Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
A Stilted Framework for Understanding Racism

A Stilted Framework for Understanding Racism

Last updated on: June 15, 2020 at 2:45 pm by Libby Anne

A Stilted Framework for Understanding Racism 2020-06-15T14:45:39-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Evangelicals are having a hard time with this moment. Some of them seem to be finally getting it—to be awakening to the reality of ongoing racial justice—but others simply aren’t having it.

See, for instance, this article, in which Pastor Kevin Huang of Twin City Bible Church in North Carolina uses the Bible to minimize any focus on racial injustice and to police how black people mourn, all the while insisting that he cares deeply—very deeply—about George Floyd. As I read Huang’ss piece, I’m reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.’s words on white “moderates” in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

Have a look at Huang’s piece:

To grieve and lament over the tragic death of George Floyd is not an affirmation of the cultural narrative. Jesus wept over Lazarus but for different reasons, which were unbeknownst to the on-looking professional mourners (Jn 11:35). The issue is how and why we grieve. Satan has always attempted to infiltrate the Church and lure her away at points where the world seems to share a common cause (2 Cor 11:14-15). He is both a liar and a murderer from the beginning (Jn 8:44). He is behind George Floyd’s death, and he is also behind the cunning cultural narrative that exploits George Floyd’s death.

Ouch.

I mean, damn.

To say that Satan is both the reason George Floyd died and the driving force behind the Black Lives Matter has got to be some sort of first prize in double-speak. And that’s without getting into the reference to “professional mourners.” Which. Double triple ouch.

Huang is making this whole thing so dang complicated. Is it so hard to imagine that people might be upset to see yet another black man killed by the police, and that they respond by calling for change? Apparently yes! Apparently that is Satan’s work! Who knew!

Huang’s manifesto is very, very long, with bullet point after bullet point. I am not going to reproduce them all here, but I will share some, pausing to address each.

For example:

To mourn with those who mourn does not necessarily mean protesting with those who protest, or posting on social media with those who post on social media. Rom 12:15 is not a politically correct maneuver, it is a personal expression of compassion.

Mourning with someone without also calling for justice for their brother/father/son’s killers sounds really hollow. What does that even look like?

“I’m so sorry your brother/father/son died, that must be so hard to go through. I’m going to sit right here and mourn with you—no, wait, stop—you’re getting up in protest and calling for the arrest of his killers? I’m sorry, I can’t be any part of that! Sit back down and mourn without any of that other nonsense, so that I can sit and mourn with you! Wait, where are you going, come back—”

This amounts to a policing of how people are allowed to mourn. In the real world, mourning and action often go hand and hand. Taking action is often part of the mourning. Evangelicals don’t decouple mourning and protest themselves—consider the death of Terri Schiavo as an example. For evangelicals, mourning and protest go hand in hand quite often. When black people do the same, it’s suddenly a “politically correct maneuver.”

To vehemently denounce and oppose the evil of racism and the error of ethnocentrism is not to automatically agree with secular and worldly philosophies that seem to do the same, such as “Critical Race Theory” and “Intersectionality”. There are biblical reasons to oppose something that the world also seems to oppose, while also rejecting the reasons why they oppose it. Motives, presuppositions, and underlying ideologies matter (2 Cor 10:5).

Huang is trying to do a form of what-about-ism. His statement bears an implicit claim that everyone is guilty of preferring “their own kind”—that’s what’s behind the term “ethnocentrism.” This both makes white people’s actions understandable and makes black people guilty of the same offense. With this implicit claim that every group should be considered equally guilty of preferring “their own kind,” Huang gets white people off the hook for perpetrating deeply harmful anti-black racism in the United States for generations.

This isn’t the only place he does this, either:

To condemn the evil of racism is to specifically condemn the biblical sin of “personal favoritism” and “partiality” (Jas 2:1, 9; Deut 1:17; Lev 19:15-16). This can be over skin color or social status, profession or political association, ethnicity or income, morality or personality, sub-culture or style, personal opinion or privilege. Even an oppressed minority who is calling for justice can themselves be guilty of ethnic prejudice against other ethnicities (Jon 4, Hab 1:13).

You see what I mean? This isn’t just implied. Huang states directly that black people are guilty of “ethnic prejudice.” This is gross, it’s harmful, and it perpetuates ongoing systemic injustice.

To have a true holy indignation is to “not let the sun go down on your anger” (Eph 4:26), to “not give the devil an opportunity” (Eph 4:27), to “never pay back evil for evil” (Rom 12:17), to “never take your own revenge” (Rom 12:19). If the unbelieving world doesn’t see a radical difference between its own outrage and the Church’s zeal against sin, something is wrong. Pride, self-righteousness, and personal vengeance are tell-tale fruits of sinful anger, not righteous anger. Christians may be angry and Christians may protest, but “be angry [and protest], and do not sin” (Eph 4:26).

Could we not do this?

Huang is policing how people are allowed to be angry. I have always taken “do not let the sun go down on your anger” to mean an individual person’s anger at an individual person. To claim this phrase includes a group’s anger at systemic injustice requires ignoring the reality that systemic injustice, by definition, cannot be fixed before the sun goes down. Jesus called people whitewashed sepulchers—this wasn’t exactly a nice thing—and I’m pretty sure he didn’t go make up with them before he went to bed each night.

Huang’s claim that there is a “sinful anger” and a “righteous anger” is perhaps the most blatant policing of people’s anger that I’ve ever seen. Maybe instead of judging how people are angry, Huang could take some time to listen and learn why they are angry—and then to try to set it right? Just an idea!

Let’s do one last one?

To value the image of God in man means to courageously stand against murder, abuse, and racism, but also the cursing of our fellow man (Jas 3:9-10). Murderous, abusive, racist words reflect a murderous, abusive, racist heart (Mt 5:22; 15:18-20).

And the comments on this post sing its praise.

I’m reminded that one of the things I like about no longer being an evangelical Christian is that I don’t have to couch my calls for justice and for correcting wrongdoing in all sorts of biblical trappings. I remember thinking, at one point, that my faith helped me understand the world around me; reading Huang’s manifesto makes me feel that the opposite is true: Huang’s religious beliefs have clouded his ability to understand and grapple with the world around him. They’ve given him a stilted framework that is inadequate at best and harmful at worst.

Addendum:

When the Bible was written the world looked very different than it does today. Even prejudice looked different. Roman citizens had more rights than non-citizens, and people in some parts of the Roman Empire longed to be free of Roman rule. But there was not racism in the way it exists in the United States today. As such, the Bible does not directly address the racism that we are grappling with here and now.

The Bible is not all-knowing; it is a product of a specific time. This isn’t to say that people can’t try to find things in it that they can use to guide their understanding of current issues; only that those things are not directly stated and obvious for the picking. To a certain extent, people will find in the Bible what they want to find on this issue—they will go looking and will have to cherry pick this and that, because the Bible does not have an already-laid out, clear response to racism that provides practical tips and an obvious roadmap.

And this isn’t surprising, because as I already noted, the Bible is a product of a specific time. Indeed, historians tend to see the race-based, generational chattel slavery that existed in the U.S. South as something that was fairly new. Slavery existed before then, but not in quite this form; this was something new and different. It is unsurprising that the Bible does not speak directly to something that did not exist at the time.

In the antebellum period, white Christian slaveowners and white Christian abolitionists went to the Bible for advice; each found verses they felt supported their position. That each side could find verses to support their position with such ease shows the lack of clear direction in the Bible on this issue. The Bible is not a manual on race relations; nor was it written at a time when race was constructed in the way it is in the U.S. today.

As a result, if you start and end with the Bible—if you make the Bible your sole source and refuse to listen to lived experience or to the cry of the oppressed—you will not find the tools or framework you need to grapple with ongoing racial oppression in the United States today. These things are simply not to be found in the Bible.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Politics

race

Previous Post

June 14, 2020

Lesbian Duplex 276: An Open Thread

Next Post

June 16, 2020 From "White Privilege" to "White Blessing"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the central Christian doctrine that God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Trinity Incarnation Salvation Predestination