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
[Larry]Peter’s fear was a religious one. I believe JobK (posts #12 and #15)addressed quite well the fallacy of the insertion of race/ethnicity with its lack of presence, historically, at that time, as it is being treated in these arguments. Couple of the many observations he contributed that addresses this:[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.
[JobK] 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).
[JobK] 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.
[Greg Long] Alex, Larry provided you with a few resources. Or are they unorthodox, too?If you don’t mind will you give me which post(s) has them? I must have overlooked them. Thanks.
Peter’s fear was a religious one.What, in the passage, indicates it was religious, and how would it be religious? In other words, what kind of religious fear would lead to his actions?
I believe JobK (posts #12 and #15)addressed quite well the fallacy of the insertion of race/ethnicity with its lack of presence, historically, at that time, as it is being treated in these arguments.I did not find those convincing in the least, and they certainly contained some rather obvious problems.
Had a person of any race or ethnicity converted to Judaism (become a proselyte to use the KJV term) Peter and the other Jewish nationalists would have had table fellowship with them just fine.The context has nothing to do with conversion to Judaism. So this is immediately ruled out as irrelevant. However, Gal 2 makes it quite clear that all Jews did not have “table fellowship with them just fine.” Acts 10-11 clearly testify to this, in fact, revealing that the Jews were very upset that Peter reached out to Cornelius. One of the reasons you have the apostles in Samaria in Acts 8 is so that there is apostolic confirmation of the inclusions of Samaritans in the body of Christ.
That is verified by Peter’s sermon which came after the disciples spoke in tongues and the Jews of the various nationalities and races heard them praising God in their own language.Notice that this is not in the context. Some were “Jews and Proselytes;” other were “visitors from Rome.” There is no contextual reason to assume that they were all Jews.
Consider Simeon Niger (or Simon the black) being the same as Simon the Cyrenian (Cyrene is Libya) who along with his sons Rufus and Alexander were members of the church at Antioch.Yes, and remember that these are members of the church at Antioch, the very place where the issue was taking place.
Further, the concept of “race” and “racism” did not even exist at the time in that culture.That is certainly not true. There were many evidences of cultural and racial superiority that is well testified to in the Bible, such as John 4 and Acts 10-11. The whole point of Gal 3:26 is that these lines that JobK says doesn’t exist did exist and were in fact no longer applicable in teh body of Christ. Gal 3:26 doesn’t make any sense at all if “race” and “racism” didn’t exist. Neither does Gal 2, Acts 10-11, or Acts 15.
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.This, I think, reveals the heart of the problem, and that is a misunderstanding of race. The issue of race is too often made out as skin color, when in fact the issue ethnicity or people groups.
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.Strangely enough, I agree. And I think JobK, Alex, and Ted are trying to be very creative in attributing to the apostle Peter a denial or compromise or misunderstanding of justification by faith alone. I find it easier just to read the text and go with what it seems plainly to indicate.
I still haven’t seen any explanation by Ted or you or JobK of what Peter was afraid of, if not the attitude of the men from Jerusalem towards the Gentiles.
I’m still chewing on your fine post of a couple of days ago - #57. Thanks for wrestling with this and sharing the fruit of your studies with us.
[Larry wrote, in post #63:] I still haven’t seen any explanation by Ted or you or JobK of what Peter was afraid of, if not the attitude of the men from Jerusalem towards the Gentiles.
This is in post #1, written by me:
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.
[Alex Guggenheim]See post #57.[Greg Long] Alex, Larry provided you with a few resources. Or are they unorthodox, too?If you don’t mind will you give me which post(s) has them? I must have overlooked them. Thanks.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Larry]I have very much appreciated your posts, but there is a real point here you’re missing. Although the terms “race” and “racism” are used sometimes loosely to denote any people group, those terms gained prominence in the nineteenth century in conjunction with certain anthropological and historical theories, theories that have since greatly influenced the world. These theories did group people based on physical characteristics, primarily skin color. The distinction is crucial for understanding (among other things) American history; notice that only “negroes,” not Swedes or Japanese or Samoans, were enslaved. So, there is a valid reason to object to using the term “racism” in this context. Though I don’t insist adamantly that people employ only the narrower usage, I also see no reason to encourage people to use the terms more loosely.
That is certainly not true. There were many evidences of cultural and racial superiority that is well testified to in the Bible, such as John 4 and Acts 10-11. The whole point of Gal 3:26 is that these lines that JobK says doesn’t exist did exist and were in fact no longer applicable in teh body of Christ. Gal 3:26 doesn’t make any sense at all if “race” and “racism” didn’t exist. Neither does Gal 2, Acts 10-11, or Acts 15.
….
This, I think, reveals the heart of the problem, and that is a misunderstanding of race. The issue of race is too often made out as skin color, when in fact the issue ethnicity or people groups.
For more info, I’d suggest reading Race: A Study in Superstition by Jacques Barzun or several chapters in The Idea of Decline in Western History by Arthur Herman.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Ted] It might be wise to remind ourselves that Spirit-led and God-glorifying application of a text is based squarely on the correct interpretation of a text. Although God’s Holy Spirit can use anything to bring conviction, His express intent is to use the words of the inspired text. And our submission to that text in teaching it is a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. To make a text say something the Holy Spirit did not intent is a religious crime.Nobody’s disputing that here. But we would agree I think that though a text has a singular meaning, and has a singular primary point it makes more than one point. This is why even the most rigorous exegetical sermon outlines have multiple points and subpoints.
I would contend that Peter’s treatment of people not of his own ethnicity (Gentiles) and the impact of that action on the gospel is very close to being the main point here, but if we say it isn’t for sake of argument, it could easily be among the subpoints. A “single meaning” argument against an ethnism application here is not a strong argument.
The crucial question is why did Peter do what he did? Multiple answers are possible. Almost none of then can work without an ethnic distinction between himself and the Gentiles. (A religious distinction is intertwined with that. They can’t really be separated I don’t think) Surely we’re not claiming that Peter was confused about the gospel and randomly chose some people to express his confusion toward. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that Peter was unclear on the gospel (yikes!), in that scenario he targets a group of Gentiles specifically to make his point. That would make his behavior even more racist than if he simply caved to pressure from fellow Jews (with unintended gospel distortion as a result).
The anachronism argument
Some have suggested that ethnic tensions/discrimination was foreign to the era and we’re reading it back into the scene anachronistically.
The historical evidence against that is strong, but as it turns out we have Holy Writ. By the time Gal 2 was written…
- Peter had ethnism issues in his past - Acts 10:9-15 (Why did Peter neeed this sequence of visions? Because if God had simply said “Go to a Gentiles house,” Peter would either not have gone or would have gone resentfully, not truly welcoming them to the faith!)
- The church had ethnism issues in its past - Acts 6:1
It was indeed a problem and the apostles answered it (though, yes, on the way to making larger points).
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] The crucial question is why did Peter do what he did? Multiple answers are possible. Almost none of then can work without an ethnic distinction between himself and the Gentiles.Thanks for your clarification here, especially the point that ethnic distinctions are indeed at the heart of the text.
It is quite possible I overstated my case if I came across that way. If so, my bad. My intent was to simply claim that Peter was not acting out of racism when he separated himself from the table of the uncircumcised Gentiles. It was an issue of clean/unclean, which struck at the heart of the gospel of justification by faith. He was acting hypocritically, not racially (Gal. 2:13).
Further, I would not say Peter misunderstood the gospel of grace. Instead, he misapplied it, which is why Paul rebukes him at the level of speaking of justification, not racism.
[Larry] 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.Thanks for your graciously worded and continued interaction, Larry.
I do fear you went a bit far in your opening paragraph here “quite to the contrary.” I thought my post #38 brought forth sufficient exegetical data to prove the point that Paul was rebuking Peter, not the Galatians, as you claimed. And none of your quotes from reasonable and responsible sources in post #57 align with your prior claim. This is the “crux interpretum” for us here. Settle this one issue: who is Paul speaking to in Galatians 2:14ff? If you do find one writer who believes that Paul is rebuking the Galatians in these verses, I would appreciate reading their counter argument. But they have to deal with the exegetical data presented in my post, not merely make assertions.
You did us all a great favor by researching and taking the time to interact further on these points from several writers.
However, I must demur from the IVPBBC argument “Peter probably saw his actions here the way Paul saw his own in 1 Corinthians 9:19–22—appealing to everyone.” That is speculation. However, the point: “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” is totally right on. But then the author goes on to make the racism claim: “Although Peter and others undoubtedly claimed to oppose racism” - where? Again, this is supposition. The author goes on to claim “they accommodated it” - i.e., racism. He makes the accusation, but offers no exegetical support.
Accommodating racism is a sin. If Paul rebuked Peter for the sin of racism, it would be there in the text. Instead, his rebuke centers around Peter’s hypocrisy in connection to the gospel, not in dishonoring varying races. This will always be the achilles heel of the “racism view” of Galatians 2. Paul does not rebuke racism or ethnicm, nor are those terms in the text. They are imported into the text by the reader. There is no getting away from it. From a purely exegetical viewpoint, you will always be climbing uphill, trying to claim Peter was sinning the sin of racism. Racism, or ethnicism, is never addressed in the inspired text.
Instead, Peter and those who joined him (even Barnabas!) were rebuked for hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13). What was the hypocrisy concerning, racism, or the gospel?
Gal. 2:14 says, “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
You also quote George from the New American commentary. Thanks, and I agree with every word he writes.
Lightfoot’s quote is powerful indeed, and by itself, appears to completely support your point. However, stripped of its context, its hard to know who exactly he is referring to.
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.How about Acts 10-11? We are talking about Peter’s understanding that Gentiles are also justified by faith, even as Jews are. See Acts 11:12, 17-18, Acts 15:9. Peter had to grow in knowledge regarding justification by faith and its power to do for Gentiles without the works of the Law what it did for Jews who still observed the law.
Again, bro, you go too far:
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.The burden of the epistle is rather a clear enunciation of justification by faith. You will find a more solid basis for the purpose of the epistle in Gal. 1:6 “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.”
You might pick up Josh Moody’s new book on Galatians from Crossway: No Other Gospel: 31 Reasons from Galatians Why Justification by Faith Alone Is the Only Gospel. Josh is a solid expositor and dear brother. http://www.amazon.com/No-Other-Gospel-Galatians-Justification/sim/14335…
Consider this from Tom Schreiner’s recent commentary on Galatians:
“Paul is engaged in a battle for the gospel in this letter, and his words still speak to us today. Vital issues for the Christian life are tackled in Galatians. Paul unpacks the heart of the gospel. We see the meaning and centrality of justification by faith, which Luther rightly argued was the article by which the church stands or falls. How can a person stand before a holy God without being condemned? Paul answers that question in Galatians” (p. 21).Bro, when you write that the purpose of Galatians is sanctification, you demonstrate not only an extremely shallow grasp of the epistle, but are plainly wrong. The Galatians were seeking to be justified by the works of the Law because they had lost their grip on the gospel of justification by faith. My guess is that you know the epistle is actually about justification by faith, and perhaps wrote what you did without really thinking it through. I do that all the time, and need to be corrected when I do.
[Ted Bigelow] 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).overall excellent analysis of the issue Ted in Galatians.
a hero of the faith was black: evel Melech who rescued Jeremiah from the muddy cistern. the Lord even gave him a comforting message of personal deliverance because of his faith.
Moses also married a Cushite (Upper Egypt-Sudan) Woman which caused an incident and judgement against racism.
the surrounding nations of O.T. Israel were racially very similar to the Jews, in fact were distant relatives in some cases. the prohibitions of mixing and being influenced by Gentiles were toward peoples of the same ethnicity. the issue was whether folks were in the covenant community or not. much as today, they were to only marry and associate with those of the faith.
in reality there is only one race: the human one. i grieve with Brother Randall and with all others who have received countless slights of due respect.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
I did want to comment, though, on what Lightfoot called “bigotry” and JobK’s thoughts. JobK did not say there were no forms of religious or social chauvinism, rather that as we define them and in our context, they were much different. As well, it is quite accurate to understand the Jewish bigotry to be religious, not ethnic or racial and this is the context of the issue in Galatians. Hence, to Lightfoot’s comment, I would be surprised if, in making it, his emphasis was racial or ethnic and not religious bigotry.
Let me again, though, express my appreciation to Ted for his well articulated responses and supreme fielding of the issues being raised, they have been a great service. My time has been very limited so my contributions have been stunted and personally dissatisfying but this controversial interpretation of Galatians (particularly considering the lean in certain theological quarters today to attempt to remedy social, political and religious issues with a superimposition of them on many biblical texts), concerns me and reading Ted’s choice appeals has been very encouraging.
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
Now can we return to what I see as the two ton elephant in the room which every one is seemingly ignoring. I refer to the legacy of three hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow.
Back in the day, white Fundamentalism ignored its black brethren. We developed alternative schools to replace the denominationals which had slid into modernism. It would have been too much for them to set up integrated schools sixty plus years ago. However, they lost two generations of black leadership by not setting up black alternatives to the denominational schools.
I referred to other problems and conditions in my posts up thread.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall] Now can we return to what I see as the two ton elephant in the room which every one is seemingly ignoring. I refer to the legacy of three hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow. Back in the day, white Fundamentalism ignored its black brethren. We developed alternative schools to replace the denominationals which had slid into modernism. It would have been too much for them to set up integrated schools sixty plus years ago. However, they lost two generations of black leadership by not setting up black alternatives to the denominational schools.Rob, I agree with your general concern [but not your defense of separate-but-equal colleges]. I’ve been a bit snowed under, or I would have spent more time interacting here. A few thoughts.
First, I think Rob is right to redirect this thread toward the two-ton elephant. For those posters who were critical of the speaker’s text and exegesis, can we suggest a better NT text where this principle is more clearly taught? That discussion seemed missing here—leaving the neutral reader with an impression that we believe racial reconciliation is merely a social gospel, not taught in the NT.
Second, a word about charity: Editng a sermon is a tricky thing, in that the written version always ends up quite a bit shorter than the spoken version. And even well-edited sermon transcriptions have a different vibe than a carefully conceived formal essay. So I hope that readers will view my truncated transcription with charity, understanding that the preacher had more to say.
Third, a word about these references to Afrocentricity: I pray that we consider our own “Anglo-centricity” before making this accusation. Wow. I consider a comment by Alex in post #17 to be especially unguarded [in reference to Pastor Randall]: “I believe he has a common “Afro-centric” chip on his shoulder…He has personal issues in this case and has projected them onto others. Shame on him.” I’m disappointed that these words were unchallenged and unmoderated (considering they were written about a brother Alex has never met, and with virtually no internal warrant to justify the accusation) . Wow. I don’t think Pastor Randall has seen this comment, and I’ll not point it out to him, or he’d think twice before letting me transcribe another of his sermons!
Third, a word about blogging: It’s a white thing. If we are to address the elephant in the room—the problem of racism in white Fundamentalism—we’ll have to learn that we won’t have many meaningful interactions with African American pastors while typing on our laptops. And this much is clear: We need to learn from our African-American brothers.
[Rob Fall] Now can we return to what I see as the two ton elephant in the room which every one is seemingly ignoring. I refer to the legacy of three hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow.First, I disagree that there is an elephant, no one is ignoring American slavery itself, in fact it is the other elephant that Greg Randle and his sympathizers wish to make disappear, namely that his message is an illusion derived from the text.
[KevinM] For those posters who were critical of the speaker’s text and exegesis, can we suggest a better NT text where this principle is more clearly taught?This has already been suggested and done by those “critics”.
[KevinM] That discussion seemed missing here—leaving the neutral reader with an impression that we believe racial reconciliation is merely a social gospel, not taught in the NT.Per the social or political requirements from the Bible about race/ethnicity, I do not accept that it requires social or political reconciliation as it does within the NT body. The social and political aspects and the arguments derived from Scripture are certainly a topic essential to formulation but for the moment I want to stick with the context of the NT church.
The Bible has a strict protocol within the body of Christ which does not permit the promotion or distinction of race or ethnicity (either for or against) as it pertains to one’s spiritual identity. That is, within the body we are to view one another as spiritual not natural. This does not remove the reality of our natural racial/ethnic state, but that state is irrelevant with regard to our function within the body. Clearly there are a couple of exceptions with regard to gender, but those exceptions are clearly spelled out and they have to do with church offices. And of course we are not talking about that issue. So as it pertains to race/ethnicity, there is one spiritual race and that is how we are to adjust our minds.
[KevinM] I consider a comment by Alex in post #17 to be especially unguarded … Wow. I don’t think Pastor Randall has seen this comment, and I’ll not point it out to him, or he’d think twice before letting me transcribe another of his sermons!You end your protest with an appeal to fear or in other words, “if Alex gets to express his criticism then the punishment is going to be no more sermons by Randle printed here!”. At least that is the gist I get. However let’s deal with this chip on one’s shoulder, which means for one to “set up” a case for provocation. In other words, you have a literal chip on your shoulder (for you historiphiles I do realize that the chronicles of a chip on the shoulder is much more than this but its use today is in this context) and if someone brushes it off you use the occasion to feign a much greater offense has occurred, thereby justifying an exaggerated response. Once again let’s look at what Randle said and who, really, was unguarded, to see the “chip” he placed on his shoulder (bold mine):
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.Randle set upon himself (this is called presumption) the expectation both to be publicly recognized as a visitor and the demand that, while positioning himself in the hallway, someone come up and start a conversation. He is a complete stranger to the church by his own admission yet enters with certain social expectations and what does he conclude?
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.Randle’s initial description of the church, as predominantly Caucasian may have served as a fair description but what followed this tells me of something else in his cause to identify its predominant race. In his complaint, Mr. Randle does not conclude with the best view, that maybe his ignorance of the church’s practice did not give him the right to demand public acknowledgment of his presence or that not being spoken too is something everyone experiences everywhere and it is highly likely that those people are like him, simply waiting for someone to say hello to him. No, he concludes they had a racial motive without one real source of evidence. This is exactly what a chip on the shoulder looks like and acts like and which result in his unguarded words of implying a judgment against an entire congregation from a self-induced petty slight. He didn’t get acknowledged in the congregational setting so he set out to manufacture a fallacious context so he could prove they were just what he expected, racially motivated. This is absolutely horrendous behavior on his part if you ask me. He, as a Christian himself, should have thought the better.
One last question, if the church is predominantly caucasian, what about the non-caucasians and particularly the black members who failed to shake his hand? They’re to be implied as “racist” or even worse they should be thought of as black people attending a church with a large percentage of racially preoccupied whites and somehow still attend? His formula, his complaint and his reaction are completely incongruous
Now, if you wish to rebut my position, then rebut my points, but simply seeking to have them silenced because you don’t like reading them is not the road to discovery and clearly would deny me the opportunity to be enlightened as to the weaknesses of my position on this particular element of the entire consideration. And if Greg Randle wishes to email me and have a private exchange challenging my views or come here and respond, by all means it would be all the better thoroughly testing the points.
[KevinM] Third, a word about blogging: It’s a white thing.Wow, are you aware of the inherent contradiction contained in your own words vs. your protests of racism?
[KevinM] If we are to address the elephant in the room—the problem of racism in white Fundamentalism—we’ll have to learn that we won’t have many meaningful interactions with African American pastors while typing on our laptops. And this much is clear: We need to learn from our African-American brothers.This kind of language is responsible for perpetuating the very thing you are decrying. This “specialized” contextualization for any race/ethnicity is just what contributes to the issues being raised.
Additionally, I believe your comments reflect a poor view of those engaged here. From what I have read here I know of few men and women who are divorced from the world around them and they interact as often as necessary with anyone they need to on a mutually appreciative basis regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.
[KevinM] For those posters who were critical of the speaker’s text and exegesis, can we suggest a better NT text where this principle is more clearly taught? That discussion seemed missing here—leaving the neutral reader with an impression that we believe racial reconciliation is merely a social gospel, not taught in the NT.Hi Kevin,
I started the critique in post #1. At the end of it I wrote:
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).I hope that offers an olive branch.
Because the issue of racism is filled with emotion its tempting to see it in the text where it isn’t. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t in our hearts and in our churches.
For those willing to see the ugly truth about racism against African-Americans in our white-washed evangelical and fundamental churches, see:
http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2010/07/why-didnt-they.html
But be forewarned. Its very upsetting.
Anthony Bradley is brilliant PCA leader and regular blogger.
For a more recent post on the same: http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2011/02/pca-a-cultural.html
Discussion