Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Why I Reject the Racial Reconciliation Argument: Interacting with Jarvis Williams Pt. 7



 Qualification: This post deals with the gospel of racial reconciliation as defined by men like Jarvis Williams, Russell Moore, and others over at The Gospel Coalition. You can either read the argument outlined in this post and weigh it against Scripture or you can decide that I am just a trouble-maker looking to stir things up. The choice is yours.

Recently The Gospel Coalition posted an article entitled "Jesus is not Colorblind." Now, the article is poking fun at a mindset that I think is actually impossible to reject without running the risk of being a melanin-centric bigot. Yeah, my expression. I coined it. Credit me when you use it, please. A melanin-centric bigot is someone who forms attitudes about others based solely on melanin as their criteria. The "colorblind" mindset is a mindset that says I refuse to define you based on the absence or presence of melanin I see in your skin. That is a good thing since the opposite position says I am going to define you based on the absence or presence of melanin I see in your skin, especially if that means you will make moral values about someone based on that criterion. That is like me defining you by your ear size or hair and eye color. It's the kind of thinking that should be dispensed with these days.

Now, to be sure, Jesus is not colorblind--at least not in the way TGC has framed it--but he is also not obsessed with melanin in the way that modern Americans are either. He just wasn't. In fact, one has to look no further than God's rebuke of the prophet Samuel to understand that God does NOT look on man's outward appearance. God told the prophet point blank: "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7)." So, if TGC means the colorblind mindset, then Scripture offers a harsh contradiction to their claim. Jesus actually is colorblind. Sounded good when you said it. Lots of things do. Trouble is, it isn't true. And who better to tell us that it isn't true than God himself. 

Now, the reason I reject the racial reconciliation movement is not that I like division. It is not that I am a racist. It is not that I just want to disagree with people for the sake of being disagreeable. The reason I reject it is because it is not the gospel. And, more than that, it isn't even a gospel issue. Racial reconciliation is not a gospel issue. If it is anything, it is a sanctification issue. The New Testament shows us how the early church viewed the human race. First, the early church viewed the human race as one race. Paul said, And he made from one man every nation of mankind. The Greek says, he made from one all the nations of mankind and then he determined their allotted times and boundaries (Acts 17:26). The New Testament recognizes nationality, but it nowhere categorizes people based on physical features like melanin. For this reason, it is a bad argument to claim that since modern culture has created a category arbitrarily based on melanin that we must accept it. The Scripture does not support it. Science does not support it. The Church should decide not to support it and teach its community accordingly. Just like I refuse to acknowledge that the man who has had a sex-change operation is now a woman, I refuse to acknowledge that it is appropriate to class human beings into groups based on skin tone and refer to them as "races." I will not use the feminine pronoun with a boy who wants to self-identify as a girl.

The NT focuses its classification on people much differently. The focus is on Jews and Gentiles, the children of God and the children of the devil, the righteous and the unrighteous. Since we are the church, why not eradicate this modern nonsense and replace it with biblical talk? Perhaps that kind of talk doesn't really support someone's pet agenda. Who knows?  So, there are black people, brown people, white people, red people, and yellow people. But there isn't a yellow race or a red race, etc. There are English, Irish, German, Africans (of numerous people groups), native Americans (of numerous people groups) etc. I have no problem saying that this person is a black or brown German or Irishman, etc. This becomes an issue when a society starts to flock together around certain physical characteristics for whatever reason and then that group begins to form a culture within a culture. This is actually the area where the Scriptures have something to say about people groups coming into tension with one another. (This will be addressed later in this post.)

In an article published by National Geographic, Elizabeth Kolbert writes, “Over the past few decades, genetic research has revealed two deep truths about people. The first is that all humans are closely related—more closely related than all chimps, even though there are many more humans around today. Everyone has the same collection of genes, but with the exception of identical twins, everyone has slightly different versions of some of them. Studies of this genetic diversity have allowed scientists to reconstruct a kind of family tree of human populations. That has revealed the second deep truth: In a very real sense, all people alive today are Africans.” Now, this is exactly what we would expect to find as we read the Bible. Of course, the article is written from a philosophical standpoint that flies in the face of Scripture, but that does not change the fact that the data itself, apart from that philosophy, agrees with the basic claims of Scripture regarding human origins. Human beings are descended from one man and one woman created by God a few thousand years ago.

As it turns out, nearly everything most modern Americans including Christians believe about race and even skin tone is wrong. The last time I checked, when your view reflects bad information, you adjust your view to reflect the new, more accurate information. What you don’t do is defend a practice or behavior that has been always based on bad information. Science suggests that skin tone, where it is geographically related, more about the health of the individual than it is anything else. A darker tone protects humans who live closer to the equator where they are exposed to more Sun while people who are located closer to the poles have lighter skin to help promote the production of vitamin D. Additionally, it is the white skin tone that reflects a mutation in the gene known as SLC24A5. The difference is tiny. The point is that no two human beings, outside of identical twins are identical. That society would classify humans based on this tiny mutation in this gene and formulate all sorts of crazy theories around this difference is absurd. My suggestion then is to change the conversation regarding racial reconciliation because, for starters, it only serves to reinforce past ignorance. I believe it is a bad practice to reinforce past ignorance. It is a bad practice to provide fodder for such ignorant thinking. Some will say that they want to preserve their culture. I think its fine to preserve cultural practices that are based on legitimate family traditions. But the desire to preserve cultural practices that are based on pseudo-science deserves a good deal of scrutiny. Additionally, if a cultural practice is contrary to the teachings and ethics of Christianity, it must be rejected regardless of the culture it comes from and regardless of the age of that tradition. So, I reject racial reconciliation because it reinforces thinking that is the product of pseudo-science. And I reject racial reconciliation because it is not the gospel issue its proponents claim.

A third reason I reject racial reconciliation is that the work of reconciliation is complete. Here is why I think this way: Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:17-19). The language is explicit. This is how Paul describes us and it is how we should describe ourselves. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household (Eph. 2:19). Only when we embrace this mindset will we begin to experience a community of believers that are united in the truth of the gospel! The racial reconciliation movement has latched onto the wrong end of the dragon.

We have fellowship with God and with one another: but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). The Greek word koinonia means, close association involving mutual interests and sharing, association, communion, fellowship, close relationship. We are already in close association with one another. We are not estranged. And if we are not estranged, we do not need to be reconciled with one another. The kind of fellowship John is talking about is the fellowship that exists in Christ which means that I am joined with my brothers and sisters in far-away places in the world even though I have never physically seen them or personally met them. I am joined with them in fellowship as members of the one body of Christ.

We are all one chosen race, meaning people group: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy (1 Peter 2:9-10). This is what the church actually is. We are now a chosen race, chosen by God. Isa. 43:21 says “The people who I formed for myself will declare my praise.” That is who we are and what we are to do!

We are one body and as such, even legitimate people group tags, such as Jew and Gentile, or English and African, no longer define us. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise (Gal. 2:26-29). What makes us the same? We are all sons of God through faith in Christ. That is what makes us the same.

In Romans 8:15, Paul says we belong to the same family: For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” In Christ, through the power of the gospel, both Jews and Gentiles are now one family, having been adopted by God in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Being in the same family now, we are one new man. Even if you wanted to talk about this in terms of reconciliation, we have been reconciled. The work is complete. There is no division.

Does this mean that it is impossible for some Christians to think improperly about other Christians based on the gene SLC24A5? Of course not. There are people who profess to be Christian whose only reason for hating another person is precisely this gene. Any person guilty of this kind of behavior is guilty of sin. Any person guilty of sin must be confronted with that sin and corrected. If that person refuses to repent, one or two witnesses must confront the person regarding their sin. And should that person persist in that sin, that church should be informed. If that person refuses to listen to the church and repent of their racism, they should be excommunicated and treated like an unbeliever. This is the biblical way to handle racism in the body of Christ. It is a repugnant sin just like adultery, fornication, other forms of hate, lying, etc., that has no place in the body. In 1 Cor. 5:11 Paul writes, But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. The English word translated ‘reviler’ in the NASB is loidoros in the Greek. It means one who engages in slander. All racists fit this category just as all adulterers fit the category of pornos, or immoral. The church has no business tolerating such behavior in its community. But we are talking about a community where, according to one recent study, 68% of men watch porn regularly. Where illicit divorce is as common as it is in the ungodly culture in which it finds itself. Think about this: when was the last time someone in your church was actually excommunicated? Have you ever observed anyone actually being removed from the body unwillingly because of their obstinance? Most Christians will likely answer, never!

The obsession in the church with racial reconciliation is the product of leaders who have failed for years now to involve those whom God has given them in anything remotely resembling quality biblical discipleship. The leaders who are barking racial reconciliation are the very men responsible for the conditions they claim they are trying to fix. The irony is that these very same leaders are the men who continue to neglect the practice of making disciples and equipping the saints to this very hour. Do you really want a healthy, unified church with the right focus? Then start making disciples and stop managing your kingdom. Put as much energy into equipping the saints as you do other activities and you will be shocked at what happens. Actually, no, put more energy into making disciples and equipping the body than you do other activities.

All this means that I should take my focus off the gene SLC24A5. Now is a great time for the church to repent and lead the way forward where this topic is concerned. Now is always the best time for repentance. We begin by adjusting our thinking to match the teaching of Scripture on this subject. We reject definitions that are determined by the pagan culture. We embrace a biblical view of the church. We are one man in Christ. We acknowledge that social constructs such as race are usually contrary to Scripture and in this case, it is even contrary to science. Then, and only then, can we begin to teach our children to think properly about how society defines race, why it is wrong, and how it contradicts Christian principles. I am not interested in the past. And no, this will not solve mistreatment by others in this godless culture. But you are misguided if you think the church can or should strive to solve the issue of racism. I prefer to work on the problem of how we react to such mistreatment. That is something you can control, and you must. It’s called walking in the Spirit.

Does this mean that Christians who have darker skin tone have not and do not suffer from ungodly attitudes in society? Of course, they suffer from such attitudes. There are all kinds of ungodly people in all kinds of different positions of power and influence in this society and in every society, who form opinions of others based on a variety of different criteria. Do we, the church, have control over those attitudes? No, we do not. Should we? No, we should not. Does the black Christian have control over those attitudes? No, he doesn’t. But he has control over his own attitude. Should he be able to control that situation? No, he should not. But he can control how he thinks about it and responds to it. God has determined the boundaries of our existence. Paul tells us this in Acts 17 as clearly as it could be told to us. Discrimination based on skin tone, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, and a number of other factors is a product of the fall and a fact of reality with which every Christian has to grapple. How you decide to respond to such discrimination and mistreatment says volumes about the nature of your faith, your view of the church, and even the sort of gospel you embrace. True Christians have been the most marginalized people group the world has ever known throughout its entire history. Modern racism has nothing on the marginalization of true Christians for the last 2,000 years.

In summary then, are white Christians and black Christians estranged from one another? According to Scripture, all genuine Christians are one new man, one chosen race, one holy family in Christ. Therefore, we are not estranged from each other. If we are not estranged from each other, why then do we need to be reconciled? The proponents of racial reconciliation will make the following statements as proof that we are estranged from one another.

First and foremost, most white Christians attend predominantly white churches and most black Christians attend predominantly black churches. Follow the thinking here. The proponents of racial reconciliation want us to believe that this fact means there is a problem in the churches. But does it? How does this practice in and of itself demonstrate that there is a racial (SLC24A5) problem in the churches? The truth is that it doesn't. I drive by several white churches to get to my church. I do not believe this makes me divisive or estranged from the Christians in those churches. There is a church about a mile from my house. It is Baptist. I am Baptist. But I prefer NOT to worship there. I am a Reformed Baptist with deep convictions about Reformed theology. That Baptist church has deep convictions that are antithetical to Reformed theology. In Christ, we are one. But my preference is to serve under leaders who share my theological perspective. Does that mean I hate the other church? Not at all. I don't worship in a Lutheran church or a Presbyterian church. I could do so. But I choose not to. Does that mean that I am estranged from Mike Kruger or Chris Rosebrough? Absolutely not! To say that our churches ought to be SLC24A5 diverse has no basis in Scripture and it does not mean we are racists if they are not. People select the church they are in for numerous reasons, some of them good, some of the not so good. We should exercise care in how we approach this conversation. There are music styles, preaching styles, and personality styles and theological beliefs that drive this decision. Like I said, some of these are acceptable and good, and others, not so much.

Certain practices, attitudes, and beliefs are going to create division, and because of the fall, that is unavoidable. The racial reconciliation movement, as far as I can tell, never talks about theological unity and what makes for legitimate godly division. For instance, is the gospel really about ending oppression in this world? Is the resurrection of Christ, as MLK said, about good overcoming evil like civil rights putting an end to segregation? These beliefs about the gospel are bound to clash with the true gospel. And when they do, tension and division are inevitable. Take the Martin Luther King Jr. celebration for instance. As great a civil rights leader as he was, and that he was, Martin Luther King was nowhere close to being orthodox or evangelical in his views on Christ, the gospel, or the Bible. These are heartbeat issues in evangelicalism. Yet, men who should know better, men like Jarvis Williams and Russell Moore, are leading an event that celebrates Martin Luther King as a great Christian leader. It feels like his wonderful accomplishments in the area of civil rights are ipso fact accomplishments in the realm of the church. They were not. This is being done in the spirit of racial reconciliation. King was surely the wonderful civil rights leader, but he was certainly not a wonderful Christian leader. The problem here is that those who know the truth about King’s theology will make judgments about Williams and Moore. I cannot join hands with someone who believes that King’s theology was acceptable and that because he accomplished so much as a civil rights leader, that makes up for what amounts to outright heresy in his Christian beliefs. If one of the necessary conditions for me to be “reconciled” to black Christians everywhere is the endorsement of King as a great gospel preacher, then for me, division is unavoidable. If I were a black Christian and someone said that I had to endorse say, Andy Stanley in order to be reconciled with white Christians, I would respond in exactly the same fashion. On the principle of truth, I cannot be joined to Martin Luther King on his theology even though I agree with his civil rights principles wholeheartedly. Where is concerns men like King, I follow Paul, who said, Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them (Rom. 16:17).

What is racism? Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Does it exist in our society? It exists in every godless society throughout the world. That is pretty much all of them. But racism is only one form of hatred and discrimination among many. God will judge the world for its racism. We must judge those who are brothers and sisters, so-called and remove them either through repentance or excommunication. (1 Cor. 5:12-13)

God does not look on the outward appearance of man. Neither should we. If you think that idea means not seeing the real you, then perhaps you don’t see the real you either. The real you is the person God sees when he looks at you. God sees your values, your principles, your ethics, your beliefs. God sees the real you. What you see in the mirror is not the real you. When you see yourself breaking the law of God revealed in Scripture, that is the real you. God, as our creator, is the only one qualified and authorized to provide us with our identity. If you want to know the real you, become better acquainted with Scripture. It is there that you will find your true self.


Monday, March 26, 2018

Race, Racism, and the Gospel: Interacting with Jarvis Williams (part 6)


 This post is the 6th post in a series of posts that I have placed on my blog recently (in rapid-fire I might add). The topic concerns the racial reconciliation movement that is being driven mostly out of Southern Baptists quarters. The most conspicuous men disseminating this concept are Jarvis Williams, a professor at Southern Seminary, and Russell Moore, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. These men are attempting to increase the focus of Southern Baptists on the issues of race in American culture (or so it seems) as well as in the church. The two basic foci centered around this topic are basically these: a focus on race as defined by levels of melanin and re-defining the mission of the church as extending into social, cultural, and political activism. Williams seems to lead the former while Moore tends to lead the latter. In the last post in this series, which is likely to be part 7 or 8, a final evaluation of these two streams will be offered in hopes of providing a better way forward.

Ideas have consequences. And I want to spend a few words talking about some of the consequences I have witnessed regarding this subject. Recently, I came across a young minister who has embraced the philosophy that undergirds the racial reconciliation movement that I have been evaluating. This young man penned an article over at The Witness. This website used to be called the Reformed African American Network. It is now called “The Witness: A Black Christian Collective.” I met with the young man to discuss the contents of his article and to express my concern about how far he had taken it. The purpose of this post is to spend a few brief paragraphs interacting with his article in order to demonstrate the negative impact that faulty thinking and poor arguments can have on real people in real churches. My goal is to challenge you to think better about this topic.

I think it is a good idea to disclose the basic presuppositions that I bring to this conversation before I get to the subject matter of the post. First, Scripture alone is our final authority for evaluating the theology behind the racial reconciliation movement. Second, I am speaking of the Church, not American culture, not the civil governments, and not society in general. Third, because melanin is an unscientific way to define race, and because melanin as a racial category is an arbitrary social construct that is inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture, it is perfectly acceptable to reject it. And I do reject it. Fourth, the mission of the church is not to shape the culture, influence society, or to impose on civil authorities. The mission of the church is to preach the gospel, baptize converts, and make disciples who will observe everything that Jesus commanded them to do. Fifth, if the mission of the church is to shape the culture, influence society, or impose on civil authorities, we should see that mission modeled by the first-century church. We do not see this anywhere in the NT. Therefore, we should not include such activities as gospel issues or issues that are central to the mission of the church.

Regarding the article, “Don’t Waste Your Black History Month,” it should be noted right away that the language used in the article is provocative and aggressive. The author refers to himself as a black Christian and the culture in which he finds himself as a “predominantly white context.” It is concerning that a Christian leader would be so non-critical in embracing pagan views about both himself and his culture. This is one of the most basic behaviors we endeavor to change as new believers in Christ. We recognize we are no longer of the world and therefore, we seek to purge the world’s way of thinking from our way of thinking. As Christians, we seek to embrace our new identity in Christ. We must put to death our old sinful cultural attitude and social outlook and replace it with one that is biblical.

One observation that stands out about the racial reconciliation narrative is that missing from its concerns is the basic responsibility that every Christian has, including every black Christian, to their pagan culture. And that responsibility is to be a witness of Christ for the gospel to their respective culture. If a person is not careful, he may find himself so obsessed with melanin and with a certain subset of injustices in the world perceived to be related to melanin, that he completely loses sight of the fact that his first priority is to live and proclaim the gospel in a culture that, for any number of reasons, is going to be hostile toward him. It seems a serious conflict to me that if, while sharing the love of Christ with someone, you are at the same time accusing them of being a white supremacist, or a racist, or a bigot, merely based on their environment. If the perception among white Americans is that black Christians view them as bigots just because they are white, then how is the black Christian supposed to be an effective witness for the gospel? I fear this fact is lost on many of those who are pushing this agenda. Perhaps it is a good idea for us to remind ourselves that should God will it, we may find ourselves in a sinful culture that hates and oppresses us for all kinds of unjust reasons. But that should not deter our love for the sinner and our focus on living and giving the gospel in that culture. I am quite sure that the first-century church was far more oppressed than anyone in our day. Yet, they enthusiastically published the truth of the gospel even to the cruelest of oppressors. They showed no signs whatsoever of engaging in activities geared toward ending their oppression. They accepted the oppression from the hand of God just as Jesus commanded. Either I am dead to self, or I am not. This is bone-chilling truth for sure. But truth it is. The pill is bitter. But let us not suppose that its bitterness shall not turn out for our own sweetness and for the glory of God. Indeed, it will! Even Paul’s imprisonment was for the furtherance of the gospel. I wonder how many leaders in the racial reconciliation movement would have been far more interested in ending Paul’s imprisonment than was Paul himself. Paul embraced his persecution. How far modern Christians in the West have wondered from a biblical attitude of suffering!

The young minister who authored this article says that the church needs to work to combat white normalcy. Immediately I am put off by the expression. I find it incredibly unhelpful to the discussion. It carries an us-them connotation and a narcissistic superiority complex that should be avoided at all costs. I have a feeling that white normalcy could mean something like, this is the way we do it or have done it at our house or in our neighborhood or our church for years so that is how it should be done. If that is the case, then there must be a better way to say it. And if that is the case, then someone will have to explain to me why my cultural traditions are bad just because they are white, black, or brown. The first mistake is to associate cultural practices with melanin or the lack thereof. Why do that? Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 10 tells us not to impose on the culture unnecessarily, but when and where possible, to accommodate ourselves to it. Everyone thinks their way of doing things is the traditional (normal) way of doing things. You see, normal only means the usual way of doing things. The author’s use of the word normal is regrettable and unhelpful. He wants to exchange normal in the sense of usual for normal in the sense of proper or natural, or even right or preferred or prescribed. If he truly means normal in the sense that every other way of doing things is immoral or inferior in some way, this would be a bigger problem. Additionally, if the author means "white normalcy" in society, then he couldn't be more wrong about the church having a duty to combat it. That isn't the business of the Christian church. That is mission drift. It is culture shaping. Culture shaping is passively incidental where it concerns the church if it happens at all.

The author goes on to tell us how we can combat white normalcy. He is operating on the assumption that it will take a long time for us to purge racist thinking from our attitudes. He says that it is deeply embedded in us because of the 400+ years of slavery. This sort of assumption reflects the kind of thinking we would find in someone devoid of the Spirit, not someone filled the Spirit and the Word of God. Yet, here the author is, Spirit-filled, shaping young minds at a conservative Bible-believing church, propagating the kind of nonsense that only someone walking in tune with the attitudes of our pagan culture would propagate. The author is not thinking about the role of the Spirit in the work of sanctification at all and there is a disturbing reason for this that I shall come to shortly.

The author gives us three suggestions if we want to combat white normalcy: 1) institute affirmative action for the pastoral staff; 2) institute affirmative action for the books you recommend; 3) institute affirmative action for conference speakers. There you have it. Affirmative action is the solution to the problem of racism in the church. How could anyone take seriously the qualifications for ministry and at the same time imply that the qualifications for pastoral staff outlined in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 be modified to accommodate the principle of affirmative action?

The author makes the following remark: If Christians are serious about proclaiming a gospel to all people, they must work diligently to combat the notion that Christianity is simply a white man’s religion that black and brown Christians may benefit from. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of inflammatory insolence. In other words, unless Christians accept the author's view and adopt his advice, then they are not serious about proclaiming the gospel to all people. Unless a church institutes affirmative action in its hiring practices for every position to include its pastoral staff, then that church is not serious about proclaiming the gospel to all people? And this young minister, after receiving pushback, held to his view. That is an incredibly arrogant and outrageous thing to say. There isn’t a shred of support for that language in Scripture. However, it permeates American culture and certain ideologies within that culture.

The young man goes on to say that “Addressing racism solely at the individual level does very little to alleviate the problem and even works to frustrate minority voices. A deeper understanding of worldview and the doctrine of sin are needed.”  Notice that the solution offered, whatever it is, must be one that minority voices condone. That it must not frustrate minority voices is one of the criteria for providing an acceptable and workable solution. The problem with this view is that the author is advocating for something that is outside the control of the church as well as the mission of the church. What the church is concerned about is making disciples, not racial equality in the culture. The church is only concerned about racism in its membership because racism is a sin. It is contrary to Christian love and unity. There is no other way to deal with racism than at the individual level. It is racism in the individual heart that is the issue. And that really isn’t the issue as much as it is an absence of the Spirit of God in the heart of the racist that is the real problem. Racist thinking, like any other thinking, if it is in a person’s mindset, is purged from their thinking through the work of the Holy Spirit as He applies the word to that person’s life. But the author thinks such an approach only frustrates minority voices. The goal and aim of biblical truth is not to make ease anyone’s frustration. It is to glorify God by proclaiming the truth. If addressing racism at the individual level, which is where it belongs, perhaps it is better for these minority voices to explore the real source of their frustration. Why the frustration? We all must search our hearts for how much of "me" is running my life versus how much of God is running it.

One stunning admission by this young man, a young minister at a conservative Bible-believing church is that he isn’t interested in the sanctification of the individual. He said to focus on racism at the individual level, which is to focus on racism as a sin, racism in the area of sanctification only serves to frustrate minority voices. This can only mean that, in the thinking of this young man anyways, minority voices are not nearly as concerned with the sanctification of the body as they are about racial reconciliation as it is defined by these leaders. And we have already seen that one of the solutions to this problem offered by this same young minister is affirmative action.

The second sentence in the author’s statement reveals a deep-seated narcissism in his thinking that requires serious attention. He thinks that he has a special ability of sorts to see what “white Christians” apparently cannot see because of their “whiteness.” I have read this sort of thinking in the writings of others who are involved in this movement. It smacks of extreme arrogance to say that one has to be black to truly understand the issues. The apostles never thought this way. Spirit-filled Christians ought not to think this way. I am pretty sure that men like Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Van Til, MacArthur, and others have a pretty good understanding of the doctrine of sin and worldview.

The next time someone starts talking about things like “white supremacy” or “white normalcy” or “white privilege” or “racial reconciliation,” ask for definitions and specificity. Ask for examples. The young minister who penned this article seems to be very engrossed in the racial reconciliation literature. One would think that if asked for examples of the problem in his local church, he would be able to provide plenty without hesitation. So, when I met with him, I asked for exactly that. The best he could do was tell me that some of the black Christians in his church felt left out when white families did not include them in lunch, get-togethers, etc. I told the young man that I don't get included in those things either, but I don't think it has anything to do with me personally or my skin color. Why should I? For this young author, if he reads this, the question is this: when a black Christian complains that they are left out or marginalized in some way and they attach the reason to melanin, have you ever asked them why they think that is the reason. Have you ever asked them to search their heart to make sure they are not hypocritically judging their brothers or sisters? Why would your default assumption be, as it seems to me is so often the case, it must be due to melanin? Additionally, have you asked them if they ever invite others to lunch or to get together on their own initiative? Relationships and discipleship is a two-way street. Why anyone thinks that such activities ought to always be flowing in just one direction is incredibly puzzling to me. Many Christians, if not most, are simply not good at bringing new people into their world. That is a legitimate challenge with which we all to one degree or another need help.

Racism and bigotry is a sin. It has no business existing in the life of any Christian. We should examine our hearts always to ensure that our attitudes reflect the attitude of Christ. To think less of someone because of melanin levels in any way whatsoever is both ignorant and ungodly. Contrary to what is heard over and over again in this conversation, racism is not a white man’s sin. It is a human sin. In my next post, I will provide a final critique of racial reconciliation and the threat it represents to the gospel. That will leave me with one final post in this series which will discuss a better way forward.

There is one final observation to make. Jesus personally gave the church her orders, her mission if you will. When we read those orders, outlined explicitly in Matthew 28 more so than anywhere else in Scripture, we discover that the mission of the church is to preach the gospel, to baptize converts, and to make disciples by teaching them to observe everything Jesus commanded. Well, Jesus did command us to love one another, to walk in the unity of the truth as one man, to be of the same mind if you will. That means treating racism as an individual sin that no disciple of Christ should ever practice. But for the young minister who authored the article, and for others like Williams and Moore, it seems to me that they have some ideas about loving your neighbor that Jesus failed to mention. One of them is shaping the pagan culture and government policy by fighting institutional or systemic racism as well as numerous other social causes. Odd that Jesus never mentioned anything remotely resembling anything like that. Of course, these men love to go back into the Old Testament Theocracy and impose laws from that era on the church. But they know very well that they are cherry-picking the text. As the body of Christ, and as leaders in the body of Christ, we should expect better from these men. Please understand that I am not indicting anyone’s faith by these posts. I am simply challenging their theories and refuting their arguments where I think such refutation is appropriate. And in case you are wondering, no, I don’t give a nickel for politics. I just plain don’t care who these men are, who they know, and what kind of influence they have come to enjoy. I do care about people who read my representation of Christianity. I am hopeful that God will be pleased with how I present his truth and represent his presence in the world. That much I do care about, and I care about it deeply.

If you have any questions about the true gospel as handed down beginning with Jesus, through his holy Apostles to the church, here is the record of Luke 24:44-49:

Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."