Of the issues dividing our nation none is more contentious than the issue of race. In recent years, various church denominations have pushed for what they call racial reconciliation. Yet, for evangelicals especially, conversations about race are often complicated by disagreements over the dividing line between racial reconciliation and political activism. This is apparent in the controversy over Black Lives Matter. In this essay I want to examine varying Christian responses to this movement and to racism in general. I will describe a biblically based model that offers a way for both whites and people of color to work together to resolve the issue of race in our society.
Black Lives Matter and Christian Political Activism
On December 2015, Michelle Higgins, a black woman and director of Faith and Justice, created a firestorm at the Urbana youth-ministry conference when she criticized white evangelicals for their racial indifference and urged them to support Black Lives Matter. Today, as people have taken to the streets to protest the recent killings of George Floyd and other people of color by white police officers, the public conflict over the slogan has taken on added significance. Some church leaders have urged evangelicals to make a distinction between support for the movement that “black lives matter” and endorsement of the Black Lives Matter organization, which has been hijacked by a political ideology that is sharply at odds with evangelical beliefs concerning the family and LGBTQ rights. Many other white evangelical leaders resist this approach. They perceive the slogan as “pulling the tiny thread . . . that unravels the whole sweater,” as Nicole Martin, the director of U.S. ministry at the American Bible Society, puts it. Most white evangelicals strongly prefer the more “politically neutral” slogan, “All lives matter.” Recently, a group of pastors led by the influential megachurch pastor John MacArthur signed a statement in which they condemned “political or social activism” on matters such as race and feminism as not being “integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church.”[1]
Yet, the evangelical community, regularly endorses other forms of political activism. “We’ll have sanctity-of-life Sunday, speaking about the great evil of abortion—which I’m on board with, amen,” says Philip Pinckney, a black pastor. But “that same clarity seems very complicated when it comes to issues of race.”[2] In an eloquent keynote address praising Martin Luther King at the MLK 50 conference held by the Gospel Coalition, Russell Moore criticizes the failure of many in the white evangelical community to acknowledge the relevance of Jesus’ teaching on love and justice for the issue of race in our country. Referring to the division between personal and social ethics in most evangelical thinking, he observes: “Pastors and leaders can address racism as long as it is undefined enough to be interpreted only as external hostility in the heart. But the minute one starts to speak of the shooting of unarmed black young men, or the minute that one begins to speak of the rise of nativism around the world, the mood changes . . . [If] someone stands up and begins to speak to the depth of the sin and the wickedness and the injustice that is present in issues of racism there are going to be some who will say, ‘Why don’t you stick to preaching the gospel?’ And, ‘Why are you speaking to something that is social or something that is political?”[3] Moore continues:
Most people don’t say the “N word,” too polite for that. Most people’s bedsheets don’t have eye holes in them, too civilized for that. Most people don’t march with Confederate flags. But what we want to do is to retreat to the merely personal, and to say, “If only we would be more polite to one another this would go away.” “This is not a skin problem this is a sin problem.” And if we simply only talk about vague generalities about Christian brotherhood that somehow this will just automatically disciple people together. . . And yet we as a people who have a Bible ought to be those who understand that the personal and the systemic go together.[4]
Moore agrees that the American evangelical movement needs to be more evangelistic. But, he argues, it also needs to be more evangelized.
Two Perspectives on Racism
The fundamental issue is how we define racism. If we have an inadequate definition of the problem, any solution we propose will be insufficient. There are two dominant but flawed conceptions of racism: individualism and structuralism. The structuralist definition has strong affinities with the social gospel and liberation theology while the individualist definition is rooted in traditionalist conservatism. Each of these definitions contains an important element of truth but also significant weaknesses.
The Individualist Model
The individualist definition conceives of racism as an overt act directed by one individual toward another. This perspective places a strong emphasis on individual free will and personal responsibility. Social ills are rooted in personal sin and wrong choices made by individuals. Racial conflict is therefore the result of individuals choosing to act in a racist manner. According to Christian sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith, the popularized version of race among white evangelicals “has emphasized mainly the individual level components, leaving the larger racialized social structures, institutions, and culture intact.”[5] For many white evangelicals, the “race problem” ultimately comes down to personal defects such as overt attitudes and acts of prejudice, anger, and disrespect and defective interpersonal relationships involving poor communication and lack of Christian love for one another.[6]
Within this perspective, since sin is largely limited to individuals, both the problem of race and its solution must be largely individually based. Most white evangelicals sincerely desire a “color-blind” society. But they also believe that conditions for blacks are improving and that incidents of “police brutality” are relatively rare and are perpetuated by a few “bad apples.” Because of their emphasis on retributive justice and maintaining “law and order,” they appear more comfortable with the slogan “blue lives matter.” They object to those who play the “race card” and find “racism” where it does not exist. They believe that an emphasis on “systemic racism” and government programs to bring about greater equality undermines personal responsibility and minimizes the importance of changing the hearts of individuals to bring about social change.
There is value in this perspective. But this model is also flawed in several respects. Historically, it tends to ignore the way in which racism has been handed down from generation to generation. With its focus on the individual as the locus of sin it fails to acknowledge the extent to which sin corrupts and misdirects political, social, and cultural institutions. Therefore, it fails to recognize the institutionalization of racial prejudice—in economic, political, educational, social, and religious systems. Thus, despite their good intentions, white evangelicals can, often unconsciously, perpetuate racism in our society.[7]
The Structuralist Model
In contrast to the individualist model, the structuralist perspective views racism as perpetuated by social structures and institutions, even apart from the conscious intentions of individuals. The choices that individuals make are not merely personal; they are influenced by an array of institutional and cultural forces. Society can therefore perpetuate racism even when individuals within society do not intend to be racist.[8] In the post-Civil Rights era, racism is increasingly covert and invisible to most whites. This does not mean (according to this perspective) that overt discrimination and prejudice does not play a role in current racial problems. But inequalities of opportunity—or what Emerson and Smith call the “racialization” of our society—are so embedded within the operation of our social institutions that “people need not intend their actions to contribute to racial division and inequality for their actions to do so.”[9]
This perspective views racism as primarily a collective misuse of power. Therefore, it seeks to bring about a change in the power structures within our society. It is sensitive to the ways in which a social group can overtly and covertly dominate social and economic institutions. From a Christian perspective, it rightly emphasizes biblical principles that call for greater economic justice and equality.[10] However, supporters of this model (including Black Live Matter) often lay all the blame for our society’s race problem on the racism of the white majority. This ignores the fact that all people are sinners; and, therefore, that minorities as well as whites bear responsibility. Absolving people of color of responsibility is ultimately disempowering, since it implies that they are unable to play a significant role in reforming society.[11] Moreover, the focus on “white guilt” further alienates whites and exacerbates the race problem.
The Fear Factor
According to Emerson and Smith, blacks are more likely than whites to adopt the structuralist model. The differences are even more pronounced between black and white evangelicals. White evangelicals are even more individualistic than other whites and black evangelicals are more structuralist that other blacks. White evangelicals are more likely to attribute racial inequality to lack of motivation or to “cultural” factors while black evangelicals are more likely to cite discrimination as the primary reason for racial disparities.[12]
This division contributes to the “fear factor,” which is such a powerful force in race relations today. Fear among whites that they will be accused of being “racist” often provokes a defensiveness which Adler Bell describes as “white fragility.”[13] But people of color have fears as well. They fear that the white majority will not take their experiences of racism and racial inequality seriously and that they will be labeled as “troublemakers.” The result is an endless cycle with the fears of whites and fears of people of color feeding each other.[14] This is evident in the different responses to Black Lives Matter.
The Mutual Responsibility Model
George Yancey, a black Christian professor of sociology at the University of North Texas, proposes a mediating paradigm which he calls “mutual responsibility” for racial reconciliation. This approach does not ignore the historic and contemporary damage done to people of color by the majority. But it also does not absolve minorities of responsibility. It takes seriously the effects of human depravity at the individual, corporate, and structural levels. At its root, racism is a sin problem which prevents shalom, or wholeness, in all dimensions of human life. Because of sin, racism will never be fully eliminated this side of the grave. Yet, Christians should do all they can to bring healing and restoration through a costly grace that is based on corporate as well as individual forgiveness and repentance.[15]
This approach acknowledges that the problem of race extends beyond personal attitudes and acts of prejudice and includes the impact of institutional and structural forces on people of color. As Emerson and Smith state, we live in a “racialized” society where “race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationships.”[16] While those of us who are part of the white majority may not directly participate in the past sins of slavery and Jim Crow, we have nonetheless benefited from those sins. Moreover, we continue to benefit from racialization though we may not be “racist” ourselves. This calls for corporate repentance.[17] However, racial minorities need to repent as well. Often, they have used the “race card” to downplay the reality of their own weaknesses and sin. “Few actions,” says Yancey, “damage race relations more than playing the race card. It is even more destructive than the racial insensitivity of white Christians because it is an intentional attempt to use one’s racial status to escape responsibility and deny one’s sin.”[18]
Yancey views the mutual responsibility model as having some application to the larger society. He does not reject political activism so long as Christians recognize the imperfections of both parties and the limits of political solutions. He emphasizes that a truly Christian solution must begin with the witness of the church. Christian whites must be so concerned about people of color that they are willing to listen, repent, and act to bring about lasting change. At the same time, Christian people of color must refuse to allow racial charges to be leveled against whites unless legitimate racial wrongs have been committed.[19] This approach is a helpful starting point for achieving racial justice. But it needs to be placed within a larger biblical framework for understanding human rights.
Love, Justice, and Human Rights
Justice relates to the idea of human rights. We generally associate acts of injustice with violations of human rights. But what is the foundation for rights? Some argue that there are no “God-given” rights that can be found in the Bible. But the Christian philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff maintains that the New Testament as well as the Old does indeed provide such a framework for human rights. In Justice: Rights and Wrongs, he argues that only Christian theism provides an adequate foundation for human rights. All humans have rights because of their inherent worth as objects of God’s love. Wolterstorff emphasizes that the inherent worth of humans is not based on any qualities or capacities (such as reason) that they might possess. Human worth is a relational property of being loved by God; it is a bestowed worth and dignity.[20]
This concept of human rights has three main elements: 1) equal possession of rights; 2) protection of human dignity; and 3) a recognition of reciprocal duties or obligations to create and protect the minimal conditions for life together (the common good).[21]
Since God’s love is not affected by qualities which distinguish one individual from another, justice is characterized by a basic recognition that the well-being of one person is as important or valuable as that of another.[22] This entails a basic equity in meeting basic needs. Wolterstorff argues that both the Old and New Testaments presuppose the equitable distribution of goods—such as food and shelter—that are necessary to one’s well-being, or what the Bible calls shalom.[23]
A bestowed dignity based on God’s love also means valuing each person as an end and never as a means. In the words of Stephen Charles Mott, “Since human dignity is bestowed, based on God’s love, the rights necessary concretely to protect and express that dignity are also bestowed.” This includes the sanctity of life, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and the right to be protected from the arbitrary exercise of power.[24] Ron Sider similarly maintains:
God demands that within the limits of our finite, historical setting, we treat our neighbors such a way that they can reach their full human dignity and flourish in the way that the Creator intended. . . . Human rights have their deepest foundation in the dignity of each person, which is grounded in humanity’s relationship to God.[25]
The principle of human dignity also prevents violating a person’s trust or placing less value on certain persons (i.e., those with dementia or the mentally or physically impaired) than others. “No human being has a price. Each is priceless.”[26]
Because of the inherent worth of each person it is certainly correct to say that “All lives matter.” But the Bible also places emphasis on protecting the rights of those who are among the “quartet of the vulnerable”—the poor, immigrants, widows, and orphans. This is not because they are more privileged or more loved by God but because they were the most vulnerable and subject to abuse in Israelite society and therefore in greatest need of protection and restorative justice. As Scripture states time and time again, God cares about those classes of people who are most vulnerable because he is a God of justice and mercy. God's concern should be ours as well! In our day, the social equivalents would be groups such as the unborn, immigrants, homeless, minorities, disabled, and elderly. Given the racist pattern of devaluing black lives in America’s past as well as recent incidences of police brutality, it is not self-evident to blacks that everyone values their lives. The slogan “black lives matter” does not mean that “only black lives matter.” Nor does it deny that “blue lives matter.” It simply means that “black lives matter too.” It is also a cry of lament—an expression of grief and sorrow and even moral outrage in the context of pain and suffering.[27] The same can (and should) be said of the unborn, immigrants, the physically and mentally impaired, and any other social grouping whose dignity and worth is frequently violated.
Finally, a bestowed worth implies the recognition of common needs for the common good. Every right implies corresponding responsibility—a duty or obligation. The right to be free from indignity at the same time mandates a similar respect for others.[28] This is the implication of the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” A prerequisite for responding to the humanity of each person is the acknowledgment that everyone is similar to me in needs and the capacity for enjoyment and pain. We deny the intrinsic worth of the other person if we rationalize their suffering or well-being as less important than our own.[29] The protection of my freedom therefore must be balanced by a concern for the common good of the community.
From this perspective, a biblical framework for justice gives even secular governments a positive role in promoting and maintaining justice within society. Love is the basis for justice; but love alone is incomplete apart from justice. Justice is a necessary instrument of love. In this sense, government can exercise an intervening power on behalf of the weak and vulnerable.[30] “Government,” says Wolterstorff, “serves an indispensable coordinating function” that aims at the “common good” and the general welfare—the shalom or flourishing of the people.[31] This includes protecting and vindicating the rights of the vulnerable and seeing that basic needs are met.[32]
Conclusion
The current conflict over race in our society forces Christians to rethink the role of the church in a pluralistic democracy. Evangelicals especially need to harness well intentioned calls for “racial reconciliation” to a vision for prophetic politics that brings the two scriptural concepts of love and justice together in a way that creates a new moral horizon for racial equality. For both whites and people of color in the church, this will involve a humility to admit and repent of past wrongs, a willingness to abandon inadequate solutions, and a courage to come together and forge a new path for restorative justice.
[1] Green, “The Unofficial Racism Consultants,” 3-4. [2] Ibid., 4. [3] Moore, “Racial Justice,” 3-4. [4] Ibid., 6. [5] Emerson and Smith, Divided by Faith, 52. [6] Ibid., 75. [7] Ibid., 170. [8] Yancey, Beyond Racial Gridlock, 21-22. [9] Emerson and Smith, Divided by Faith, 7-9. [10] Ibid., 109. [11] Yancey, Beyond Racial Gridlock, 69. [12] Emerson and Smith, Divided by Faith, 97-99. [13] Wallis, America’s Original Sin, 92. [14] Yancey, Beyond Racial Gridlock, 128. [15] Ibid., 78-87. [16] Emerson and Smith, Divided by Faith, 7. [17] Yancey, Beyond Racial Gridlock, 95. [18] Ibid., 100-101. [19] Ibid., 141. [20] Wolterstorff, Justice, 352-53. [21] Mott, Biblical Ethics and Social Change, 51. [22] Ibid., 49. [23] Wolterstorff, Justice, 225-27; 236. [24] Mott, Biblical Ethics and Social Change, 52-53. [25] Sider, Just Politics, 103. [26] Wolterstorff, Justice, 308. [27] Tisby, The Color of Compromise, 179. [28] Mott, Biblical Ethics and Social Change, 53. [29] Ibid., 50-51. [30] Ibid., 53; Mott, A Christian Perspective on Political Thought, 21-25. [31] Wolterstorff, Hearing the Call, 357. [32] Ibid., 294.
Comments