Hello everyone! Today, I am making a brief return to the world of blogging—from which I have been enjoying a sabbatical of sorts—to address what is currently a hot button issue in the Reformed and evangelical world, or at least what passes for it on Twitter. It seems almost certain that I will make no one entirely happy with this article, and quite possible that I will make some readers entirely unhappy. Nevertheless, I proceed in reliance upon the grace of God.
The 50th anniversary of the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. prompted much discussion on the issue of race relations and how the Church should address matters of ethnicity and justice. The most prominent event in this regard was The Gospel Coalition’s MLK50 conference. The conference itself produced a substantial reaction, both positive and negative. In addition to this, an article posted on TGC’s website by Thabiti Anyabwile proved to be both thought provoking and simply provoking at the same time, receiving numerous replies, which were then replied to by the original author.
In the week leading up to the conference, prominent Twitter personalities James White (a Christian apologist) and Kyle Howard (a Christian counselor) clashed with one another, once again over a race-related issue. On a more personal level, my friend and fellow blogger Brad Mason has been arguing for weeks that racism is material heresy, and many of his comments have stirred significant controversy. Suffice it to say, issues of race and racial reconciliation have been at the forefront of discussions in my online circle, such as it is.
I provide this brief summary simply to review where we are at the present time. I have no intention of passing judgment on any person by name, partly because it is not my place to do so, partly because I would not want to do so publicly, and partly because I do not have all the facts. Suffice it to say, I have been discouraged by recent events, which have revealed a definite fault line running through the heart of Reformed evangelicalism in the United States. I was certainly aware that this divide existed, but to have it dominating my Twitter feed seemed even more regrettable (though perhaps we will eventually look back on this week more positively). Again, I say this not to cast judgment on any party, but simply to state a fact. Whenever I see division in the body of Christ, it saddens me.
I participated in a few discussion threads related to race, none of which did anything to overthrow the traditional assumption that race is one of the things you ought never speak about publicly, not because it doesn’t deserve to be discussed, but because it is so easy to be misunderstood or cause offense. I do feel it is a shame that we cannot speak more freely, and I sense that suppressing our thoughts and feelings on this issue may do more harm than good in the long run, but the world is what it is.
I offered a couple of critiques where I felt that certain assumptions may have potentially led to doctrinal error. I attempted to do so politely and without animus. Whether the recipients felt that I behaved in a gracious matter, I cannot say. My guess is that emotions are so raw right now that it wouldn’t take much to upset someone, and perhaps I was not considerate enough of this fact. Theological nuance can get lost in the shuffle when emotions are running high. Therefore, if I have erred in my attempts at engagement and caused unnecessary pain, I beg your forgiveness and that of God.
The fact is that most of us come to conversations about race with a highly solidified set of assumptions, and as a result, we have pre-made categories in which to sort people. All of us rely on these categories to sort through the massive pile of opinions that come at us on social media. When we read a simple tweet, we seldom attempt to understand the person’s words in their full context and according to their individual background. Rather, we typically seek to categorize them as quickly as possible as either a sensible Christian, a social justice warrior, a bigot, a Neo-Marxist, a racist, etc. This allows us to promptly respond with either a show of support or a rebuke.
The problem is that our categorization is often hasty and does not take important factors into account. Within seconds, we decide that a complete stranger is under the influence of some form of worldly thinking, and we therefore respond aggressively while simultaneously writing them off internally. This is an absolute killer of positive engagement. We must strive to comprehend the other person’s overall point rather than being constantly triggered. On the other hand, there are people on social media who are truly vile, and I am not suggesting that such vileness must be tolerated. A few follow-up questions can help us to determine if the person we are dealing with is truly as bad as all that, or if they simply worded things in a different way than we are wont to do ourselves.
All that to say, I am not eager to jump back into the Twitter debate pot and stir it at the present time. There is, however, one issue that I feel I cannot leave unaddressed, and that is a doctrinal point that came up as part of this wide-ranging debate. There have been numerous calls for either white Americans, white Christians, or simply evangelicals to collectively and/or individually repent for the systematic discrimination that has plagued black Americans for so many years.
Sometimes specific sins have been mentioned, while at other times a more general imperative has been given. At all times, the suggestions have created controversy. Rather than merely reflecting an aberration regarding the issue of race, it seems to me that there is actually a fundamental disagreement among Reformed and evangelical Christians over the nature of repentance, and this has the power to impact us beyond the narrower (but exceedingly important) issue of race relations.
What the Bible Teaches about Repentance and Forgiveness
When it comes to the requirement for repentance in order to further racial reconciliation, the problem is largely that we do not have a firm consensus on 1) who needs to repent, 2) what they need to repent for, and 3) what exactly is involved in that repentance. This has become increasingly clear to me as I have seen the varied reactions on social media and even experienced cases where someone seemed to agree with me, yet responded as if they did not simply because I couched the issue using different language. I have no doubt that the individual persons calling for repentance have a very clear idea in their mind of what this means, but in some cases it has not been articulated well and in others the recipients seem to have almost willfully misunderstood. There does not appear to be clear agreement on what exactly is meant by this call to repent, either among those who are calling or those who are called.
Let me begin by stating emphatically that all of us are commanded to repent of our sins. Scripture indicates that repentance is a prerequisite for salvation (e.g. Acts 11:18, 2 Cor. 7:10) though it also acknowledges that we will continue to struggle with the temptations of the flesh in this life (Romans 8:12-13). Therefore, there is a difference between the initial repentance in which I acknowledge that I am a sinner in need of grace, and the ongoing repentance in which I identify specific sins in my life and seek to put them to death. This is essentially the difference between justification and sanctification. Repentance is a necessary and permanent aspect of the Christian life. (see also 1 John 1:8-2:2)
We should also review what scripture actually means when it speaks of repentance. Perhaps the best examples come from the words of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ in the Gospels. (e.g. Matthew 3:2, 4:17) When they urged people to repent, they had something rather radical in mind: that the person would cease walking in one direction, turn around, and begin walking in the opposite direction. This understanding is implied in the Greek word translated as “repent”, metanoeō, which describes a changing or turning of the mind, rejecting one way of thinking and embracing another. As the Apostle Peter said in his second recorded sermon, “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord…” (Acts 3:19)
Biblical repentance may include many things, but at a minimum it requires an acknowledgment of one’s guilt (Luke 15:21), a sense of sorrow over that sin (2 Corinthians 7:9-10), a plea for forgiveness of the sin (Psalm 51:7-9), a commitment to cease iniquity and follow God’s commands (Psalm 51:14-19), and an effort to make things right going forward (Luke 19:8-10). The specific way in which a person “makes things right” will naturally vary depending on the sin.
That is what is required from the person who repents. What of those on the other side? God Himself forgives us based on the work of Jesus Christ. (Colossians 1:13-14, Hebrews 10:11-14) His position is best illustrated by the Prodigal Son’s father, who did not seek repayment from his wayward son, but welcomed him with open arms. (Luke 15:20-24) That is the kind of forgiveness God can offer us, for Christ has already paid the debt. God also calls upon us to offer forgiveness without exception. (Matthew 6:14-15, 18:21-25, Mark 11:25, Ephesians 4:32) However, complete reconciliation of a relationship violated by sin will require repentance, which may involve some form of restitution. (As Acts 26:20 puts it, “performing deeds appropriate to repentance”)
That is the difference: we are commanded to forgive all who sin against us, but our human relationships do require the repentance of any offending parties in order to be fully restored. A person who is truly repentant will work to make things right. The restitution is not about the injured party getting revenge or even getting “what’s theirs”, but rather it signifies the reality of the offender’s repentance and the healing that can come through divine forgiveness.
To clarify further, I differentiate between what I will call the cosmic forgiveness of God and the temporal forgiveness of human beings. The cosmic forgiveness offered to us by God cannot be based on any form of restitution, for we have no ability to repay our debt. It does require us to repent, but here I must clarify further that it is the work of the God that allows us to repent. (Acts 5:31, 11:18, Romans 2:4, 2 Timothy 2:25) It was Christ who moved first to take upon Himself the penalty for sin, thereby paving the way for reconciliation between God and man. A person who repents and receives forgiveness from God is in fact justified before Him, not on the basis of their own deeds, but on the basis of Christ’s deeds. (Romans 4:1-8) That forgiveness is total and pertains to sins past, present, and future.
In addition to this, there is also another sense of forgiveness which affects our relationships in the here and now. This is the forgiveness that I offer to an individual person who sins against me, and it has a major affect on my relationships in real time. Some would point to the scriptural command for repentance as proof that we cannot truly forgive unless the person who has sinned against us repents, perhaps pointing to Christ’s words “if he repents, forgive him”. (Luke 17:3)
However, I strongly believe that we are personally required to forgive anyone and everyone without condition: even without their repentance. That might sound terrible to you, so let me explain. The kind of forgiveness I am talking about here is not the same as excusing sin, ignoring justice, or continuing with the relationship as if nothing had happened. By no means am I saying that! Forgiveness is really about what is going on in my heart. It is a surrendering to God and saying, “I trust your judgment in this matter. I will not wallow in bitterness. I will not seek revenge. I will leave vengeance to you.” Forgiveness in this sense allows the offended party to move on and experience peace regardless of what the offending party chooses to do.
Perhaps a good example of this kind of forgiveness would be the example of Jesus Christ. Even when He was nailed to a cross in the most unjust execution of all time, He prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) Clearly, the people who participated in the judicial murder of Jesus Christ needed to repent of their sins in order to receive the kind of divine forgiveness that saves. Nevertheless, Christ’s pleas on behalf of His tormenters provide us with a powerful example of what it means to surrender our “right” to judge. As the Apostle Paul said so wonderfully,
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. ‘But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:18-21
Having said that, for a human relationship to actually be reconciled, there certainly does need to be repentance. There needs to be an acknowledgment of truth. Genuine reconciliation is simply not possible without repentance and truth being part of the equation, nor is it possible without the sinner receiving the cosmic forgiveness of God and reconciliation with Him that enables genuine human reconciliation to occur. Even so, our relationship with God will be hampered if we are living in sin against our fellow man. (Matthew 5:23-24)
Therefore, I differentiate between the unilateral act of forgiveness and the bilateral or multilateral act of reconciliation. Forgiveness is an initial act that paves the way for reconciliation by letting the offending party know that I am not going to kick God off the judgment seat, which is His rightful place. It lets them know that whenever they do repent, I will accept that repentance gladly and will not continue to hold their sin against them. This forgiveness is required of all Christians without exception.
Sins of the Fathers
Now, the question that arises regarding race relations is whether white Americans ought to repent of the unjust deeds of their ancestors toward black Americans. Here I must begin by stating that there have undoubtedly been injustices committed against black Americans from the early days of colonization down to the present day (to say nothing of the mistreatment of Native Americans). Not only were they abused very obviously through enslavement, but black Americans have also suffered from a plethora of more subtle abuses since their emancipation, and even not-so-subtle ones.
Think about segregation and Jim Crow laws. Think about lynchings. Think about discrimination in employment and housing. Think about inequalities in terms of income, education, and even prison sentences that seem to clearly be the result of racial prejudice. Think about those unjustly shot by police officers. Many aspects of our society have been stacked against black Americans, and white Americans have been the usual beneficiaries.
Of course, the story is a complex one. Not every hardship that has ever come upon a black American has been the direct result of white racism. The deep generational poverty experienced by a significant proportion (though not a majority) of black Americans has certainly come about in large part because of discrimination in both the public and private sectors. However, that does not fully explain why many black Americans achieve financial success, nor why there is generational poverty among white Americans. While I am by no means attempting to let white Americans off the hook, and I freely acknowledge that racism has had a heavily detrimental effect upon the quality of life of so many black Americans, we must also remember that life is rarely that simple, and any lasting solution to the problem of poverty among black Americans will need to take all factors into consideration.
Furthermore, I think it’s safe to say that the majority of white Americans do not go out of their way to devise methods of holding back black Americans: certainly not in this era. The United States Constitution (tragically and immorally) made slavery legal in this country, and other government authorities authorized segregation. These were not necessarily the decisions of average white people going about their daily business. My own ancestors nearly all lived in the North, and I have yet to uncover any evidence that they owned slaves. They did not live in the Jim Crow South or show support for that unjust system. They fought on the side of the Union in the U.S. Civil War, a cause which was instrumental in bringing an end to slavery in this country.
Now, were my ancestors perfect? Hardly. I have no doubt that they were prejudiced to some degree against those who were different from them. All human beings are selfish, and I have no reason to think my own bloodline was any different. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any case where they actively discriminated against black Americans in an obvious way. The most I can say of them is what is the case for many white Americans: they were beneficiaries of an unjust system set up by others, and their greatest failing was likely that they gave little thought to this fact.
Again, it may seem like I am attempting to absolve my ancestors, but I am not. My ancestors were certainly sinners. Perhaps they sinned against black Americans in ways I do not know. However, to give the impression that all white Americans of previous eras universally made efforts to actively discriminate against black Americans serves in one way to lessen the severity of what happened. Perhaps that sounds odd, but hear me out.
Some have made an analogy with Nazi Germany and its discrimination against Jews. I am not usually a fan of Nazi analogies, but I think this one works. The government of Nazi Germany set in place a series of policies that were discriminatory toward people of Jewish ethnicity. A certain percentage of German citizens were actively involved in carrying out these policies and directly committed acts of violence against Jews, but this was surely a minority of the population. A larger percentage participated in German military campaigns, effectively defending the policies of the government. Another large group discriminated against Jews in smaller and more personal ways, taking advantage of the discriminatory policies to enrich themselves. Then there was a group that did not participate in the discrimination in any obvious way, but nevertheless did little or nothing to oppose it. The final group—a small minority—was made up of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Sophie Scholl who actively opposed the discriminatory measures.
Only that final group escaped the guilt that was properly placed upon the German nation for its treatment of Jews. (Here I must also note that the Nazis targeted Slavs, Romani, homosexuals, and those with disabilities, in addition to their political foes.) The existence of people like Bonhoeffer is important, not because it exempts the German nation from guilt, but because it serves to condemn them.
If being a German meant that a person was necessarily discriminatory to Jews, as if that prejudice were an instinct written into their DNA, it would still be abhorrent, but it would in a way make them less culpable. If everyone universally acted in the same manner, we might conclude that it was simply impossible for those people in that situation to see the truth and act on it. The dissenters prove that this was not the case. In fact, it was possible for a German person to act justly. The majority of Germans acted unjustly not because they were compelled to do so by their very nature, but because they actively chose to do so.
Here things get tricky again, particularly when we return to our original subject of racial discrimination in America. Some people have pointed to specific crimes committed against black Americans, such as the murder of Martin Luther King Jr., and said that white Americans were complicit in those actions. What does it mean to be complicit in something? I would say it is much like the attitude of Saul (later Paul) toward the stoning of Stephen.
Saul apparently did not throw any stones at Stephen. He did not pronounce the judgment against him. Rather, scripture tells us that he stood there watching the spectacle, with the robes of the stoners at his feet. (Acts 7:58) More importantly, “Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death.” (Acts 8:1) That, to me, is what it means to be complicit in an injustice: to look upon it with hearty agreement. (The ever handy Dictionary.com defines complicity as “the state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing”.)
When it comes to the injustices committed against African Americans, it is difficult to prove that all or most white Americans were complicit. Sure, those who actually unleashed water canons on protesters, refused to serve black customers, denied housing applications, etc. were demonstrably complicit in the culture of injustice, even if what they did was technically legal. Those who hurled racist rhetoric and cheered on lynchings were very much complicit in the hateful spirit of the age. But what about my ancestors? To my knowledge, there are no demonstrated cases of their participation in racist acts. They did not leave behind writings of a racist nature. Therefore, proving their complicity is rather difficult.
I actually think complicit is the wrong word for us to be using. Think back to the example of Nazi Germany. Certainly, we can prove that a large percentage of the population was complicit in those moral crimes, but one could always make the case for the people who simply minded their own business and attempted to stay out of politics. Were they actually complicit? Here I think the fight over the word complicit misses the point. The crime of these people was not so much that they were complicit, but that they were complacent.
Throughout this country’s history, as systematic discrimination against black Americans continued across generations, I believe that there was both a negative and a positive requirement placed upon white Americans. In a negative sense, they were morally required to abstain from participating in injustice. In a positive sense, they were required to speak out against injustice and work to bring it to an end.
Many white Americans may feel that their ancestors are vindicated because they abstained from discriminating. However, many of those same ancestors did not take the next step and fight against the injustice. This may have been because they were afraid to do so, but in many cases, it was likely because they were simply not all that concerned about the unjust situation. Both are examples of complacency: an acceptance of the discriminatory status quo without making a courageous effort to reverse it.
Perhaps you are thinking, “Yes, but that was the way everyone was back then. They were products of the time.” Actually, that is not the case. Being born as a white person may mean that you benefit from a history of injustice, but it does not mean that you will necessarily fail to realize this or do anything about it. In fact, there were white Americans who marched with Dr. King. There were white Americans who opposed segregation. There were white Americans who worked to make the dream of racial equality a reality. Many suffered to some degree because of their efforts. Many were ostracized by other white Americans. Some were even killed.
The existence of people like this in all eras of American history—from the early supporters of abolition to those who fight for justice today—proves that white people are not inherently or necessarily unjust in relation to black Americans. They are capable of doing the right thing, and some of them choose to do so. This fact does not absolve all white Americans past and present. Rather, it further convicts those who were complacent. It proves that their complacency was, on some level, an act of the will.
I am not suggesting that all sins are equal in severity. The complacent person does not carry the same level of guilt as the person who actually shoots the gun or hangs the noose. A person who maintains prejudice inwardly, but does not act upon that prejudice, certainly has an issue of sin, but they have not caused as much active damage to black Americans. Will their prejudice likely result in further sinful actions at some point? Yes. Does all sin make us guilty before God? Yes. However, suggesting that all sins are equal in this sense is not truly fair or helpful. Rather, when we fail to differentiate between the severity of sins of prejudice, we give some people an excuse to dismiss our arguments out of hand. We need to speak clearly and specifically, and we must not paint all white Americans with the same brush, even though they are all sinners and the majority have sinned to some degree in terms of racial prejudice. We must distinguish what we mean when we speak of collective sin.
Must I Then Repent?
This brings us to the big question: Do I, Amy Mantravadi, need to repent for the sins of my ancestors against black Americans? Well, I have already stated that I believe we must be specific about what those sins were. We must speak accurately. I cannot repent for my ancestors’ enslavement of black Americans, because they did not keep slaves. (This is not because they were more righteous than others, but because they simply did not live in areas where slave keeping was common or legal.) I cannot repent for their participation in the Jim Crow system so prevalent in the South, because they lived in the Midwest (with limited exceptions). I cannot repent of specific acts of discrimination against black people, legal or illegal, because I know of none. Some of my ancestors owned businesses. I am not aware that they discriminated against black clients. If they did, then this was certainly sin. I simply am not aware that they ever did so.
The sin of my ancestors seems to have been the most general and in some ways most lethal: like many white Americans, they demonstrated a certain degree of complacency. They did not actively oppose people like Martin Luther King Jr. Indeed, I am not sure what their political views were in terms of things like slavery and racial segregation, if they even had any definite views on such issues. However, I am also unaware that they ever actively campaigned for the expansion of civil rights among black Americans.
It is not surprising that they did not do so, nor does this mean that they were irredeemable folk without a trace of human decency. In fact, my ancestors did many good things throughout their lives to help the poor and disadvantaged. Their problem was that, like all of us, they had blind spots and areas where they were not as strong, and one of these was likely their response to the discrimination against African Americans. They apparently did not actively discriminate, but neither did they actively oppose discrimination. It is therefore highly likely that, like so many of us, they harbored a certain degree of prejudice in their hearts born out of the fact that we are all selfish human beings, and this selfishness often makes its appearance in our preference for people like ourselves and a defense of all that makes us comfortable.
So if I am reasonably certain that there was some degree of sin in my ancestors’ lives, then do I need to repent to the black Americans of today? Here we must review the nature of biblical repentance. I have stated, according to my understanding of scripture, repentance involves 1) an acknowledgment of one’s guilt, 2) a sense of sorrow over that sin, 3) a plea for forgiveness of the sin, 4) a commitment to cease iniquity and follow God’s commands, and 5) an effort to make things right going forward.
A quick glance at those five aspects of repentance reveals that it is not something we can do vicariously. For example, if my ancestor stole their neighbor’s piano and never repented for that sin, then I cannot repent on their behalf. I cannot do so because I am not guilty of the sin. I therefore cannot turn from it to the way of righteousness. My ancestor was the one who sinned before God and against his neighbor. Therefore, he is the one with the guilt. He needed to acknowledge the sin, lament it, beg for forgiveness, return to the way of righteousness, and work to repair the broken relationship with his fellow man.
If I could repent vicariously, then I might achieve cosmic forgiveness for all of my ancestors who died in their sins, ensuring that they all enter the gates of heaven. Perhaps that sounds like crazy talk, but there are many religious sects (including Christian ones) that believe descendants can perform righteous acts on behalf of their ancestors, helping them to escape divine judgment.
As a Christian subscribing to the principles of the Reformation, I reject this kind of thinking. My ancestors who died in their sins are truly and tragically condemned for all eternity. I can apologize to the family from whom my ancestor stole the piano. If I inherited the piano, I can return it to the original owners. I can perhaps convince the offended party to forgive my ancestor. I cannot, however, get forgiveness for myself and then pass it on to my ancestor, because I was not the one who sinned.
Now, I have just said that it is not possible to repent vicariously, but I am by no means saying that there is no such thing as corporate repentance. Scripture contains examples of a group of people confessing collective sin to God. Many Church liturgies today contain language of corporate confession. This is appropriate because we are all sinners, and there are cases where an entire group of people participates in a certain sin.
However, I would caution in pointing to those scriptural examples that you would be hard pressed to find a case where a person repents of a corporate sin in which they did not in any way participate. When Isaiah laments, “I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips,” (Isaiah 6:5) he is acknowledging that he shares in his people’s sin. There are other cases where Isaiah distanced himself from the sins of the people, declaring himself to be a comparatively righteous figure in the midst of a sea of iniquity. The prophet had a correct understanding of his own iniquity, aided by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. He repented of that which he was truly guilty: no more and no less.
Therefore, the standard for whether white Americans today should repent is not what their ancestors did, but what they themselves have done. This is not a denial of sin, but rather a correct diagnosis of the same. As I remarked to someone recently, white Americans have long been riding a gravy train of injustice. They have been benefitting from discriminatory practices which they themselves may not have created, but which have nevertheless worked in their favor. It is not possible for me, as a white American, to undo the deeds of the past. It is not possible for me to personally reverse the existence and effects of that discriminatory system. The sin comes when I ride the gravy train without lament: when I am complacent and do nothing to fight against the tide of injustice. That is when I share in my ancestors’ sin, and that is when I need to repent.
The first step I need to take is to acknowledge historical facts. I need to accept the truth of what has been done to black Americans. I need to enter into that pain and feel it deeply. I need to lament over injustice. I need to confess the fact that my ancestors did not do enough to address this injustice. Even though they were rather unimportant people in the greater scheme of things, with little or no political power, it is not too much of a stretch to say that they could have done more. They were flawed human beings who were not fully sanctified in this life. Black Americans were negatively affected by that partial sanctification. My ancestors alone could not have made all the injustice go away, but they likely could have done more and chose not to for reasons I cannot fully explain, as I was not there at the time. They were likely complacent.
Once I have acknowledged what happened to the best of my ability, I must consider my own attitudes and actions. Does the same prejudice that has existed in the hearts of so many exist within my own? This can be a difficult question to answer, because much prejudice lies beneath the surface and only rears its ugly head under specific circumstances. I am certainly capable of self-deception.
Because all people are selfish, we are therefore all prejudiced to a certain extent. Again, we must make appropriate distinctions. The person who is working to put to death the deeds of the flesh and remove the last bits of prejudice from their heart is not on the same level as one who actively cultivates that prejudice and lives for the flesh rather than the spirit. Nevertheless, I must attempt to be as honest with myself as possible and put to death any sin that I discover.
The final step is to begin actively confronting injustice. This can take many forms. The most important is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, who alone is fully just and capable of bringing lasting peace and reconciliation. However, I must also consider ways that scriptural truth can be applied in my life and the lives of others.
I must speak out against discrimination in the Church and in society. I must work to understand how things look from another point of view. I must encourage harmony between brother and sisters of different ethnicities within my own local church and the Church as a whole. I must work to make sure that black brother and sisters feel welcomed and included when they attend my church. I must consider ways to build up and encourage this portion of the Body of Christ.
Our God is not colorblind, and neither should we be colorblind. What I mean by that is not that we should show preference based on ethnicity, but that we should acknowledge it as part of a person’s identity. Scripture tells us that the work of Christ does not obliterate ethnic distinctions, but creates a beautiful and diverse tapestry of all nations, tribes, and tongues which will exist into the age to come. (e.g. Revelation 7:9, 22:2) As Christians, it is important to remember that our ultimate and greatest identity is in Christ and not a particular ethnic group. The cross allows those who were once far off to be joined together (Ephesians 2:11-22), becoming brothers and sisters in a spiritual sense that is even more powerful and lasting than the physical sense.
Nevertheless, even as I am most certainly a woman, I am most certainly a person of Northern European ancestry. It’s just part of who I am, even as my husband has Indian ancestry (i.e. the nation of India). It is true that due to our longstanding relationship with one another, I do not always consider my husband’s ethnic heritage when I think about him. I am, in a sense, blind to his “color” because I have shared an intimacy with his soul. I know him more deeply than the color of his skin, for I have taken the time to cultivate that type of loving relationship. Even so, I affirm and celebrate his ethnic identity, even as I affirm and celebrate so many things that are part of him. (I am admittedly less enthusiastic about his tendency to leave pairs of socks lying around the house, but perhaps this is something I can forgive.)
Even so, I would never seek to ignore the ethnicity of my black brother and sisters, along with both the historic pain and historic pride they carry. What I would do is seek to relate to them on a deeper level through the blood of Jesus Christ, so that even as I celebrate the diverse aspects of our identities, I also celebrate that which we have in common: We are adopted sons and daughters of the King of Kings. We belong to the same heavenly family.
If one of my brothers or sisters calls upon me to repent, I must consider if there is indeed sin in my life. If so, then I certainly must repent. I must cease sinning and begin obeying. I must turn 180 degrees and begin walking in the opposite direction. That is what it means to repent.
If it turns out that my ancestors committed a sin in which I do not share, then I must acknowledge the pain caused by that previous sin and seek to never share in it myself. I cannot actually repent on behalf of my ancestor, but I can reflect upon that sin with a spirit of godly lamentation. Furthermore, if I have participated in some form of corporate sin, then I must not rush to defend the honor of my group, but rather admit the harm that has been done corporately and seek to make things right.
Scripture does not give us a specific answer to every question. It often gives us general principles which must be combined with the guidance of the Spirit and a bit of good old fashioned common sense. There is no direct biblical mandate regarding specific political policies that ought to be taken in response to the long history of discrimination against black Americans. There is, however, a biblical mandate to pursue justice and righteousness while championing the oppressed and the vulnerable. I would not break fellowship with someone who had a slightly different idea about how these biblical principles should be implemented, nor do I believe anyone else should do so. However, I would certainly be concerned if the biblical principles were abandoned entirely.
I now bring this very long post to an end with the following reminders. 1) Reconciliation is a biblical imperative. 2) Reconciliation was only made possible by the cross of Jesus Christ. 3) Christians are to forgive in every situation, however 4) relationships can only be truly restored if there is repentance. 5) We cannot repent on behalf of another. 6) We should consider if we have participated in the sins of others. 7) Where we are convicted of sin in our lives, we must certainly repent.
That’s all folks. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. They tell me the Together for the Gospel conference is about to start. I can’t wait to see what happens to my Twitter feed.
All scripture quotations are from The New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.
