People of God: Segregation

NickImageRead the series so far.

In the Old Testament, the terms people and nation are used interchangeably. Both terms have a significant ethnic component in their definition. In normal usage, a people or nation is constituted at least partly by its descent from a mutual ancestor. Assyrians descended from Asshur. Moabites were the children of Moab. Ammonites were sired by Benammi. Whatever other factors might enter into the description of a people or nation, its solidarity rests in its union with a common forebear.

Identifiable nations developed as a consequence of the division of languages at the tower of Babel. Prior to Babel, humanity functioned as a single people (Gen. 11:6). God used the division of languages to separate humanity into family groups that were divided, not only linguistically and ethnically, but also geographically (Acts 17:26).

These observations have sometimes been used to support a policy of racial segregation, often expressed in terms of a ban against interracial marriage. If this policy were limited to the Ku Klux Klan or the Posse Comitatus, it would hardly be worth noticing. Significant portions of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, however, have occasionally attempted to use Acts 17:26 and the division of nations at Babel to justify racial separation. For example, early editions of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible included a list of thirty reasons for segregation of the races after Acts 17:26. During the early 1960s, Bob Jones, Sr. preached (and his university subsequently distributed) an entire sermon justifying segregation, with Acts 17:26 as his pivotal proof text. Similar arguments were heard from supporters of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College when, under the presidency of Joseph Rammel, that school enforced a ban against interracial dating.

Peter spoke about people who twist or distort the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16). Certainly the use of Acts 17:26 to authorize segregation (or to prohibit interracial marriage) constitutes a distortion of Scripture. While the Bible does understand a people or nation as an ethnic unit, it is not possible to argue from this perspective to racial segregation.

In the first place, the modern use of the term race is not equivalent to the biblical use of the terms people or nation. The modern concept of race revolves around imprecise combinations of characteristics such as hair texture, bone structure, the concentration of melanin in the skin, and geographical distribution. At most, however, defining race by features of this sort produces a kind of ambiguously sliding scale that allows no sharp differentiation between races. The weakness of the system is illustrated (e.g.) by the inability of anthropologists to agree upon a racial classification for the Dravidian peoples. Even if these classifications could be tightened up, however, they do not correspond to anything in Scripture.

Second, the only division that God imposed directly at Babel was a confounding of languages—a process that is still going on today. If, as racists argue, the changes that follow Babel are divinely intended, and if it is invariably wrong to reverse these divinely-imposed separations, then a reversal of the linguistic division ought to be the most serious sin. In other words, it should always be wrong to learn a foreign language or to translate a text—including the text of the Bible.

Third, Acts 17:26 specifically mentions that God decided ahead of time which lands the nations would occupy. In other words, geographical boundaries are part of God’s purpose. No one infers, however, that a shift in national boundaries is always and everywhere a violation of God’s purpose for humanity. The world—including the biblical world—has witnessed ceaseless migration. What Paul is saying in Acts 17 is that God’s eternal purpose has already taken account of when and where the movements of entire peoples would occur. God does not prohibit people from moving from one place to another, but He has providentially determined when those movements will occur.

Fourth, while recognizing a diversity of nations, Acts 17:26 strongly emphasizes the unity of humanity. Even after the division into “languages, families, and nations” (Gen. 10:5), the oneness of the human race remains far more important than its divisions. This oneness is particularly significant when contrasted with the mutable and secondary characteristics that anthropologists and others have employed in attempting to distinguish races (in the modern sense). These characteristics exhibit the tremendous capacity for diversity with which humanity was created, but they do not introduce any new genetic information into the one human race.

Finally, the Bible itself exhibits no irrevocable pattern of ethnic segregation. Quite the opposite: Scripture imposes ethical or theological separations, but never purely ethnic ones. The children of Israel were forbidden to marry idolaters, but they were permitted to select believing spouses from other ethnicities. The family tree of David, and eventually of the Messiah, includes an ethnic Canaanite (Rahab) and a Moabite (Ruth). By marrying into Israel these women became part of Israel.

Even Moses married a Cushite woman—almost certainly a black African (attempts to argue otherwise have to be strained almost to the breaking point). When Moses’ sister, Miriam, complained about this arrangement, God struck her with leprosy. The text carefully notes that Miriam became white “as snow.” So much for pride in the color of one’s skin.

To say that a biblical people or nation has an ethnic identity is not an argument for racism. It provides no foundation for any version of racial segregation, including any prohibition against interracial marriage. Furthermore, a correct understanding of the church as a people of God provides one context in which the older ethnic distinctions are simply obliterated. That consideration, however, merits separate examination as part of a separate problem.

The larger problem is this. If a people or a nation finds its identity in its solidarity with an ancestor, then how can the church be understood as a people at all? How can a body that comprises individuals from all sorts of ethnicities be viewed as a people in any sense, let alone as a people of God? This important question will occupy our attention next.

When Jesus Wept
William Billings (1746–1800)

When Jesus wept, the falling tear
in mercy flowed beyond all bound;
when Jesus groaned, a trembling fear
seized all the guilty world around.

Discussion

Great little study on segregation vs. Scripture… couldn’t be more clear.

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.

Bauder makes the common mistake of treating racial segregation and racism as synonyms. Secondly it appears he switches back from social or governmental policy to ecclesiastical policy or protocol as if they are bound by identical biblical protocols, they are not. Finally he argues that the oneness of humanity is more important than its divisions. The human family is the most basic corporate division and is a divine institution and it is not in competition with the oneness of humanity but without its genetic and legal distinction, if such a dichotomy is to be invented to argue the issue, the social structure of humanity would be obliterated. He is sincere in his arguments but I believe its construct has issues to answer

“…but without its genetic and legal distinction, if such a dichotomy is to be invented to argue the issue, the social structure of humanity would be obliterated.”

Do you mean that the genetic makeup of the family is of primary importance to a healthy social structure in society?

Barry

To answer your Q?:

More specifically, the human family (speaking by way of its divine design as an institution as revealed in Scripture) is identified and/or made up of proprietary genetic distinctions and specific legal distinctions. These have implications, in my view, with regard to certain discriminatory and segregative freedoms for society/humanity which may be viewed as falling within Biblical morality and liberty as groups form governments and various social groups. But let me be clear that within the body of Christ the order and protocols change with no reference to genetics to be a member and enjoy all of the spiritual blessings in Christ.

I think we have found your gift. Dude - you do some of the most creative “deep dig” on literature (or we’ll just call it “writing”) I’ve seen in my life - all 44 years. You get the blue ribbon my man. I have never seen anyone do what seems to me to be a kind of “second-guessing analysis” on people’s post like you do. It just never occurred to me to differentiate between racism and racial segregation vis-a-vis Bauder’s point. The same with the governance issue. Alex - I don’t mean to be rude here but (speaking only for myself) without accusing you of anything specific - I just wonder if you aren’t re-inventing the “authorial intent” of the posters here at SI. There is no doubt that I am not the sharpest pencil in the box - but I try to just understand what people are saying. This makes me one of the happiest pencil’s in the box! Just take people at face value. I will admit I have failed here a time or two - but I try to just take people at face value. OK - look, I could be wrong here. It may be that you really are trying to take people at what they say - and you are trying to understand - and you are trying to help us all be consistent. I certainly have been wrong before and I could be wrong here also. If you are really genuine than maybe you need to do a “remedial” sub-script for we who are a bit more - simple. Thank for your patience!

Straight Ahead Alex!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Andrew

Instead of laying out a great deal of information and still possibly missing what it is you are not understanding from me, may I Suggest that you ask very specific questions regarding what I said. As I said I could post 3 paragraphs and still not hit the target with regard to what it is you’re unsure about. Joel, Feel free to consider that a response for your post is well.

Thanks

Andrew

I believe the sample of the human family presents the best illustration of genetic segregation with exclusive and special benefits to a genetic sub-group. The exclusivity of the human family as a genetically identified thus socially segregated unit is not bases on the view of inherent genetic superiority (that is one group is more human than another -racism) but as the means by which human perpetuity is achieved, first through family government with its special and unique responsibilities, privileges and benefits and then through national government, if so formed.

And we have seen the growth of families into nations such as the Cherokee Nation which requires genetic properties for membership aside from the exception of legal entrance. The oneness of humanity does not give an inherent right to demand entrance to another family, whether as a single unit or as a nation, of so formed over time.

And to argue against such a nation is to argue against its principle upon which the human family has been designed by God to be formed.

Alex, I still don’t understand much of what you’re saying, but let me boil it down to one question. The particular mis-application of scripture Bauder was rebutting was the prohibition of interracial dating and marriage in the earlier days of some of our prominent fundamental colleges (which was still in force, stupidly, while I was at BJU 1978-82).

Do you disagree with Bauder on this point? Do you understand the Bible to prohibit interracial dating/marriage or not?

Andrew

After giving it some thought I believe it’s only fair and prudent to pursue clarity on already covered material rather than to answer additional questions seeing that the “already covered material” may have some bearing on my response to further questions. So I will ask what specifically did you not understand in my response in post #10.

Is the use of the Cherokee Nation intended to show that families becoming ‘nations’ is the only category God uses (or, at least, condones)? If that is the case, what about the various words used to describe humanity in the book of Revelation (some refer to the lost, some to the saved)?

And, Alex, are you using the term “race” to mean an ethnic group, somewhat along the lines of “Irish race,” “English race,” “Italian race,” and so on?

Finally, is this sentence, “The oneness of humanity does not give an inherent right to demand entrance to another family, whether as a single unit or as a nation, of so formed over time,” part of your argument against “inter-racial” marriage, as usually understood nowadays?

[Alex Guggenheim] Andrew After giving it some thought I believe it’s only fair and prudent to pursue clarity on already covered material rather than to answer additional questions seeing that the “already covered material” may have some bearing on my response to further questions. So I will ask what specifically did you not understand in my response in post #10.

Answering my question in post # 11 will provide “clarity on already covered material.” Not answering my question seems to me to be the opposite of pursuing clarity. Pursuant to your last sentence, what specifically I did not understand in your response in post # 10 is your position on interracial dating/marriage.

Thanks.

Alex,

You have asserted alot of unbliblical silliness over the years. But, I think you may have even outdone yourself here.

Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church

[dmyers]

[Alex Guggenheim] Andrew After giving it some thought I believe it’s only fair and prudent to pursue clarity on already covered material rather than to answer additional questions seeing that the “already covered material” may have some bearing on my response to further questions. So I will ask what specifically did you not understand in my response in post #10.

Answering my question in post # 11 will provide “clarity on already covered material.” Not answering my question seems to me to be the opposite of pursuing clarity. Pursuant to your last sentence, what specifically I did not understand in your response in post # 10 is your position on interracial dating/marriage.

Thanks.

I made no reference to interest interracial dating in #10 but thank you for noticing I was responding to your post though I mistakenly addressed it to Andrew, apologies to both.

[B-Lowry]

Is the use of the Cherokee Nation intended to show that families becoming ‘nations’ is the only category God uses (or, at least, condones)? If that is the case, what about the various words used to describe humanity in the book of Revelation (some refer to the lost, some to the saved)?

And, Alex, are you using the term “race” to mean an ethnic group, somewhat along the lines of “Irish race,” “English race,” “Italian race,” and so on?

Finally, is this sentence, “The oneness of humanity does not give an inherent right to demand entrance to another family, whether as a single unit or as a nation, of so formed over time,” part of your argument against “inter-racial” marriage, as usually understood nowadays?

Cherokee is an anthropological designation stemming.g from self-identification based on genetic properties. It is a family or a group of families that became its own nation. God does not “use” that term since he has not assigned himself the duty of forming human governments, man has that responsibility. The Bible does refer to saved and unsaved and so should we but that is a spiritual classification, not an anthropological one.Yes, I am referring to race based on a broad to narrow scope or taxonomy (example you mentioned: Caucasian to Irish to specific family).No to the the last reference about the oneness of humanity not having an inherent right to demand entrance into a family is not an argument against IR marriage. But it is an argument against any one insisting that integration of any group with another is a basic human right stemming from this so-called oneness of humanity. Those decisions and actions are to be voluntary in nature and nothing in Scripture requires otherwise (I am speaking of social contexts and not spiritual ones of course).

But, I believe Dr. Bauder, was not arguing for the disallowance of natural segregation, but arguing against the biblical insistence of racial segregation.