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
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
a. improper
b. involved mistreating those of another ethnicity due to pressure from those of his own ethnicity
c. resulted in a distortion of the gospel message
Nobody’s reading that into the text. You’d have to go out of your way to “read it out” of the text.
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.
From Galatians and other relevant passages, I gather Peter, et al would have had no problems if the “Gentiles” were circumcised and otherwise adopted Jewish customs and law. As I understand the situation, if an individual did so, it didn’t matter what they looked like. So, yes the tete was taken out of context and used as a pretext.
American racism holds non-whites as being inferior (I won’t get into “No Dogs or Irish Admitted”). In the worst cases, they were\are not qualified for equal if any protection under the law. In gentler circumstances, non-whites socially were ignored or treated as without the respect due them. As forests have been used to deal with this topic in depth, I won’t go into it here. So, the issue in the OP is a real one. Forty plus years is a long time but it’s barely over a single generation. How many issues of today are based on centuries old occurrences?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
To state something was taken out of context and used as a pretext and then simply ignore the required assessment this warrants in your approach toward this sermon and the person who communicated it, tells me that you are willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made. I know of no teaching in the Scripture that either promotes this as spiritually edifying or something we can tolerate or look the other way in sympathy to social or political disadvantages one group may have with others.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Alex] I do think he ashamedly and arrogantly accused people of some kind of racialism without proof, preferring instead his assumptions.Can you point out to me in the original article where the author explicitly accused the people of racism? And you can you also help me understand how you are able to judge his heart that he is “arrogant”, that he “has a chip on his shoulder”, and that he “has personal issues”?
You’ve also called his sermon “ridiculous” and “unfit for sound doctrine”. You called his, Aaron’s, and Rob’s views, in essence, unorthodox (“Best wishes vetting this with orthodox resources” and “Frankly this hermenuetic doesn’t pass muster within orthodoxy.”) Can you prove to us that their view on this text is beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy? Then you go on to say that you now know that Aaron and Rob are “willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made.”
You’ve told us what you believe about the OP. Fine, you have a right to your opinion. But some of the things you’ve said are beyond the pale.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] Alex, you’ve greatly overstated your point, repeatedly, and need to back down.You certainly are welcome to your opinion but attempting to vilify me for sticking to my point and raising it in responding isn’t actually an argument, it is an appeal to fear and emotion. I reiterated my views, as others did their own, in direct response to someone with whom I was dialoging. Your melodramatic description of my involvement certainly is entertaining but not reflective of my contribution. Let’s stick with the substance of the arguments themselves please.
[Alex] I do think he ashamedly and arrogantly accused people of some kind of racialism without proof, preferring instead his assumptions.
[Greg Long] Can you point out to me in the original article where the author explicitly accused the people of racism? And you can you also help me understand how you are able to judge his heart that he is “arrogant”, that he “has a chip on his shoulder”, and that he “has personal issues”?I have done this in my posts. I could restate all I have already said but you have made it clear you don’t like that so feel free to read my posts and address the points contained therein. Post #17 contains some of what you request but you will need to read them all and let me also recommend JobK’s posts, #12 an #15. As to the assertion of judging the man’s heart, I have not judged his heart I have judged what his words contain in my view.
[Greg Long] You’ve also called his sermon “ridiculous” and “unfit for sound doctrine”. You called his, Aaron’s, and Rob’s views, in essence, unorthodox (“Best wishes vetting this with orthodox resources” and “Frankly this hermenuetic doesn’t pass muster within orthodoxy.”)The response was meant for Rob’s post alone. I did not realize that Aaron’s post had been posted in between mine and Rob’s. Normally I quote the post to which I am responding but felt it was soon enough that none would be posted. But clearly one was, Aaron was not in view in the comment. However, I did not call Rob’s post unorthodox though it appears you wish to make this claim. I merely wished him “best wishes” in vetting such a view with orthodox resources. It remains to be seen where this view falls though I do not have great hope it can be vetted as such.
[Greg Long] Can you prove to us that their view on this text is beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy? Then you go on to say that you now know that Aaron and Rob are “willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made.”Let’s see what I did say:
To state something was taken out of context and used as a pretext and then simply ignore the required assessment this warrants in your approach toward this sermon and the person who communicated it, tells me that you are willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made.If you were following the thread you would know this was a direct response to something Rob said though it was not quoted, it did contain his comments. And the statement told me something indeed. I am clearly free to express what I observe. If this is someone’s position then that is my conclusion. Feel free to rebut the substance of my observation and conclusion. I did not say, however, I know Rob is willing to, only that what he said tells me this. That means I am seeking clarification. It recognizes that only by these words I am told this (meaning this context and these words only and not with the assumption of all contexts which would be the claim of “knowing”).
If you believe that within orthodoxy there is promoted a view that this text is about Peter exercising racism, show me the orthodox consensus. I am saying this is not the orthodox consensus. You are asserting something to be true, demonstrate it. I am asserting that the absence of an orthodox consensus that this is a context of racism, speaks for itself. Clearly it is not the only voice but it is a recognized one.
[Greg Long] You’ve told us what you believe about the OP. Fine, you have a right to your opinion. But some of the things you’ve said are beyond the pale.I understand you don’t agree but appeals to vilification, ridicule, red herrings and so on are irrelevant to the topic and only contribute to posturing and not the substance of the issue or arguments. If you have rebuttals to the substance of what I have said and not complaints I will be happy to read them and respond.
[Alex Guggenheim] Well if you feel accusing Peter of racism in the text is acceptable and then communicating this in a message claiming this is what God intends on communicating with that text, yes we must agree to disagree. Best wishes vetting this with orthodox resources.Oher than the term “racism,” which is kind of a popular misnomer anyway, you’ll find it (the concept of ethnism) in plenty of orthodox resources. Let’s keep in mind though that a text has more than one “message.” That is, there is more than one point and even looking at a single point, there are multiple applications.
The article has made one of those applications—one especially important in our times.
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.
Haddon Robinson has a fine article called The Heresy of Application that fits this thread well. If you can, give it a good read. It makes me wince every time I read it.
http://www.preachingtodaysermons.com/heofap.html
Lest we forget, Randle’s article does not delay racism until the application. He writes this at the beginning under the heading: “Peter’s Failure”
Peter failed on the issue of racismIOW, for Randle, Gal. 2:11ff is about racism. Hopefully by now we agree his point has been sufficiently answered and found wanting.
Now we are on to another point. Is racism a legitimate application of Gal 2?
I would say no - not of that text. The text is arguing for the gospel. If we make its application repentance from racism, we exchange Paul’s intent in defending the gospel for moral improvement, possibly injuring people’s souls forever.
Could a preacher make hard and serious points on racism in his sermon on this text? Yes, I believe so. But he must use it as a tool of conviction to serve the Spirit’s real point of the text - “if you believe in justification by faith, how can you treat others believers as if they have not been justified by faith?”
Blessings.
IOW, for Randle, Gal. 2:11ff is about racism. Hopefully by now we agree his point has been sufficiently answered and found wanting.Not to rehash or reargue the previous, but I don’t think we can agree at all that this point has been “sufficiently answered and found wanting,” not on exegetical and theological grounds at least. Actually, quite to the contrary I think. You have a very tough hill to climb to argue that an apostle who preached the opening message (and many more) for the NT church did not understand the gospel or was confused about justification by works. That flies in the face of everything that the NT records about Peter’s ministry.
Furthermore, it flies in the face of the purpose of the point of Galatians as a whole which is to correct and encourage the Galatians’ view of the gospel (not Peter’s view of the gospel). This ties in exactly with what Gal 3:26 says, which is why this episode in included. Paul is teaching the Galatians that all are equal in Christ, that no race or ethnicity or gender or religious background is “second class.” So really, this is not just an issue of the text itself which I think adequately shows what the problem was. It is an issue of the purpose of the book of Galatians.
If your argue is that Peter’s problem was not racism but fear of man, that is legitimate. I think that is correct. The issue was on the part of the men from Jerusalem. They believed that Jews should not eat with Gentiles. Peter gave in to them over fear (that’s what it says in the text).
What Paul confronted Peter over was the message that he sent about the unifying power of the gospel by giving in to the fear rather than confronting the superiority of the men from Jerusalem.
BTW, I did do a little brief looking at some other resources and the position I am espousing is a common one. So it’s not like I am on Mars here.
“The Jerusalem Jewish leaders may have agreed with Paul on paper (in theory), but they also had to keep peace within their own Jerusalem constituency and maintain their witness to their culture, with its rising anti-Gentile sentiments. Peter probably saw his actions here the way Paul saw his own in 1 Corinthians 9:19–22—appealing to everyone—but the qualitative difference is enormous: withdrawing from table fellowship with culturally different Christians made them second-class citizens, violated the unity of the church and hence insulted the cross of Christ. Although Peter and others undoubtedly claimed to oppose racism, they accommodated it on what they saw as minor points to keep peace, whereas Paul felt that any degree of racial separatism or segregation challenged the very heart of the gospel” (IVPBBC).So the point is that at the very least, this is a debatable issue. The most unreasonable suggestion, IMO, is that the apostle Peter was confused about justification by faith vs. works. There’s nothing in the context of Galatians, nor in the life of Peter that would suggest that to me.
“Racism of any brand in any culture is incompatible with the truth of the gospel. Later in Galatians (3:26–29) Paul would spell out the implications of Christian unity in terms of the promise of grace fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Any religious system or theology that denies this truth stands in opposition to the “new creation” God is bringing into being, the body of Christ based not on caste, color, or social condition but on grace alone” (George, NAC, p. 183).
“The observance of Pharisaic practices with the latter was a genuine expression of bigotry” (Lightfoot, 113).
I would say no - not of that text. The text is arguing for the gospel. If we make its application repentance from racism, we exchange Paul’s intent in defending the gospel for moral improvement, possibly injuring people’s souls forever.The issue is over who has equal standing in the body of Christ. Can we exclude certain people, or relegate them to second class status in the gospel? Paul’s answer is “No, the gospel saves everyone equally—Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female.”
In fact, the whole issue in Galatians is not really how one is saved but rather how one is sanctified (cf. Gal 3:1ff.). Should believers go back to living under the Law as a means of sanctification. Paul’s answer is no, because the gospel of grace that saves is the same gospel of grace that sanctifies.
But he must use it as a tool of conviction to serve the Spirit’s real point of the text - “if you believe in justification by faith, how can you treat others believers as if they have not been justified by faith?”This is exactly right, and the “other believers” in context are those of a different ethnic background, who are being treated differently simply and only because of their ethnic background and the things associated with it.
[Aaron Blumer]So attempting to vet it as a text dealing with racism would result in less than abundance of sources, if more than a scant few which would be no orthodox consensus at all. But if we replace it with ethnicism then we might find more sources. Okay, I would still like at least a few.[Alex Guggenheim] Well if you feel accusing Peter of racism in the text is acceptable and then communicating this in a message claiming this is what God intends on communicating with that text, yes we must agree to disagree. Best wishes vetting this with orthodox resources.Oher than the term “racism,” which is kind of a popular misnomer anyway, you’ll find it (the concept of ethnism) in plenty of orthodox resources. Let’s keep in mind though that a text has more than one “message.” That is, there is more than one point and even looking at a single point, there are multiple applications.
The article has made one of those applications—one especially important in our times.
As to my own thoughts, Ted’s last post was extremely satisfying. The appropriate application of a passage must always be “in context”. Well said and the link to the article is fantastic.
I believe JobK said it most succinctly when we humor, for the moment, the charge of ethnicism:
Please put the Jewish superiority issues in their proper context. First, these Jewish superiority issues were religious, not racial.This is not a “racial” or even “ethnic” context, it is a theological or religious one.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Alex] This is not a “racial” or even “ethnic” context, it is a theological or religious one.I think this is a great illustration of the problem at hand, namely that of trying to divorce theology from race/culture/ethnicism. The whole point of Galatians 2 and 3 is that racial/ethnic issues are theological issues because they goes to the heart of the gospel.
Again, read the context: Peter is having table fellowship with Gentiles. When Jews from Jerusalem come, Peter reacts in fear and stops table fellowship, obviously in response to the Jews who apparently thought table fellowship should not be extended to Gentiles because of their culture/race/ethnicity. It didn’t have to do with their religion because the Gentiles were believers.
So Peter was living in fear of those who were practicing a form of racism or ethnicism (I don’t think there is a big distinction there). And when Peter did that, he compromised the gospel unintentionally, perhaps trying to maintain peace and deference, but compromise nonetheless.
So I would argue that Paul’s point in Gal 2 and 3 is that racial divisions are theological issues.
Discussion