Should The Church
Confront Racial Issues?
There is a lot of pressure on the church today (especially
upon pastors) to speak to the cultural issues with which we are currently
struggling. Part of the issue for pastors is that there exists a multitude of
opinion in the church upon these issues and how they should be resolved, if in
fact they can be. Most of these differences have not arisen out of theological
considerations, but out of political concern. Speaking about politically charged
issues is a precarious situation for pastors to say the least, but is it an
excuse to avoid the conversations?
Another pressure on pastors is that major sects of the
church have historically avoided concrete, political rhetoric altogether, and
some, both within and without, believe this is the way it should be. Does the
church have a voice in the realm of politics, or does our separation of church
and state preclude us from any influence?
Do we have biblical warrant to speak to the area of culture
that includes politics?
On a broader cultural scale, recent arguments have arisen in
which people are debating whether or not people of various groups have the
capacity to understand the feeling, concerns, and overall experiences of
another group. Can the church be truly multicultural? Does our message truly
create transcultural conversation and healing, or are we doomed to continue to
talk past each other, at least on this topic?
Is there any biblical precedence for speaking to each other
about our own cultural (specifically ethnic) understandings, and will people be
able to hear?
My Alma Mater,
Asbury Theological Seminary rereleased a
video in which Pastor Lisa Yebuah argues from Paul’s statement to the
Church at Galatia (in which he states that in Christ Jesus there is no longer
“Jew nor Greek,” v 3:28) that since barriers have been broken by the cross we
can begin to hear across old walls. I love this thought. We must encourage the
church to have real, authentic conversations so that we all can repent from our
old ways and live in newness together. Faithfulness to the gospel recognizes
our ability to hear and understand our brothers and sisters, no matter their
particular affiliations in other communities.
In my recent book, The
Other Side, I speak about learned behaviors and the possibility to overcome
prejudice:
For the child, noticing someone
else is different is first a matter of curiosity. Negative bias is introduced
when this child perceives a negative attitude in those he or she most often
imitates. The child does not become malicious at this point. He or she is
simply following a basic rule of survival: If
others in my community recoil from this type of person, thing, or situation, I
should too.
If prejudice can be ingrained at
such an early age, we might fear that there is little hope of overcoming our
prejudices unless we begin by admitting that none of us are immune to receiving
or perpetuating, consciously or subconsciously, negative stereotypes. We do,
however, have another mechanism in learning about others that may move us
beyond learned biases: an uncanny ability to empathize through the vicarious
experience of placing ourselves in another’s shoes. When we have the
opportunity to learn of others through hearing their stories and placing
ourselves in their shoes, learned biases are diminished if not destroyed, and
we learn, instead, to care.
Arguments or mere dialogue concerning the views of others
will not get us to where we need to be if they are divorced from the prompting
to step outside of one’s own preconceived ideas and into what it might be like
to walk in the other’s shoes. Having the gift of “the mind of Christ,” it is
possible to consider others before ever considering the needs and concerns of
self (see Philippians 2:1-5).
Yet, is there any concrete biblical example of using empathy
to promote understanding of the other? Can we use racial differences as a
learning tool?
Jesus seemed to think so. In fact, in a very subversive
manner, Jesus forces some of the religious elite in the Jewish community to do
just that as he taught the parable of “The Good Samaritan,” found in Luke
10:25-37:
On one occasion
an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I
do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written
in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your
God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and
with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,”
Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself,
so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was
going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They
stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A
priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he
passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the
place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as
he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put
the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The
next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after
him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense
you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think
was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the
law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him,
“Go and do likewise.”
In this text, some of the religious elite of the Jewish
community, a community who highly valued their own ethnicity and import of
their specific knowledge, confronts Jesus. Specifically, a lawyer, an expert in
Torah, challenged this Rabbi, another expert of Torah from another angel, to
ask the key to right living.
Jesus expertly draws out of the lawyer the key to right
living and challenges him upon it: “Do
this (what you just claimed to be right) and you will live.” However, as
soon as Jesus challenges him to do only that which the lawyer had already
admitted was the ethical way of life, the lawyer begins to make up excuses and
counter argues his own point, by asking, “When
is enough, enough?”
Jesus then launches into his subversive illustration. He first
has the community see themselves in those who encounter a terrible situation.
First, a gang on a very well known and dangerous road robs and beats an unnamed
traveler. Even though the man is unnamed, it seems Jesus is most likely
referring to a Jewish person. Everyone listening would be able to empathize
with the beaten man. As the man is lying in road left for dead, two persons of
the Jewish religious community pass him by. Again, everyone would have
recognized the two well respected people types here. They are feeling the
finger of blame being pointed at them.
Then Jesus talks about an “other,” a Samaritan. It is no
secret that in this day, there existed a lot of racial tension between the
Jewish people and the Samaritans. Why this tension existed is a lesson for
another time. From an early age, Jewish people were conditioned to dislike the
Samaritans. So, Jesus makes this member of the “out group” the hero. He is
challenging racial norms in the day. Here is what they would assume to be a
religious mutt acting in accordance with ethical living.
His final question is one that forces the audience to
consider empathy, not just of the beaten man, whom everyone feels sorry for, of
course. Instead, his question has them consider the three passers by, including
this “unworthy” Samaritan. Who among these men did the right thing? In other
words, how do you understand their actions? If in their place, what would you
do?
The lawyer is forced to answer, and his reply is telling,
“The one who showed him mercy.” The lawyer cannot even bring himself to say,
“The Samaritan was right.” Instead, he simple refers to him as “one.”
Jesus was intentionally being political, showing the hypocrisy
of the elites in society. (Remember that for the Jewish people specifically;
there was no difference between religious leaders and political figures, at
least for their own local context, which Jesus uses here.) Jesus confronts
their racism and forces them to see the humanity in the other.
No servant is greater than his master, and if Jesus shows us
an example of leading through hard conversations concerning race relations and
doing right to others, we too must speak of these things. No matter what others
in our church say about our right to speak on these issues, no matter what the
world believes is possible or impossible for racial healing, we must trust our
leader, our King, and the King and head of the church was one willing to break
down barriers through hard discussions upon race.
I, for one, choose to follow Jesus. I will listen to my
brothers and sisters who happen to come from other backgrounds. I will validate
their concerns. I will try and help them see my concerns as well, and together
we will serve those beaten up by a world that wants to rob them of their
dignity.
