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..
For example,
He was acting hypocritically, not raciallyOne can act both hypocritically and racially. Your observations about the hypocrisy later should be viewed in this light as well.
It’s true that Paul focuses on Peter’s “hypocrisy,” but what did he do that constituted hypocrisy? “Hypocrisy” is just the way Paul characterizes something Peter did. What he did was what we today call “discrimination on the basis of race” —except that “ethnicity” would be more accurate. What he did was treat the non-Jews badly and this constituted hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy has to do with inconsistency between what you claim and what you do or, sometimes, just blatant inconsistency in what you do.
So in Gal2.12, Paul shows us where the hypocrisy occurred:
“for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself…”
By eating with them, he was saying “We are one in Christ. Our ethnic differences do not matter. It is not unclean to eat with you.” In other words, as the commentary says—that you took issue with above—he was saying, in our vernacular “I’m against racism” (among other things). But when he withdrew, he was saying something else: “Your non-Jew status is a problem and we are not one in Christ and it is unclean for me to eat with you.”
Hypocrisy and ethnism.
If Paul rebuked Peter for the sin of racism, it would be there in the text.It is in the text here:
“I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself…”
In short, the sin of racism had no name as such at the time. Paul calls it hypocrisy.
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.
P.S. As for the text. Here is how we know the issue in view was not ethnic or racial but religious. Peter’s eating with the Gentiles was based on being “one in Christ” indeed. But when the Jews came he feared them. Why? He was a Jew so why did he fear them? Notice again:
because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision groupWhat group? The circumcision group. Not a race, not an ethnicity, but a group following a religious code. This was bigotry indeed, but not racial or ethnic, rather religious.
But the fact that there were accepted God-fearers among the Gentiles who even attended the synagogue services shows that there is more than just religious superiority in the mix.
But the clincher is this: the Gentiles that Peter withdrew from were of the same religion as he himself.
But I’m asserting that Peter’s behavior constituted ethnism (and gospel distortion, and hypocrisy) regardless of what motivated it. When you say to a group of fellow believers who are distinguishable from you only by their ethnicity “I can’t be seen with you,” that is ethnism even if you believe you have to do this because of the price of eggs in China.
The behavior is a problem all by itself (though ethnic superiority was almost definitely an aggravating factor)
The fact that the group that triggered Peter’s fear was a subset of Jews-“circumcision group”—proves nothing at all. If they had been the Mafia, his actions would still be ethnism and an implied rejection of the gospel.
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.
[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). I hope that offers an olive branch.Ted, I like it. I wish the thread would have more clearly addressed what these passages teach—I”m still puzzled over the emotional energy that was expended here. My own view is that the overall tone isn’t quite right.
I’m grateful for Larry, among others here, who have worked to show that Pastor Randle’s overall interpretation falls within a tradition embraced by credible commentators. I understand that some here have criticized his specific points, and some have criticized the general topical approach, but for me, Pastor Randle has not strayed from orthodox thought.
By the way, I understood Rob’s comment to be a reference to historically-black colleges started by fundamentalists because blacks were banned from more established schools. As a result, we now enjoy the ministries of Crossroads Bible College in Indianapolis and Carver Baptist Bible College in Kansas City, among others.
[Aaron Blumer] The same false disjunction problem is involved in what Alex and JobK have suggested as well. That the Jewish superiority stuff was religious and not ethnic. There is no reason why it cannot be both.This is the wrong question to ask which may be why you are having difficulty with the simplicity of the context. What I mean is to ask “why it cannot be both” is irrelevant to the context. It can be but it isn’t.
This is like asking whether one a person driving a car can also be listening to the radio and because it is possible we simply go ahead and say it is the case.
[Aaron Blumer] In fact, the scene cannot occur without both. That is, they separate from an ethnic group because they believe themselves religiously superior.Gentiles are not an ethnic group. They refer to non-Jews which can be any ethnicity. It is often translated “nations” meaning all those outside the Theocracy of Israel. Secondly you just made the point about why they separated, “because they believe themselves to be religiously superior”.
[Aaron Blumer] But the clincher is this: the Gentiles that Peter withdrew from were of the same religion as he himself.Right, he withdrew from the Gentiles because he feared those of another religious code or “of the circumcision”. The fact that this is a subset reinforces the disclaimer of the text being an ethnic or racial one because this group is based on adherence to a religious code which they sought to enforce. A thorough comment by http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/56-10] MacArthur :
But in Crete there was a special group of them made up of Jews. Now we’re starting to hone in on the specifics of what was going on in Crete. At the end of verse 10 he says, “Especially those of the circumcision.” That term “the circumcision” tells us these were Jews. The word “especially” can have the sense of “in other words,” or “most specifically what I’m talking about is the circumcision.” And what that tells us was there were some Jews there who were the primary articulators of this heresy. In fact, the circumcision, quote/unquote, could just be a synonym for Jews. But probably in the light of Galatians chapter 2 verses 7 through 12 it has reference to what Paul there called the “circumcision party” which would be a sect that sort of got its way into Christianity and said, “Yes we’re Christians and we believe Jesus is the Messiah but you can’t know God unless you have been circumcised and you have maintained the Mosaic ceremonial law.” That’s the circumcision party. These Jews were teaching the rebellious non-sensical deceptive stuff that we associate with Judaizers who say, “Well yes, it’s fine to believe in Christ but we’ve got this other stuff that you have to follow and we don’t care what the church says we reject that,” there’s that rebelliousness again, “we have this inside information, this stuff about keeping all the Mosaic Laws and being physically circumcised as a requirement for salvation,” and with that nonsense they were deceiving people in Crete. They needed to be silenced.Again the prejudice or bigotry is based in religious observance or code, not ethnicity and race itself.
[Aaron Blumer] But I’m asserting that Peter’s behavior constituted ethnism (and gospel distortion, and hypocrisy) regardless of what motivated it. When you say to a group of fellow believers who are distinguishable from you only by their ethnicity “I can’t be seen with you,” that is ethnism even if you believe you have to do this because of the price of eggs in China.Aaron, possibly because Peter was a hereditary Jew it may have exacerbated his concerns but this assertion can only remain speculative. The context of his fear being based in practice or religious code and not in ethnicity or race is demonstrated in the text by the subsequent approach of Paul in his address to Peter of the real issue which was religious or theological and not ethnic or racial. But we are going ‘round and ‘round at this point it appears.
The behavior is a problem all by itself (though ethnic superiority was almost definitely an aggravating factor)
The fact that the group that triggered Peter’s fear was a subset of Jews-“circumcision group”—proves nothing at all. If they had been the Mafia, his actions would still be ethnism and an implied rejection of the gospel.
[Ted Bigelow] I’m in the dark, bro. What’s a separate but equal college?Sorry, I misatributed my remark. I was referencing KevinM in 73 above.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
There is a NT word that can be used for bigotry. It is “partiality.”
It is a word (or complex of words) denoting the “receiving of face” relating to the ancient practice of a king either looking upon a subject (hence favor) or not looking upon him (hence disfavor).
See James 2:9, Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, and our own passage, Gal. 2:6.
Kevin,
My reason for being nit-picky on the passage is not to try win a debate, or be a stick in the mud. It is because once the emotional issue of racism is introduced into Peter’s sins in Galatians 2 we have confused the single thrust of Paul’s rebuke. Hence, the more the passage becomes about racism (a moral issue) the less it becomes about justification (a forensic issue). In effect, Paul is now telling the Galatians not to be racist (through Peter’s sin), instead of using Peter to show them that any distinctions among Christians in something as simple as eating is a denial of justification by faith.
I’m not saying ethnic factors weren’t at play. Of course they were! But Peter’s issues were not racist, but induced by fear because of how he felt he would be perceived by those of the circumcision. His issues were not the emotional racist issues that attend present day discussions about the mal-treatment of African Americans in and out of the church.
[KevinM] 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.why the clamor for NT teaching? God in the NT is telling us to constantly go back to the OT to understand the New. anti-racial bigotry was judged in the OT clearly as I have pointed out with the examples of saints from the area of Ethiopia/The Sudan.
Kevin, you seem to anticipate a possible objection from those you minister to: “but where in the NT does it teach anti-racism”? i always stop and straighten folks out on “invalid questions” and possibly teach them something else also.
is bias something that so blinds some to the common sense and Scriptural teaching of the unity of mankind?
Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9
[Alex K.] why the clamor for NT teaching? God in the NT is telling us to constantly go back to the OT to understand the New. anti-racial bigotry was judged in the OT clearly as I have pointed out with the examples of saints from the area of Ethiopia/The Sudan.Alex K—I’m okay with also citing the OT (I agree with you that the idea is consistently taught in OT/NT). My specific intent was to address racism in the local church, in which case I think the epistles would be the best source for teaching about the church. But I agree with your OT ideas, too.
Alex, my point about false disjunctions makes more sense if you take in light of what I posted previously.
1. I’ve pointed out several items in the text that indicate an ethnism problem
2. An argument against that possibility was variations of “It isn’t ethinism/racism, it’s hypocrisy/religious/etc.”
3. I pointed out the false disjunction because it can be both ethnicsm and these other things.
So, for evidence that it is both, see earlier posts… or—at the risk of being a bit coy—the text.
I can summarize though:
- we know the early church had some ethnism issues (Acts 6)
- we know Peter had some ethnism issues (mixed w/religious ones, yes- Acts 9-10)
- we know the entire scene referred to in Gal. 2 could not have occurred without a visible ethnic distinction. Regardless of what motivated Peter, what he did was snub a group of people ethnically foreign to him.
So now we have another argument: the gentiles are not an ethnic group. This one is not very strong either because as soon as you start to define what “gentile” is, you run into ethnic factors. They are non-Jews.
So it’s true that “gentile” does not refer to one particular ethnicity, it did—at the time—pretty much refer to non-belonging to one particular ethnicity. That was changing due to diaspora. So you had hellenistic Jews and more—shall we say—Palestinian ones. Nonetheless, “gentile” was and still is and ethnic group that contains other ethnic groups (much like the group “black” includes people from a variety of African nations)
To use Ted’s term, Peter showed partiality to Jews there and by doing so, communicated that the gospel did not equally include other ethnic groups. So is ethnism less evident when a person rejects every ethnicity but his own rather than rejecting just one ethnicity?
It’s still rejecting a group of people based on where they are ultimately from… and doing this was an insult to the gospel and an effective distortion of it.
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.
Discussion