Race, Division, and the One Family of God

We’ve seen violent riots erupt in various places across the country for at least six years now in places like Ferguson and Baltimore. We’ve seen individuals kill police officers, shoot up churches, topple statues, drive over protestors, and attempt to assassinate congressmen. We’ve seen racial hoaxes and rushes to judgment. And for the past two weeks since the events in Charlottesville, I’ve seen Christian ministers and pastors speak about the evil of racism. That is true, of course, but the problem I have with many of the pronouncements I’ve heard and read was that they were too simplistic, too on-the-surface. Such orations seemed to me to be the frequently heard, anybody-can-say clichés that have become dulled with repetition. Occasionally, someone would note that all humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26) and are thus equally worthy of honor, but that was as deep as anyone would go. It was like these pastors simply said what everyone says just so they could be seen to have said it. It was more thoughtless virtue-signaling than penetrative analysis. We need to go deeper.

One of the results of the Fall of Man, sin and evil entering the world was the fracturing of humanity. This fracturing, as it is related in the story of Babel (Genesis 11), represented in the breakdown in communication, is immediately followed by God calling Abraham (Genesis 12). God established a covenant or agreement with Abraham saying that he would give him a large family and that the nations of the world would be blessed (Genesis 15, 17). This covenant with Abraham and his family (Israel) was made specifically for the purpose of dealing with the problem of evil and sin and putting humanity back on track. One of the prophecies of the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Messiah was that non-Jews would come to God (Isaiah 2:1-5; 60:4-14) and be a part of God’s people, this one family of Abraham. When the Kingdom does come we first get a symbolic reversal of the effects of the Babel when the Gospel is miraculously able to be preached to numerous languages at Pentecost (Acts 2). This is followed by numerous examples of non-Jews accepting Jesus as Lord and believing in God (Acts 8, 10, 13, 16). The prophecies come true and non-Jews, races and ethnicities of all kinds, come into this one family God promised to Abraham. This is the part of the general idea preached by Paul in his letters to the Galatians and the Romans. For the sake of space I will focus primarily on Galatians.

In Galatians, Paul is responding to a crisis in the church. A group of Jewish Christians have arrived in Galatia and have begun to tell the Gentile Christians that they must adopt Jewish ethnic-cultural practices (circumcision, exclusive table fellowship, ritual cleanliness, kosher diet, cultural holidays, etc.) in order to be regarded as a member of God’s people. Basically, they are telling the Gentiles that they must become ethnic Jews in order to be a part of the one family that God promised Abraham. Paul will have none of it. He argues that 1) God’s original purpose was to create one family, one people (3:27-29), 2) the coming of the Kingdom of God and the work of Jesus has fulfilled the purpose of the Jewish Law (Torah) (3:24-26), 3) it is by faith and not by becoming a Jew that people are regarded as members of this one family (2:16), and 4) the extreme focus on ethnic differences divides this one family and runs counter to God’s purpose (3:27-29). Not that there is anything wrong with cultural differences in of themselves (5:6; 6:15). Yet when racial, cultural, and ethnic differences are used to divide, exclude, and marginalize, they become contrary to the Gospel and the plan of God: that one, renewed family that is to revive creation.

So what does this mean for us? Basically, as stated, while there is nothing inherently wrong with differences in race, culture, and ethnicity, when those differences seek to divide, exclude, persecute, and marginalize, they become contrary to the Gospel. The most obvious examples are the various forms of racial supremacy (white supremacy, black supremacy, etc.) and racial nationalism (black, white, etc.). These movements seek to elevate one race or ethnicity over others. Again, the fault in this, with its inherent divisiveness and exclusion, is obvious. So obvious, in fact, that such attitudes exist only on the fringe of the fringe in American society and is virtually non-existent. Paul touches upon this subject in Romans 1-2 in which he argues against the Jew who boasts of his ethnic superiority. Some Jews believed that because God had chosen Israel for the task of saving the world and had given them Torah that they were therefore exalted in their ethnicity. Again, Paul will have none of that, arguing that God shows no partiality (2:11). In Christ, there is no superiority among the races.

More common, though, is the idea of racial and ethnic separation. While this is largely condemned when it takes the form of segregation, apartheid, anti-miscegenation, and racial separatism, such separation can nevertheless be either supported or ignored when it takes the form of identity movements and identity politics. Naturally, the Alt-Right is rightfully condemned with its focus on white identity and racial marginalization. But also contrary to the Gospel are other racial identity movements (black power, chicano power, etc.) that seek to over-emphasize their identity to the exclusion or distrust of others. Often times this emphasis is a result of hatred, distrust, and emotional wounds directed at other races and ethnicities. Indeed, the focus on identity groups by politicians is an attempt to play one group off another, seeking grievances, reparations, and revenge over perceived injustices and victimhood. What starts off as ethnic and racial “pride” (and cultural heritage!) can descend into racial solidarity and ethnocentrism. What starts off as justified causes for acceptance and assimilation can spiral downward into erratic emphases on false narratives of privilege, unscientific assertions of micro-aggressions, and ludicrous positions on cultural appropriation. For someone who saw the focus on circumcision, eating practices, and cultural holidays as divisive to the one family of God, I can imagine how bewildered Paul would be today to see people argue that it’s a cultural crime for particular races to eat tacos, wear hoop earrings, and celebrate Cinco de Mayo. He would consider it exclusionary and racist. Paul would see it as a form of marginalization that runs contrary to the Gospel.

It was historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that “basing politics on group marginalization fractures the civil polity and therefore works against creating real opportunities for ending marginalization” and that "movements for civil rights should aim toward full acceptance and integration of marginalized groups into the mainstream culture, rather than ... perpetuating that marginalization through affirmations of difference." I’ll even note Marxist theorist Brendan O’Neill who writes that “we have the politics of identity, which invites people to stay in, to look inward, to obsess over the body and the self, to surround themselves with a moral forcefield to protect their worldview—which has nothing to do with the world—from any questioning.”

This latter analysis is interesting. When God gave the Jews the Law part of its purpose was to create guardrails to keep God’s covenant people in check until the time when the Messiah would come (Galatians 3:22-25). Yet many Jews used it as a means of looking inward, of excluding, of becoming ethno-centric to the point that they were no longer the light of the world. They took the gift of cultural distinctives and made it a weapon of exclusion and a badge of ethnic privilege. This is what Jesus is getting at when he talks about not hiding a light under a bushel (Matthew 5:14-16).

It’s interesting to see some progressives embrace the Marxist theory of intersectionality as a practical means of uniting the disparate parties of perceived victimhood under the shared identity of the state. In this practice, the “proper”, orthodox socio-political views on race, sex, and wealth are the cultural badges one wears to identify oneself as a progressive in good standing. Paul, on the other hand, saw the disparate groups of humanity coming together,not under the Law with its cultural distinctive as identity badges, but forming together as one family under the Lordship of Christ with faith in him as the means of identity signifying a member in good standing. This is why Paul can write the following:

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:26-29).

Finally, the most common form of racism is that of false assumptions about morality. I’m not specifically talking about the all-too repeated scenario in which as soon as a racial incident occurs people automatically assign guilt, innocence, and intent before all the investigated facts are known. That is bad enough. We’ve had numerous racial hoaxes in recent years that could’ve been avoided if people would’ve had patience and not assumed the position of their lesser angels.  No, rather, more specifically, I am referring to the racist practice of having either lower or higher standards of morality towards individuals or groups depending upon racial and cultural differences. For example, we shouldn’t excuse or rationalize the behavior of KKK members, dismissing it as the natural behavior of redneck, uneducated hicks. Similarly, we shouldn’t excuse the behavior of minority or “oppressed” groups when they riot and loot and say “we must understand their anger.” Rubbish! Far from being simply condescending and paternalistic, it is inherently racist to assume that one racial or ethnic group has a lower standard of morality than another. Such an assumption necessarily implies that another group has a higher standard. More importantly, two or more standards of morality create division within the community. It’s moral segregation. It’s ethical apartheid.

Consider Paul in Galatians. Even as the apostle is warning the church that the heavy emphasis on cultural distinctive causes divisions within the one family of God, he nevertheless calls for a singular standard of moral behavior for both Jews and Greeks based upon what is revealed in Scripture (Galatians 5). Paul reiterates this single standard in Romans 1:18-2:16 (see also Ephesians 4). At no point do racial and ethical distinctives nullify the common standard of Christian morality. So when we excuse immoral behavior by other races and ethnicities we run contrary to Scripture and place divisions among us.

Paul deals with the subject of racial and ethnic differences by putting it squarely within the context of God’s promised plan to redeem creation through a united family. This one family is a redeemed humanity of all races and ethnicities in Christ. While there is nothing inherently wrong with cultural differences they can become divisive if used as a means of separation. At the same time, while cultural distinctives are relative, there is a common standard of morality that exists for everyone. Again, the emphasis is on unity.