Charlie Dates Blasts White Evangelicals and Their ‘Black-Raping Grandparents’ For Insisting They Vote Republican
Charlie Dates is the pastor of Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, a former ERLC and TGC contributor, and a former SBC Executive Committee panel memberr. He left the Southern Baptist Convention a couple of years ago on account of their failure to embrace Critical Race Theory while claiming that current worship wongs are enslaver/ captor songs.
He also attacked other Black Christians as sell-outs for saying things like “I’m Christian before I’m Black,” said the SBC “don’t need Black Faces with White Theology/voices/ideas leading the convention,” and invited Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot to preach at his church, who came and attended with her lesbian ‘wife.’
This was when he wasn’t describing the SBC as a bunch of racists that will never change, calling some black SBC pastors mere “tokens” or “assimilators,” and calling SBC seminaries “vestiges of racial animus.
During a recent sermon, Dates blasted white folk who have been criticizing the black church for their propensity to overwhelmingly vote for Democratic candidates, saying that they and their black-women-raping relatives should be ashamed for telling them who to vote for:
It was largely white evangelical churches that has propped up the most immoral president that we have had in living memory as the golden child of the church. And then they had the audacity to be quiet when Laquan McDonald was murdered, when George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were shot down. Some of them have said to me, ‘I ain’t done nothing racist, Charlie. I’ve not said anything wrong. Look, I’m over a big Bible institute.’ And I had to say to them in return, ‘Yeah you might not have said nothing wrong but you ain’t said nothing right either.’ And the moment you won’t speak up for us we’re all in trouble. And now it’s those same white pulpits down in Louisiana and everywhere else that wants to tell us that the Republican Party is the only Christian to vote. You can’t hinder us from getting the right to vote and then we get in and tell us who to vote for. Shame on you and your daddy and your granddaddy and your great granddaddy and all the black women they raped. Shame on you! Shame on you for not giving a damn about how people can live in the world but want to condemn and damn us for standing up for ourselves. Shame on you!
About Author
Racist, clueless idiot shilling his congregation to vote for the party of death and mental illness/perversion.
Yet, for some odd reason, he has no problem with whites who tell blacks to vote democrat.
He used to have a platform on Moody Radio….. along with Ed Stetzer…… enough said…..
Making it about race, as if it’s all about nothing but a war between whites and blacks, is certainly a problem. But worse, I believe, is the denial of redemption and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t have time to watch the sermon, though I might do so later. But by the title, he references Rom. 13, which I find to be fairly ironic in and of itself. It was none other than Paul who put the book of Romans on paper. And Paul was a man who, prior to his conversion, persecuted and oppressed Christians, and was involved in the stoning of Stephen to death.
And Paul was a Roman citizen. Rome practiced brutal slavery at the time, including the enslavement of dark-skinned peoples. Greeks had taken over much of northern Africa.
So Mr. Dates has preached his sermon using scripture that was put into paper by a man who, by Date’s own backward reasoning and denial of redemption and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, as well as God’s calling of men of all colors of skin, was one of the worst people who ever lived, who’s ancestors had no doubt raped, enslaved, and killed many dark-skinned people. It wouldn’t surprise me if Paul himself had been involved in it prior to his conversion. He might’ve had relatives involved in it at the very moment he put the book of Romans on paper. So who was he to be trying to preach? Simply a man who God saved, and called to preach. He put it onto paper because God told him to. Not to call people to submission to himself, but to call all to repentance and submission to the Lord.
If he’d pay attention, a good bit of the book of Romans addresses the animosity between Jews and Gentiles. Much of the entire book is about condemning ethnic divisions. The context of Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned …”, is exactly that. He’s telling them, both Jew and Gentile have sinned and fall short.
And verses 3 & 4 of that chapter contain the reasoning we’re looking for …
“3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, … “. And that’s why we speak. Simply because it’s true. Because our own unfaithfulness and sins of the past do not nullify the fact that it is true.
It’s akin to ad-hominem. About like someone arguing “you’re stupid!”. Well, yeah, I may be the dumbest person who ever lived, but that doesn’t make my argument any less factual and true.
This is why critical theory dismisses logic and attempts to redefine the means of determining truth. Simply because its tactics demand the employment of illogic, the denial of the truth, and mass false accusation.
What sort of argument is “oh yeah! Well, you’re great granddaddy was a sinner!” ?
It’s no argument. It’s nothing but an excuse …
*your great granddaddy …
There you go. A good example. I speak because it’s true, even though I myself am nowhere near perfect, and probably have some of the worst grammar and spelling skills of anyone alive. Who do I think I am trying to be typing and using the English language? Shame on me. I shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
Well, wait a second. If my great, great, great, great granddaddy had good writing skills, what then?
Am I allowed to pick the grandfather with the best grammar, or am I stuck with the one with the worst?
Do I take an average?
Four “greats” is six generations back from my father, 65 men including myself. But only 7 men in succession. Do I count 64 or 7?
Surely if I inherit my great, great, great, great grandfather’s sin, I must also inherit his righteousness. Right? Or does it only work one way for some, and another way for others? If so, wouldn’t that be the sin of partiality?
I know, I’ll stop. Just pointing out the fact that critical theory is ridiculous, and in my opinion specifically purposed to confuse. Yet God is not the author of confusion.