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.
- 28 views
I also wrote in #23: We all use words with a lot of flexibility in normal interaction. But may I suggest to you both, though, that in this one area [slavery] we tighten our vocabulary?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Ted,Chip, you missed my point, bro. To say a Christian can return to a “slave-like state” [your words] requires us to define what “slave-like” means biblically. If we will do that that, then we will agree with our Lord: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin” John 8:34.
I just don’t think you have completely apprehended the point being put forward. It is not that Christians return to a slave state, but to a slave-like state. They are not truly enslaved, but they act like the slaves they previously were.
To be in “slave-like state” means you have no power to turn away from your sin, but to be under its total dominion (Rom. 6:6). To be in a “slave-like state,” but also be in Christ, is a contradiction. Its like you being saved and unsaved at the same time. Its like having the promises of God for your progressive sanctification and his warnings of your condemnation dwelling in you jointly. You are bought by him, sealed in the Spirit, but you are still living in the old slave-like state?
No, your position in Christ interprets your Christian experience, not vice-versa.
Biblically, we are to tell believers they are not in a slave-like state to sin, but have the power through the indwelling Spirit to put on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 13:14). If you or I could “act like the slaves” [your words] we were before Christ, i.e., before 2 Cor. 5:17, then we would also have no power to leave that state. All things have not been made new - for we are still in a slave-like state.
Therefore - to be precise - to say a sinning believer is in a slave-like state requires him to be saved all over again, and to start his sanctification all over again. Better to recognize that God is allowing him to suffer in his sinning in order to progress his sanctification (James 1:2-4).
Who do you think Paul is talking to in Romans 6:12-13, those to whom he says they should no longer present themselves to sin to obey sin, because they are slaves of the one that they obey? I wonder if there isn’t a category for “slave like” in practice that is not true of our position. It would seem strange for Paul to tell the Roman Christians to quit acting like slaves if it were impossible for them to do such, and it seems strange that vv. 12-13 are directed to unbelievers. So it seems to me, at first glance, like there is a category of practice that is not the category of position.
I think the NT frequently dichotomizes between position and practice, and telling believers to live like they actually are. I wonder if this is not one of those times. Paul would be telling the Roman Christians, “Quit acting like slaves because you aren’t.”
On Galatians 2, thanks for your response.
On question 1, Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law, and I still find it hard to believe that Peter was confused about the means of justification, whether law or faith. So far as I can see, the text says nothing about confusion, but rather talks about Peter’s fear and his resulting actions. The “hypocrisy” seems to me to be that Peter ate with the Gentiles when the Jews weren’t around, but did not eat with them when they were around. So the hypocrisy is this:
On question 2, with due respect, it seems like your answer is merely a restatement. To say that “they were not straightfoward” is the same as saying they were denying or compromising the gospel. My question is “how”? How, in your mind, were they not straightforward?
My answer to that is that they were not straightforward because when the Jews came around they refused table fellowship with the Gentiles, thereby giving credence to the idea that Gentiles were not on equal footing in the church precisely because of their culture/ethnicity.
This of course was the situation in Acts 10-11 when, following the encounter with Cornelius, the Jews went hard after Peter for his acceptance of Corneliusn (Acts 11:2-3). Having experienced that once, Peter was gunshy to experience it again, and as a result of this fear, withdrew table fellowship and sent the message unwittingly probably that the gospel does not erase all the barriers.
So what are the weaknesses in what I am arguing for? What am I missing?
I think we are all pretty much on the same page on this. I appreciate what Larry has added to the conversation. I would still say, in reference to your call for precision, that “slave” does not = “slave-like.” One is the thing; the other bears a resemblance. Building on Larry’s thoughts, I am inclined to say that though sin has no absolute, unbreakable, compelling power over the believer, every believer has certainly felt the power of sin after salvation. The difference is that we now obey it willingly. IOW, despite having the strength at our disposal to resist and overcome, we chose to live in submission to it - i.e. “slave-like.”
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Larry] Ted,So, which do you obey?
Who do you think Paul is talking to in Romans 6:12-13, those to whom he says they should no longer present themselves to sin to obey sin, because they are slaves of the one that they obey?
[Larry] On question 1, Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law, and I still find it hard to believe that Peter was confused about the means of justification, whether law or faith.Here we go again. Gal. 2:16: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” Larry, it is Paul speaking to Peter here. It doesn’t get much simpler. You are saying the phrase “works of the Law” in Gal. 2:16 is totally unrelated to your words: “Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law”? Do you understand what the phrase “justified by the works of the Law” means?
So, which do you obey?I certainly try to obey God, but being a sinner, I fail and at times I present myself as an isntrument of sin.
But that is missing the point, isn’t it? The question is to whom was Paul writing? If he is writing to believers, it seems to undermine your point, at least in terms of practice, not position. He is telling believers not to be the very thing you say they can’t be anyway. So if you are right, that believers cannot be slaves, then why does Paul command them not to be?
Here we go again. Gal. 2:16: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” Larry, it is Paul speaking to Peter here. It doesn’t get much simpler.Actually, I think the pretty standard position is that it’s probably not Paul speaking to Peter but rather Paul’s general exhortation to the Galatians. After all, they are the ones to whom he is writing, and they are the ones troubled about the gospel, not Peter.
The text tells us that PEter was troubled by fear, not by the gospel. There are probably some who agree with you (though I don’t know who they are; perhaps you can give us some names to read their arguments). But whatever the case, that is not something the text says. And it does get simpler. This is not a simple issue to determine where Paul’s words to Peter stop and his address to the Galatians begins. There is some legitimate dispute about it, so it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
But even if you are correct, you still haven’t shown how Peter’s actions in refusing table fellowship to the Gentiles is about justification by faith, and that is the specific question. All you did above was quote Paul and assert he was speaking to Peter (without argumentation) and declare that it is simple.
But the question remains: How did PEter’s act of refusing table fellowship to the Gentile believers in the presence of the Jews from Jerusalem show that Peter questioned or was confused about justification by faith instead of works?
You are saying the phrase “works of the Law” in Gal. 2:16 is totally unrelated to your words: “Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law”?I am not saying it is totally unrelated. It is related, but it is related to Paul’s argument to the Galatians, not to his rebuke of Peter. Peter’s problem was fear that led him to communicate that the gospel did not unite Gentile and Jew on equal footing.
If anything, Paul’s words in 2:16 could have been directed at the Jews from Jerusalem, who may well have not fully given up their allegiance to the Law, as seen in ACts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. In fact, one of the major issues in Galatians is the relationships of Acts 15 to Gal 2. So again, whatever it may be, it is not simple.
Do you understand what the phrase “justified by the works of the Law” means?Yes.
[Ted] To say we can “sometimes live as slaves in the Father’s house” and then refer that slavery to a slavery to sin is wrong on two counts. One, those who live in the Father’s house are the slaves of Christ. Two, if one lives as a slave again to sin after having been redeemed by the death of Christ, what shall again redeem him now back to Christ? Was the death of Christ insufficient to fully remove him out from the slavery to sin the first time? What now must our brother do to leave his present slavery to sin and get transferred back to his former slavery in Christ?I’m having a hard time seeing why living like a slave would imply that redemption is necessary again. Nobody is saying a sinner’s standing with God is reversed when he sins. Should we stop calling ourselves sinners since we are justified? We are righteous in our standing just as we are slaves to Christ in our standing. Our conduct and character is another thing.
Paul did not seem to be all that worried about using this kind of language. I’ve already quoted him doing it more than once in Romans 6.
Another example I don’t think I’ve mentioned yet.
In v.18 he says we have in fact been set free from sin and have become slaves of righteousness. But he turns right around and says act accordingly… the “presenting” of “members” is a day to day thing. And in that day to day thing, Rom.6.16 remains true: whoever/whatever we “present” our “members” to, we are serving as slaves.
Our justification/identity is not altered regardless of who/what we present to.
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.
[Chip Van Emmerik] The difference is that we now obey it willingly. IOW, despite having the strength at our disposal to resist and overcome, we chose to live in submission to it - i.e. “slave-like.”Chip, a slave doesn’t have a choice - he has to be a slave. When you say, “we chose to live in submission” you speak of something that isn’t slave-like. John 8:34.
In reality slavery is an analogy Jesus and Paul used to describe an important aspect of hamartiology. Being an analogy, it can’t be pressed to every limit. But its biblical limits should be understood and used.
If you, being a child of God, could live in submission to sin as a slave to it, you would first need God to do a “Holy Spirit -ectomy” on you: but that won’t happen, 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God - i.e., saints sin, but they sin with intermission.
[Larry] The question is to whom was Paul writing? If he is writing to believers, it seems to undermine your point, at least in terms of practice, not position. He is telling believers not to be the very thing you say they can’t be anyway. So if you are right, that believers cannot be slaves, then why does Paul command them not to be?Good question, but I disagree. When Paul addresses the Galatians, he uses the 2nd person plural, “you”: Gal. 1:9, Gal. 3:1.
Beleivers ARE slaves. To God (Rom. 6:17). The ARE NOT slaves to sin (Rom. 6:18).Here we go again. Gal. 2:16: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” Larry, it is Paul speaking to Peter here. It doesn’t get much simpler.Actually, I think the pretty standard position is that it’s probably not Paul speaking to Peter but rather Paul’s general exhortation to the Galatians. After all, they are the ones to whom he is writing, and they are the ones troubled about the gospel, not Peter.
When Paul rebukes Peter, he uses the the 2nd person singular (Gal. 2:14) and then, including in the others from the circumcision, switches to the 1st person plural, “we” Gal. 2:15-17. Otherwise, if by “we” Paul means himself and the Galatians, one has to assume all the Galatian believers were Jewish, and are part of the “we” of 2:15. That is unlikely. See Fung, Galatians, 112, Shreiner, Galatians, 150.
Once this exegetical problem is settled, the rest of the passage flows naturally, and explains the abrupt transition in 3:1: “You foolish Galatians.” If you take the position that the “we” in Galatians 2:15ff is Paul and the Galatians, then its hard to adequately explain the change to 2nd person plural in 3:1.
Therefore, Paul’s rebuke to Peter was not Racism, and the like issues, but his lack of integration of the great doctrine of the justification by faith alone into his religious choices.
[Ted Bigelow]I think we would all agree on two points:[Chip Van Emmerik] The difference is that we now obey it willingly. IOW, despite having the strength at our disposal to resist and overcome, we chose to live in submission to it - i.e. “slave-like.”Chip, a slave doesn’t have a choice - he has to be a slave. When you say, “we chose to live in submission” you speak of something that isn’t slave-like. John 8:34.
In reality slavery is an analogy Jesus and Paul used to describe an important aspect of hamartiology. Being an analogy, it can’t be pressed to every limit. But its biblical limits should be understood and used.
If you, being a child of God, could live in submission to sin as a slave to it, you would first need God to do a “Holy Spirit -ectomy” on you: but that won’t happen, 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God - i.e., saints sin, but they sin with intermission.
1) At the time of belief, we are (at least) positionally freed from slavery to sin by the new birth.
2) We cannot lose or undo any positional aspect of our salvation
That being said, I think this is an important statement to consider: Galatians 5:1 - For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Paul, speaking to Christians, tells them not to submit to a yoke of slavery. So, it seems that Paul does affirm the possibility of a Christian re-entering a slave-like state.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] I think this is an important statement to consider: Galatians 5:1 - For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.Paul is not speaking here is re-entering a slave-like relationship with sin, but rather a slave-like relationship with the law vis-a-vis justification.
Paul, speaking to Christians, tells them not to submit to a yoke of slavery. So, it seems that Paul does affirm the possibility of a Christian re-entering a slave-like state.
Galatians 5:2-4 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I have some thoughts on “the Afro-Centric chip.” No, not shame on him. I was born in 1953. Bull Connor’s violent repression of American citizens of African ancestry made the nightly news in my youth. (Ok, I wanted to watch Death Valley Days.) My point is what some here see as “a chip” can easily be interpreted as residual defensive radar. Remember Emmit Till of Chicago who was murdered in Mississippi in the ’50s for supposedly “reckless eyeballing” a white female. If you don’t, an African American does. Not to mention any of their own relatives who met with violence (some times fatal) back in the day for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Blacks learned to figure out where they were welcome and where they were not. Some may think the problem was a southern one. When the Giants moved from New York to San Francisco, Willie Mays initially was prevented from buying a house in Saint Francis Woods (then an upper middle class neighborhood, now a lower upper class one). Why? Because, deed restrictions allowed only whites to reside in the area. Being San Francisco, the restrictions were probably aimed more towards the Chinese than Blacks.
Keeping in mind my first paragraph, I don’t have aunts, uncles and cousins back East. I would have been just as much a stranger visiting the church in question. Obviously (take a look at my pic), it would be a question of racism. Rather, it would be a matter of ethnocentrism. After all, I’m from Sodom on the Bay, a place no Christian should live. At least, that could easily be the under current. I’m willing to cut the church some slack. How many Blacks do these folks know as more than passing acquaintances? Were they afraid to inadvertently give offense? Even if the writer and his family took none. The dynamics get convoluted.
[Alex Guggenheim] SNIP
From this statement by Randle…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.…and varying other postures, I believe he has a common “Afro-centric” chip on his shoulder. It is revealed in his description of the church, “predominantly Caucasian church”. If he were true to his beliefs where he stated…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.…he would have considered their race as incidental, not primary. He then interpreted their response to his presence as racially motivated. He has personal issues in this case and has projected them onto others. Shame on him.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Your anecdotal experiences and the attached narrative do not appear to address, in my mind, the issue(s) I raised. I do think he ashamedly and arrogantly accused people of some kind of racialism without proof, preferring instead his assumptions. And this, itself, isn’t the greatest offense, rather his preoccupation with his racial identity in a spiritual context and willingness to inject the ridiculous narrative of Peter practicing racism in a text that says no such thing. IMO, again, he does have a chip on his shoulder, and in his sermon he displays racial issues and a willingness to project them onto others both personally and in biblical contexts where there is no warrant, save his novel interpretation.. Such communication is unfit for sound doctrine.
However, in your hast I fear you missed this line of mine, “what some here see as “a chip” can easily be interpreted as residual defensive radar.” Now, many may view that radar as obsolete. However, it was developed for good and sufficient reasons.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
He is communicating biblical truth. He doesn’t get to exercise his personal issues by projecting them onto texts or people, regardless of what he, Bull Connor (fifty plus years ago) or anyone else experienced. If something is in a text, it is there but if it is not, one is not justified arresting the text and corrupting it so they can deal with an issue within themselves. And if one does not have evidence of people’s motives then one is not permitted to project motives onto others particularly vilified motives, even if we change the language and call it “defensive radar”. It is still illegitimate and still wrong and he still has personal issues that are infecting his view of a biblical text and his interaction with people.
Discussion