Confronting Racism in the Church
Sermon preached at 2010 IL/MO state conference. Republished with permission from Baptist Bulletin Jan/Feb 2011. All rights reserved.
By Greg Randle
In 1865 General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas, to declare to slaves there that they were free. The order that General Granger took to those slaves had been signed two and a half years earlier. So although the people had been pronounced free nearly three years before, they did not know it until the general came and told them. In essence they were still slaves. They thought like slaves. They talked like slaves. They even lived like they were slaves.
Already Free
We have a lot of Christians today who are still thinking like slaves, still talking like slaves, still living like slaves. Although our emancipation proclamation was signed two thousand years ago by the blood of Jesus, we still don’t know how to treat one another in the Lord. God wants us to be able to come together in the Body of Christ regardless of our racial background, regardless of our ethnicity—to come and experience unity and fellowship one with another. In fact, Galatians 2 challenges us about an issue that we’ve been dealing with since the beginning of time: racism. Racism is the institutional power used to hold down a certain race of people through injustice or other unkind means. And the last place we should see racism is in the church of Jesus Christ.
Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, confronted this issue. We see Peter’s failure, and Paul’s freedom to help him overcome his failure.
Peter’s Failure
Peter failed on the issue of racism because he forgot. Galatians 2:11 says, “When Peter had come to Antioch”; we could stop right there. Peter forgot where he was. Antioch was no place to be a racist. It was one of the largest cities of its time, with over half a million people. It was a bustling multiracial city. Not only was it a multiracial city, but Antioch had a multiracial church with a multiracial leadership staff (Acts 13:1). One of the brothers was called Niger (not that other word, but “Niger”), who was from Africa. So there were Jews and Gentiles worshiping together in the city and in the church of Antioch. We need to be diverse. But Peter forgot. He thought he was in a tomato-soup church. No, Peter, you were in a gumbo church. Tomato soup is one color and it’s bland. But a gumbo-soup church has crab legs in it and rice. There’s all kind of flavor in a gumbo church, in the church of Antioch.
How could Peter forget this when God had been teaching him all through the book of Acts? Peter stood and saw all of these people get filled with the Holy Ghost and start speaking with different languages (Acts 2:5, 6). Peter said that these folks weren’t drunk (v. 14). It wasn’t early enough for them to get high off that wine. Those people were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 4). I think that’s the key to knocking down racism.
God used these people from all these nations to show Peter diversity.
Then He took Peter to my brother Cornelius, that Italian brother (Acts 10:1) who worked at Olive Garden. Peter walked in, and God gave him this culinary vision (vv. 10–12) to try to show him—because God knows something about food and fellowship with Christians: if folks can get the food right, the fellowship and all other things work out all right. God showed Peter that He has not made anything uncommon and unclean.
God taught Peter in Acts 2. He taught him in Acts 10. Then He taught him in Acts 15. There was a missionary Baptist church meeting, where some were saying that Gentiles needed to get saved by keeping circumcision. Peter stood up and told them that you don’t need something extra to get saved. Just come as you are. They found out there’s no distinction between classes, color, or cultures, for Jesus is the Savior for all people.
But Peter forgot that. Why? Because of his tradition. Maybe Peter’s momma told him, “We don’t associate with them kind.” It’s our tradition. We all have a propensity to bring our culture and impress it upon the text. You don’t come to the text and unload; you come to the text to dig up. You don’t impose your culture on the Bible; the Bible imposes culture on you. So white folks make Jesus and they anglicize Him: He’s got blue eyes and this long, pretty hair. Black folks, they Africanize Him, and they give Him a big old Afro, and He’s saying, “Ungawa, black power.” Hispanics “Hispanicize” Him. (I don’t know if that’s a word, but it sounds good.) We’re all wrong. Jesus was not a white man. Jesus was not a black man. Jesus was not a Hispanic man. Jesus was a Jew.
If you want to know how He looked, turn over to Matthew—He’s a king. Seek His kingdom first and all His righteousness. A king has always got a kingdom.
You turn over to Mark, and He’s a servant: For the Son of man didn’t come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many.
You turn over to Luke and you see His humanity, for He came to seek and save the lost.
You turn over to John, and you see Him as the God of God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). So you’ve got the preexisting Christ, Who became the prerecorded Christ. For “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” We got us an awesome God! If you can’t get excited about the gospel, we’ve got some problems.
Peter failed not only because he forgot where he was, not only because of his racial background, but he failed because of his fear. Look at Galatians 2:12: “For before certain men came from James, [Peter] would eat with the Gentiles.” What’s going on? Peter came into Antioch, and he started looking for a Ray’s BBQ Shack. He could smell that pork, so he would cross the tracks and go down to Ray’s BBQ Shack and order him some baby back ribs. But the Bible says his homeys came down from Jerusalem, these Jewish Christians, and saw Peter sitting at the table eating them pork chops and them chitlins, and they said, “Peter, what’s wrong with you?” (v. 12).
“Would eat” speaks of an action that started in the past but that’s still going on in the present. So Peter wasn’t eating pork chops just on Friday; he wasn’t eating pork chops just on Saturday. He would stop by there after the church service and go in there and order him some fried chicken, some collard greens, some corn bread, some yams, and some peach cobbler and Breyers ice cream. And he had his eat on. But when the Jews came, the Bible says Peter got afraid (v. 12).
What are you afraid of when it comes to cross-cultural relationships? Verse 12 says that when the Jewish believers came, Peter “withdrew and separated himself” from the Gentile believers. Anytime you’re in leadership and you mess up, it causes other folks to mess up. The rest of the Jews followed Peter and his hypocrisy right out the door (v. 13). How do you think that made those Gentile brothers feel? “It was okay to eat with me as long as it was just us. But as soon as your little proper people come, then you act like you don’t know me no more.”
Did you know that it’s not the visitors’ job to make themselves feel welcome. It’s the church home and the family—it’s your job to make people feel welcome. If I came into your church, with my African American self, would I feel welcome? Or would everybody start grabbing their purses, hoping that I don’t rob somebody?
When we were up in Grand Rapids looking at a college for our daughter, we visited a huge, predominantly Caucasian church on a Wednesday night. We sat down in the sanctuary. I thought, Maybe the teacher will acknowledge that he has visitors. No.
I said, “Well, maybe all of the people there can certainly tell we’re visitors, ‘cause we’re the only ‘ones’ there.” No.
My wife said, “Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go.” I said, “No, no. Let’s stand in the hallway and see if somebody is going to speak to us.” We stood in the main hallway, and everybody just walked by like we were invisible.
What are you trying to tell me and my wife? That we don’t count? The same blood that washed my sins is the same blood that washed your sins.
God says don’t be a hypocrite. What’s a hypocrite? A hypocrite is a person who lets you see something on the outside that’s not indicative of what’s going on, on the inside. Don’t be a hypocrite. Don’t be afraid.
Paul’s Freedom
So what did Paul do? He used his freedom to alleviate Peter’s fears so Peter could be set free.
Paul said that the first thing to do to overcome racism is confront it. Does Galatians 2:11 say, “When Peter was come to Antioch, I sent him a text message?” Or “I sent him an e-mail?” No. When somebody sins publicly, we need to deal with them publicly. We need to deal face-to-face.
What’s our problem? There’s too much pragmatism in the church and not enough “Biblicalism.” What am I saying? In the church today there’s no more concern about authenticity or character or integrity. All we’re concerned about is that the ends justify the means. The church is twenty miles wide and two inches deep. The issue should never be how many people you have in your church. The issue is what kind of people are in your church.
Paul had a lot of audacity. Here’s Peter, who has been on the trail a whole lot longer than Paul. Paul says, “I don’t care if you’re the senior pastor. If you’re a racist and you’re not doing right, I’m going to confront you to your face!”
What else do we need to do? Paul wrote in verse 14, “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” We need to speak up, because racism is not the truth of the gospel.
The gospel is for everybody. It’s not about traditions; it’s about truth. It’s not about culture; it’s about Christ. It’s not about what you want, but about what God wants. Stand for the truth of the gospel.
How are we going to confront and end racism? By taking a stand like Joshua, who stood up and said, “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).
We must take a stand like Elijah when he said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him” (1 Kings 18:21). We have to take a stand like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who said, “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king” (Daniel 3:16–18).
We just need a few good men and a few good women who won’t take expediency but will take a stand for God. God can do it if you let Him use you. But we’ve got to be real. I’ll close with this story.
The gorilla at a zoo died. The zoo couldn’t afford to buy a new gorilla, but they still had people coming to see the gorilla. So they bought a gorilla suit and looked for somebody to play the gorilla. An unemployed gymnast said, “I can do that.” He put on the gorilla suit and started jumping around, swinging on ropes and stuff. Everybody came to see him, because most gorillas just sit and look at you when you come to the zoo.
Then he thought, I’ll just do some more tricks so my job is secure. He got on his rope and swung over to the next cage. The next cage was a lion’s cage. Every time the man swung that way, the whole crowd yelled, “Whoa!” and then he’d swing back. Then he’d go back again, and they’d yell, “Whoa!”
One day, just as he swung over the lion’s cage, the rope broke. “HELLLLLLLLLP!” He let out a real yell before hitting the ground. The lion came over to him and, whispering in his ear, said, “Shut up! You’re going to get us both fired.”
Now, you’ve been walking around too long in your gorilla suit. If you say you’re a Christian, take off your suit. Take off your suit, put on your armor, and do something for God. Then God can do something in you and through you and for you. Let Him have His way with you.
(The January/February 2010 edition of the Baptist Bulletin also features Robert Hunter’s first-person account of racial reconciliation in fundamentalism,” Don’t Ever Give Up.”)
Greg Randle is pastor of Waukegan Baptist Bible Church, Waukegan, Ill., “A Church for All People.” Pastor Randle is a graduate of Carver Baptist Bible Institute in Kansas City, Mo., where he now serves as adjunct professor, and will soon graduate from the Master of Ministry program at Moody Bible Institute. He and his wife, Robbie, are parents of two young women. Listen to the full version of this sermon at www.vbcaurora.org/2010conference.
- 24 views
[Greg Randle] We have a lot of Christians today who are still thinking like slaves, still talking like slaves, still living like slaves. Although our emancipation proclamation was signed two thousand years ago by the blood of Jesus, we still don’t know how to treat one another in the Lord.Isn’t the problem here not enough slavery? If I love my slavery to Jesus Christ who bought me a costly price, will I not love those of a different race (1 Cor. 3:16)?
[Greg Randle] Racism is the institutional power used to hold down a certain race of people through injustice or other unkind means. And the last place we should see racism is in the church of Jesus Christ.Really? Peter was using institutional power when he switched tables away from the Gentiles in the Antioch church? And then he was holding down the Gentiles with injustice? And all along I thought he was denying “the truth of the gospel” - the gospel of justification by faith (Gal. 2:14-16)? I’m looking, but I don’t see Paul rebuking Peter for racism.
Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, confronted this issue. We see Peter’s failure, and Paul’s freedom to help him overcome his failure.
he had his eat on. But when the Jews came, the Bible says Peter got afraid (v. 12).Hmmm, just looking… The text seems pretty clear Peter was afraid of the men from Jerusalem — men of his own ethnic background — and not cross-cultural relationships.
What are you afraid of when it comes to cross-cultural relationships?
If we are going to teach on racism in the church from the Bible, let’s use some Spirit-inspired texts that actually deal with it (John 4, Gal. 3:28, Romans 14, 1 Cor. 12:13).
Isn’t the problem here not enough slavery? If I love my slavery to Jesus Christ who bought me a costly price, will I not love those of a different race (1 Cor. 3:16)?I think it’s mostly a different way of saying the same thing. Too much slavery to one thing, too little slavery to another. Romans 6.
There are some weak points here, though, along with some strong ones.
I have personally seen more “racism” (this is really “ethnism”) against American Indians than I have against African Americans. Sometimes people are expressing stereotypes thoughtlessly. Sometimes they are expressing real resentment and hatred. The two are not the same thing though they can sound very similar—and neither are good things to do.
Ted, I think you missed his point about Peter and cross cultural relationships too. The sermon/post is making the point that Peter was eating with Gentiles (cross cultural) until the Jews came… and then he was afraid to keep eating with the Gentiles. I don’t have the text in front of me, but that seems consistent with what I recall.
It is a strong text for this kind of message.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I think it’s mostly a different way of saying the same thing. Too much slavery to one thing, too little slavery to another. Romans 6.Slavery doesn’t appear to a “too much, too little” thing. People are either slaves of sin, or slaves of Christ.
The gospel moves sinners out of the realm of slavery to sin and into the realm of slavery to Christ. To have a condition where one is still a slave to sin, in any small degree, means the individual is unregenerate.
“”knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin” (Romans 6:6, NKJV).
No, the text isn’t about Peter’s fear of cross cultural relationships. It is about the gospel. go back and Read Galatians 2.
About slavery, Romans 6 also contains imperatives in which Paul tells believers to yield their members to God as slaves of God. He would not need to say this unless it is possible to put oneself back in bondage to sin to a degree by obeying sin. We are slaves of what we obey. So positionally, yes, it’s binary: we’re 100% slaves of God or 100% slaves of sin. But in experience, we will not live this until we’re entirely sanctified.
I think Randle’s point there—if I understand him right—is a solid one.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Ted, there’s no either-or there on what Gal 2 is about. Because he botched the cross cultural thing, his actions damaged his gospel witness. It’s both-and.Then you owe an explanation for why Paul rebukes Peter only concerning his abuse of the gospel of justification by faith, and not “the cross cultural thing.”
It looks to me that you, like the author, are reading into the text what you want find.
About slavery, Romans 6 also contains imperatives in which Paul tells believers to yield their members to God as slaves of God. He would not need to say this unless it is possible to put oneself back in bondage to sin to a degree by obeying sin. We are slaves of what we obey. So positionally, yes, it’s binary: we’re 100% slaves of God or 100% slaves of sin. But in experience, we will not live this until we’re entirely sanctified.For you, the act of sinning in a saved person is in some measure an act of of slavery to sin. Therefore, the believer in this life is simultaneously a slave of sin and a slave of Christ. Yet, Paul says exactly the opposite:
Romans 6:16-18 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.This text describes all who are saved by the gospel. Paul is plain that when it comes to the analogy of slavery, it is either/or both positionally and experientially. You either are slave of Christ, or a slave of sin. Not both.
Again, I think you are reading into the text what you want to find.
Paul rebukes Peter on the grounds of the gospel because this is by far the most serious outcome of his botching of the cross cultural relationship. But that actually intensifies the point because it shows that getting that relationship wrong can have gospel consequences (I don’t think it shows that it always has gospel related consequences—depends on exactly how its botched).
Maybe it will help some to return to the text
Verse 12 begins with “for,” indicating why Peter “was to be blamed:” because he botched his relationship with the Gentiles. And the motive of fear is specifically named at the end of v.12.
In v.13, Paul points out that this resulted in many others doing likewise.
Finally, in v.14 he points out the gospel connection:
It’s true that there are some unique features of this particular cross cultural relationship because of the Judaizing factors involved. But, nonetheless Peter failed to “be straightforward” about the truth of the gospel by relating improperly to people of another culture/ethnicity.
As for Romans 6:
Paul goes back and forth between our position and our experience. Note these verses, though…
I think he’s quite clear here that it is possible for believers to “let sin reign.” And part of his argument against doing that is the fact that eventually (v.14) “sin shall not have dominion.” We are positionally not under law but under grace and ought to act accordingly… but we often don’t.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I would just point out that the text never calls Peter out for racism. I think its eisegesis to say he was operating out of racism and had cross-cultural issues. His issues were related to law and gospel, not ethnicity, as the text shows. Its an illegitimate application of this text to teach against racism.
As for Romans 6:Believers, such as I, can and do let sin reign, but we are not slaves of it. We who are in Christ died to the slavery of sin when Christ died (Rom. 6:7).
Paul goes back and forth between our position and our experience.
Then you owe an explanation for why Paul rebukes Peter only concerning his abuse of the gospel of justification by faith, and not “the cross cultural thing.”What was the reason Peter feared the party of the circumcision? I think, in the text, Peter feared the racism of the men from Jerusalem. The Jews believed that the gospel was only for the Jews, or at least that Gentiles were second class citizens in the church. Peter was used to being around the Gentiles, but when the Jews came, Peter gave in to their racism and abandoned his fellowship with the Gentiles.
The affront to the gospel was the tacit affirmation that the Jews’ belief that Gentiles were at least only second class citizens in the church. It was about the gospel because it denied that all races were equal in Christ and were equally deserving of fellowship.
If you point is that Peter was guilty of fear and lack of principled fellowship rather than racism, than I agree. THe text is not clear that Peter was racist. The text is pretty clear, I think that the Jews from Jerusalem were, and Peter gave into their racism rather than stand against it, and by so doing, preached a false gospel.
[Larry] What was the reason Peter feared the party of the circumcision? I think, in the text, Peter feared the racism of the men from Jerusalem.Can you show this to me from the text?
Further, the concept of “race” and “racism” did not even exist at the time in that culture. Instead, there were only tribes and nationalities (with the Jewish nation of old being one nation of 12 generally feuding tribes). You could be of any race and join a tribe by a number of means (i.e. marriage or being adopted) and you could similarly be of any race (or tribe) and be allowed to become a member of a nation … consider the Hittite Uriah joining the Israeli nation, and the Hebrew Joseph becoming (involuntarily!) an Egyptian citizen, the Midianite Zipporah, the Canaanite Rahab, the Moabite Ruth joining the Israeli nation and their respective tribes. The very idea of “race” is 100%, completely absent from the Biblical text.
Instead, “race” and “racism” were concepts created later. I do not know when or why … Afrocentrists and their (left-liberal) fellow-travelers assert that it came about early in the development of western European culture in order to facilitate Eurocentrism (at the expense of not only Africans, Asians etc. but also eastern Europeans). But it is clear that notions of “race” and “racism” that did not exist when the Bible was written and are 100% absent (show me a theological or historical point in the Bible where race, rather than nationality or tribe, is a factor) were later superimposed on Biblical interpretations in places and manners that they ought not to have been. (That being said, I am convinced that God in His omniscience knew that this folly would afflict the planet at some point and left a few - and indeed it is a very few - references such as Simeon Niger to address it.)
Of course, racism is a contemporary issue, and Christians should address it, just as other contemporary issues should be addressed. But eisegesis is not the way to address racism or any other issue. I say that since race and racism is are worldly inventions that are absent in the Bible, Romans 12:1-2 would be an excellent starting place. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is more than sufficient to rebuke racists. And commanding Christians who have experienced racism to A) not let the sun go down on their anger or their hearts be filled with notions of bitterness or revenge and B) to remember not to expect fairness or justice in this world but rather to remember that we are pilgrims being prepared and tried by the conditions of this world for the just and perfect world to come should come next. 1 Peter 2:18-25 should expose the folly of any notions of a “civil rights movement”, and Romans 13:1-7 reveals what a great evil it was that so many Christians and churches were deceived into following the completely subversive American civil rights movement, and that this deception was fomented by false preachers who rejected core Christian doctrines and as such were not Christians in any sense, and succeeded because so many actual Christians abandoned their duties and did not stand up for the truth of the Bible against the liars and scoundrels. In this, they were no better than the Christians who similarly allowed false interpretations of the Bible to be used to justify segregation (and in the church no less!) in the first place.
Resisting the temptation to “be creative” in order to strictly adhere to what the Bible truly says and means is the surest, safest and best route. Of course, it is also the hardest.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
The point of Gal 2 specifically is how the gospel relates to Jew-Gentile relationships. Peter withdrew from Gentiles because he feared the party of the circumcision (the Jews). Now, why would Peter fear the Jews? The answer, I believe, is his reputation was at stake for hanging around “them.”
I suppose I should have learned by now not to be surprised by anything, and I usually succeed at that, but count me astounded at this one.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Please put the Jewish superiority issues in their proper context. First, these Jewish superiority issues were religious, not racial. You could be of any race and still be a Jew, and be included. You could also be a direct blood descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with absolutely no intermarriage or intermingling in your lineage and be excluded if you were not a circumcised observant Jew. To go even further, an African man and a Chinese woman could have converted to Judaism (become proselytes) and their children would have been considered 100% Jewish by blood. Meanwhile, the aforementioned direct descendant of Abraham with no Gentile blood in his veins would be considered cut off, a non-Jew, and his children would have to convert to gain acceptance among the Jews. But the superiority issues were religious first and nationalistic second, and even there one had to be a part of the religion in order to be a part of the nation, so it was one and the same (save the issue that not all adherents to the religion were nationalists).
Judaism didn’t even become a “race” or “ethnicity” until long after the destruction after the second temple, and that was the result of Jews’ assimilating the racial beliefs of the nations that they were living in as a diaspora. As a result, you have Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and other groups (i.e. Ethiopian Jews) dividing on racial/ethnic lines, and not just in Israel. (You’d be amazed about some of the things that they say about each other, especially in private.) Things like that would have never gone on in the times that the Old Testament and New Testament were written.
Jewish religious chauvinism and racism are issues that have nothing to do with each other. After all, let us not forget that Jewish religious/national chauvinism had a legitimate basis: God TOLD the Jews to remain separate from the other nations. When the Jews intermingled with the other nations - disobeying God’s command - they became pagans and syncretists when they adopted the beliefs and practices from the Gentile nations, and the result was God’s very severe punishment of them.
So Jewish chauvinism, far from being something WRONG, was actually the Jews’ doing what God had told them to do! It is merely that after the coming of Jesus Christ, the Jews had to be instructed that Gentile believers in Jesus Christ were Jews too - grafted in - despite their not having to be circumcised, obey the Sabbath etc. (and also that Jews who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ were NOT truly Jews DESPITE their adherence to the Mosaic law). But please recall that Christians - both Jews and Gentiles - were commanded to be united together, but also separate from the world. The error of the Jewish-Christian chauvinists was not their Jewish chauvinism, but rather their inability to see that the Jewishness on which their chauvinism was based had been redefined, and that now Jewishness was determined by belief in Jesus Christ and not a combination of ancestral lineage and Mosaic observance.
That is why using this incident in an illustration against bigotry is so dangerous, because the truth is that Christians are supposed to be bigots not dissimilar from the Jews of old. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18? It means that Christians are not supposed to fellowship with non-Christians. Using the Peter-Paul passage to teach a point that is wholly unrelated to the passage is bait-and-switch. Far better to use it to convey something that is relevant to the actual meaning, which is that Christianity is actually spiritual Judaism, with believing Gentiles grafted in among the believing Jews, the message of Romans 11:13-18.
Beyond the message that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a servant of the Mosaic law which was a schoolmaster to point us to and teach us of Jesus Christ, and which Jesus Christ fulfilled, what else can be gleaned from Paul’s confronting and correcting Peter that is consistent with the actual meaning and intent of the text? We should not consider our contemporary issues to be anything approaching the danger of making the gospel of Jesus Christ a servant of the Mosaic law (an idea utterly destroyed by the initial chapters of Hebrews). That is what Paul was confronting.
I suppose that if you absolutely have to find a Biblical text to use in discussing our race/bigotry issues, then perhaps the incident in Acts where the diaspora Jewish-Christians were (or perceived themselves to be) treated unfairly by the Israeli Jewish-Christians in Acts 6:1-7 may actually fit. And even that may not be truly appropriate, because even there the real issues - according to some commentaries - were likely religious (the Jerusalem Jews considered themselves to be more observant and pious than the diaspora Jews, especially the diaspora Jews that embraced Hellenism to a degree) or were simply cronyism (the Jerusalem Jews giving better treatment to their friends, neighbors, relatives etc.) than “Jerusalem Jews thinking that they were better than diaspora Jews because of where they were from.” Or you can go to the gospels and recall the low esteem that certain Jews had for Nazareth and those who came from there (i.e. John 1:46) and Galilee as well (John 7:52). But we cannot - we must not - superimpose our own agendas (I know that is a loaded term, but I am at a loss for a better one) on the Biblical text.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Discussion