Anti-Racism is a hot-button topic right now. Too many have a knee-jerk response to it instead of actually learning about it. Christina Barland Edmondson & Chad Brennan’s Faithful Anti-Racism introduces Christians to anti-racism and how to apply it in their lives.
After the introduction, 11 chapters introduce Christians to a number of topics related to anti-racism. These call on faithful Christians to apply the Bible, stand for justice, understand our past, and more. Several chapters directly address topics that frequently yield seemingly fruitless debates on social media. The authors do a great job delving into such divisive topics in a winsome way that focuses on bringing Christian living to the forefront.
The book consistently brings applicable knowledge to the table. There are even chapters looking at how Christians can measure progress and help change society. Regarding the former, for example, the authors argue that we have to move past simplistic numbers and into real change in order to measure progress. They offer a number of ways of doing so that will challenge individuals and organizations.
Every chapter has discussion questions and a prayer.
Faithful Anti-Racism is an excellent read for individuals or groups looking to actively oppose racism in society. Recommended.
Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Isn’t suppressing comments an admission of the weakness of a position? For example, a comment asking for clarification of the book author’s rejecting or downplaying use of numerical metrics to measure progress?
What are you talking about?
My previous comment which was removed.
Your comments, including this one, keep getting filtered to spam. Not sure why. Did it have a lot of links?
I don’t think it had any links. Regardless I’m still interested in a clarification of why the book authors were rejecting or downplaying use of numerical metrics to measure progress?
Well just an example, it’s easy to say “look our church/school/business has employed x% of minority x, we are winning at diversity!” When in reality that doesn’t necessarily reflect genuine equity or equality.
You’ve raised more issues than you have resolved. How is “genuine equity or equality” measured or evaluated? Anyone can say an organization hasn’t done enough, but on what objective basis?
At this point maybe it’s worth reading the book.
You’re beginning to learn how to play the game, JW. Have you been getting some coaching?
Instead of suppressing comments, which hurts your credibility, you’re now using the more effective strategy of making a pretense of being responsive through multiple replies that don’t really address the question. It’s stonewalling, a much more sophisticated approach. People get paid good money to do this, for example damage control in press conferences.
However I’m not sure it’s worth $20 or so to buy the book to find the answer to my question, an answer which a person transparently acting in good faith should be happy to provide.
This is an incredible comment, which includes psychoanalysis from afar. Well, let me fill you in: I’m on vacation, don’t have access to the book right now, I’ve moved and that book might be in a box somewhere, anywhere, or accidentally put in the take to Half Price Books pile, and libraries and interlibrary loans exist. But yeah, just make up some story assuming that I’m executing some Machiavellian plan just so I don’t have to summarize and explain an entire thesis from a book to you, which you could access yourself with even the slightest effort at a local library.
“just so I don’t have to summarize and explain an entire thesis from a book”
I asked one simple question about one thing missing from your review. You have repeatedly failed to reply meaningfully: first by deleting my comment, and subsequently by replying in ways that don’t address the issue.
Grossly mischaracterizing my request still doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion. You did, however, eventually come up with a credible-sounding excuse in this most recent iteration.
“psychoanalysis from afar”
Really? I just pointed out a pattern I’ve often seen in Internet forums. I did not infer any psychological conditions among the diversity of people who use those tactics.
I did t delete any comments. Your comment/s were and still have been filtered to spam. Whatever one was allegedly deleted must be there somewhere but I either can’t find it (there are hundreds of spam comments weekly) or it auto-deleted from there.
The rest of your comment suggests to me that you’re not willing to engage with what I said no explained what’s going on, and you didn’t even acknowledge that. Okay, bye. I don’t have time or even the ability to answer more meaningfully right now, as I explained already. And I did explain in short, but you’re unsatisfied with it. Not really my problem.
OK I apologize.