and to establish an elite evangelicalism. TGC’s long-time (and current) editor in chief, Collin Hansen, who wrote the book Young, Restless, Reformed in 2008, credited Keller’s works on “cultural apologetics” as a driver of the movement. Subsequently, the target engagement-audience for TGC (and neo-Calvinist apologetics in general) has always been urbanites, or at least non-rural residents. Few talked about the need for ministries to rural, working-class whites.
Read More
Related Posts:

If creating a meal for someone with multiple allergies is not an option, create a gathering that doesn’t include a meal. Have a game night and instead of a meal provide some store-bought safe snacks. Things like chips, salsa, and popcorn are usually great for most people with allergies and food disorders. By creating an activity to focus on, people won’t be focused on their food. This will help the guests feel more comfortable and less anxious at your event. 

As the holiday season approaches, many of us will share food with friends and family.  We will have family over for holiday meals.  We will share snacks at church events, parties, and homeschool groups. Everywhere we look we will encounter food. For many of us, food is the most delightful and joyous part of gatherings. What would December be without Christmas cookies and hot chocolate? Our culture, among others, revolves around food and eating together. We look forward to meals together at the table, find enjoyment in the anticipation of what food we will eat, and create traditions that are all centered around food. Practicing hospitality through meals and celebratory food is something observable in the scriptures. It’s not an exaggeration to say that food is an essential part of human life. We are so thankful to be a part of a church that shows hospitality with consideration for those who have food allergies and disorders. But I know that many churches do not show the same consideration.
What about those people for whom food is not a celebratory moment but instead can cause feelings of fear, self-consciousness, and exclusion?  How do we handle gatherings for individuals who have different food needs?  Partaking in meals together is one form of hospitality that God has shown us we are to partake in together, and yet there is sin in the world that even distorts the good. But what happens when we encounter individuals who have food allergies, sensitivity, neurodivergence, food disorders, and more?
What Does the Bible Say About Eating Together?
The best place to start when asking questions about anything is to open God’s Word. Today we are going to see what the scriptures say about eating together.

Genesis 18:6. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,[a] do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”

One of the first instances we see of food and hospitality being offered is in Genesis. Here, Abraham is approached by strangers. His first reaction is to invite them in, give them the best food he can offer, and have a feast. Providing food for others has been ingrained in us as humans. It has been around since the beginning of time.

Matthew 14:19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.

In Matthew, we are shown the example of Jesus feeding people after he spoke. These people refused to go home, and Jesus knowing they would need food, provided that for them. The people all sat on the grass together and feasted. They gave thanks and were appreciative of the food that was provided for them. Eating together must be important since it is seen many times throughout the New Testament. (John 21:9-14, Acts 2:42, Luke 9:16)
The last scripture we are going to look at is Romans 14:1-4.

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Read More
Related Posts: