You Hate Racism? Jesus is a Better Cure Than Social Policy

I want racism eradicated, just like many social justice Christians do. But I fundamentally disagree with their approach.

Sometimes I feel like a pariah when I write about social justice Christianity and the way I believe Satan is effectively using it to divide the church and drive us from our primary mission to seek and save lost souls. Even though I know there are voices like mine who are saying the same things, and saying them far more articulately, I still feel like a bit of an exile.

I hate racism. I hate everything to do with racism. My wife and I were driving the other day and were just marveling at the stupidity that existed not so terribly long ago in our country where people actually thought that black people shouldn’t use the same drinking fountain as white people. That’s not just awful, it’s so incredibly stupid. There’s a reason I say that – and it has nothing to do with my own personal preferences or goodness.

I am a Christian and therefore submit and have a mind transformed to the Biblical truths that:

  1. There is but one blood, one race – Adam’s race. Acts 17:26
  2. There is only unity and brotherhood in Christ, no Jew or Gentile. Galatians 3:28
  3. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves, regardless of skin tone. Mark 12:31
  4. Different tongues, different ethnicity, different sex are demonstrations of God’s creative majesty, not distinctions of His preferences. Revelation 7:9

I hate racism because I love God. It’s that simple, but it’s also more involved. Because I hate racism, I also hate the ideologies and philosophies that welcome it (like white supremacy, black separatism, Nazism), and those that breed it (like Darwinism).

I want racism eradicated, just as many who embrace current social justice Christianity do. But I fundamentally disagree with their approach because I believe it is built upon cultural theology that anticipates racism's eradication coming through social policy. That is wrong. I prefer an approach rooted in the truth of the Bible that reminds us racism will never be eradicated in a fallen world.

Those two fundamentally different starting points will yield two fundamentally different strategies, two fundamentally different teachings, and thus two fundamentally different kinds of disciples. The first will focus on motivating society towards manmade institutions equipped for restitution and deliverance. The second will focus on motivating society towards the cross alone for deliverance of our souls, our attitudes, and our minds.

I do not believe that preaching and teaching white guilt and black liberation theology is productive or godly. The fact that it is so evident on Christian campuses and so prevalent in major evangelical church culture today is the unsurprising fruit of Satan’s deception, intending to turn brothers against brothers, to tie us up in futile efforts at cultural reconciliation by means of social action, and to distract us from our only real hope of unity.

The only effective antidote to racism is Jesus. Preaching anything else as a cure treats racism as something other than what it is – sin. Racism is a symptom of man’s disease of sinfulness; and thus its only remedy is redemption in Christ alone. Those truly committed to combatting racism then would be wisest to dedicate themselves to converting souls to Jesus. As Darrell B. Harrison has put it,

“What do white pastors need to say that Jesus hasn’t already said?”

Precisely. Show me a church of all white people that does nothing but preach Jesus, teach His doctrines, praise His love, abide in His principles, and I will show you the least racist, purest-hearted congregation in the world. Show me a church of all black people that does nothing but exalt the King of Kings, worship His sovereignty, reverence His grace, obey His instruction, and I will show you the least racist, purest-hearted congregation in the world.

The world futilely looks to man and his institutions to solve our problems. The church must do better and point all men to Christ as Lord. What we need isn’t a purer social doctrine to save us from our racial division and strife. We need a purer focus on the risen Savior.

But once saved, isn’t social justice something we will embrace and teach other Christians to pursue? No, because Biblical justice and social justice aren't the same thing. Check out Part II of this essay tomorrow.

Comments
No. 1-25
bllck100
bllck100

Cain's wife was most likely his sister or his neice. The text of Genesis 4 does not specifically say that Cain found his wife in the land of Nod. It only says that at some point after he killed his brother and God judged him he settled there. The literary style of Genesis is typical of Hebrew text. It gives on overview of some event and then if more clarity is needed then a description with more detail is given. Then the story is picked up again where the writer left off. Similar to what is done in a movie when you are taken back in time and then brought back to the present later in the movie. For example, Genesis 1 is an overview of God's creative work in the first seven days then Genesis 2 takes us back in time to the 6th day to give us more detail of God's creation of man and mankind (Adam and Eve).

bllck100
bllck100

First, the use of the word "blood" is a non-issue. Modern interpretations that use the oldest manuscripts do not use this word (see English Standard Version or New American Standard Version). They use the word "man" which is in brackets indicating that it is not literally translated from the original language. It is inserted for clarity and indicated as such. Second, you have not given any specific evidence that there is a connection between the word "one" and the word "dust" other than the commentary of the Bullinger Companion Bible. As much as I respect his commentary he is not the final word, the Bible itself is. There is no indication from the direct context that the word "one" is anything other than a primary number that modifies the object, mankind. Further, the author (Paul) is arguing from the greater to the lesser concerning his statement that God needs nothing from man. Since he is the creator of the first man and since all human beings are descendants of the first man, why would the creator need something from what He has created and what has descended from that. This was probably in contrast to the belief of the Greek philosophers he was talking to, that each of the many gods created their own race of people.

Revelation29
Revelation29

The Greek texts omit the word blood. It simply is not in the manuscripts. I'm reading in the context of the Bible as a whole. From the Bullinger Companion Bible: "The word "one" as it is used here means either Adam or the dust of which he was formed." In context of this verse correctly interpreted, what this is saying is we were all created from the same clay or earthly materials that Adam was formed from. On the 6th day God created man. No article, so we are talking about mankind in general. God made them hunters and fishers. He rested on the seventh. Then, God looked and he had no one to tend the Garden of Eden. He needed a husbandman or farmer. So he formed "The Man Adam", a specific person. So it would stand to reason that the races were created on the sixth day. Adam and Eve were formed sometime after the seventh. 2 Peter 3 A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. God's time is different than ours. Also, Cain went to the land of Nod and took a wife. Where did these people in the land of Nod come from? Answer, sixth day creation.

Jack_Krevin
Jack_Krevin

Strictly speaking species who haven't significantly diverged genetically can breed. For instance it is believed Neanderthals interbred with modern humans at some point after we both diverged from the evolutionary branch. At the end of the day "species" is just a classification system we employed to make noteworthy distinctions between separate groups. Race would not be far removed from that concept. And again simply because there is a common origin, as is the case for evolution, does not mean there is not a case for distinction. And historically Christians very much saw differences between the races, with the interpretation your advocating largely only coming truly into vogue in the post 60's era. Before that, while considered all loved by the Lord, they had no issue assuming that say Africans were on a lower development than white Europeans. Ultimately, it appears you are starting from a conclusion, there are no races, and are working backwards trying to find evidence to support that.

Jack_Krevin
Jack_Krevin

The issue with the "teachings of the Bible" is both sides have used it to justify their actions. Logic dictates that what you claim is the "teachings of the Bible" is just one interpretation, not even necessarily the correct one. And another follower, based on his own culture and experiences, will be just as likely to come to a difference conclusion to these teachings. Again the very article is about a splitting of opinion regarding Christian sects.

Stories