In the immediate aftermath of ER2, a wise older brother counseled me to avoid the inevitable flurry of blog activity for at least a week.  That was really wise advice and I’ve taken a tad bit longer because I’m a tad bit slower than most.  One benefit of the advice given was that it allowed a lot of the early reactions (pro and con) to come and go.  That was useful simply for getting some perspective and not getting caught up in heat rather than light.  As time wore on, more light began to shine through as godly people on both “sides” of the issue joined in with helpful thoughts.  I’ve particularly appreciated the balanced and insightful piece Carson and Keller offered late last week.  If you haven’t read it, you should.  And if you have read it, you’ll probably want to read it slowly a few times.  I certainly did.

Reading and re-reading Carson and Keller, as well as a number of other post-game reports, left me with a few reflections, for what it’s worth.

1.  Nothing has changed with Jakes.  I won’t belabor this point because Carson and Keller’s piece covers that quite well, as does a couple other posts around the blogosphere.  Jakes’ comments on the Trinity were essentially the same comments he’s been making for the last 10-15 years.  He says he has moved and the Scripture prompted him to do so.  Comparing his statements in 2000 and 2012, it’s difficult to see that he’s moved at all unless the movement happened before 2000!  As far as I am concerned, the man’s teaching on the Trinity remains heretical.

2.  Something may have changed with us.  The Church is split more than it was previous to the ER.  We have new lines of division.  Are we among those who favor public discussion or those who are against public discussions with heretics?  Are we in the truth camp or the love camp?  Again, Carson and Keller expose this false dichotomy nicely and point us forward in healthy ways.  My only point is to say, “This division inside the broadly ‘Reformed’ camp feels new to me.”

3.  Theological depth is critical.  Honestly, I was surprised that so many could make such quick and bold pronouncements of Jakes’ orthodoxy after a short conversation before cameras.  Jakes used the same spiel he’s always used.  The entire discussion revealed not only Jakes’ poverty but the poverty of a lot of evangelical and Reformed Christianity.  In the final analysis, we were given not only a view of Jakes’ modalism but also of our own slippery and sometimes lazy grasp of the Trinity and other doctrinal issues of importance.  Let’s admit there’s truth beyond our knowledge here.  But let’s also admit that too many of us have not really sought to grasp what may be known.  Consequently, a lot of observers weren’t theologically prepared to discern truth from error, heat from light, wheat from chaff.  For me, that was painfully clear in the celebratory declamations following the event.  It saddened me and left me with a resolve to teach more systematic theology to my own church.  It also left me more determined to be a watchman on the wall.  How urgent it is for us “to watch our lives and doctrine closely.”  I think I’ll read Spurgeon’s “The Minister’s Self-Watch” again today, just for my own soul’s sake.

4.  We need a practical understanding of repentance.  ”Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” was John the Baptist’s declaration.  The apostle Paul preached that men should “perform deeds in keeping with repentance” (Acts 26:20).  So, how do we know a person is genuinely repentant of false teaching or other sins?  Well, there should be some practical outworking of the changed mind and heart; there should be “deeds in keeping with repentance.”  What would that look like with Jakes?  Answering that question keeps us from making snap judgments and prematurely assuring someone in their error.  So, ask yourself: If I were a pastor and Jakes were on my staff while teaching these the prosperity gospel and modalism, what would I ask him to do to demonstrate his repentance?  Most of us would probably have a few things in mind, including: (a) a definite retraction and renunciation of previous error taught, (b) a clear and unprompted statement of the changed belief, and (c) a request for forgiveness from any offended.  In short, we’d look for him to clearly own his error without equivocation, advance the truth, and look to make amends where possible.  That would be the minimum we would expect before we gave him another public opportunity to teach.  Or, at least that’s the minimum I’d expect in the church I pastor.  But the evangelical practice of repentance can at times be so shallow, and we can at times be so desirous of a good outcome, that we grab at any mirage or any pretensions to repentance.  But group hugs are no substitute for thoughtful pastoral engagement.  In the end, we hurt ourselves and the very one needing to change.

5.  Divisions come swiftly and easily.  My heart breaks to see how quickly and easily the unity of the Spirit can be broken.  It really doesn’t take much at all… a few poorly stated sentences, hurts nursed and rehearsed, the refusal to reach out or keep short accounts.  Ephesians 4 and 5 contain critical instructions for us!  And this medium that I’m using right now can make the divisions deeper, wider, and quicker than most anything else I can imagine.  And, yet, some divisions are most certainly necessary.  I wish the necessary divisions could be recognized and enacted more quickly while the unnecessary divisions could be avoided all together.  Is it just me, or doesn’t it seem the unnecessary variety comes at the speed of light while the necessary toddles along slowly?

6.  A lot of reconciliation and brotherly affection gets shared privately, but it’s sometimes not useful to be insisted upon publicly.  A lot of people have taken it upon themselves to be the “private conversation police.”  They want to enforce a new rule for public discourse: Talk privately with those with whom you disagree before you disagree publicly.  I think that’s well intended, but it’s quite problematic.  Again, Carson and Keller handle this very well.  I just want to add that this desire to require private conversations before public redress has two unintended and negative consequences.  First, it means that the first persons to speak have the controlling leverage in the conversation.  That’s not much of a problem unless the first one to speak speaks heresy or some false teaching.  In that case, everyone who would act to counter the falsehood is held hostage by the purveyor of falsehood!  That’s a very bad outcome.  Second, the vocal insistence on private conversation, or rather the suggestion that no such conversation is happening, can actually frustrate and undermine very real private efforts at unity, restoration, and correction.  It’s surprising how public comments (ironically, without first making private contact!) about perceived private failings actually complicate the very private efforts being called for.  It’s also interesting to note how many unrelated parties feel entitled to know what’s happening in private sessions.  They don’t seem to realize that asking for private matters to be disclosed publicly might actually hinder trust and communication.  As it is, these things don’t always work out.  So, it’s probably prudent to use that few moments of keyboarding to instead offer a few words of prayer and intercession.

Here’s a rule of thumb: If you have to speculate about whether this or that conversation is happening, you’re probably not close enough to the situation to be useful.  If you can’t pick up the phone and ask one of the parties, “What’s going on?” then you’re probably not positioned to help or insist on private communication.

Speculative and sometimes accusatory writing in public forums, in my opinion, actually do very little to help situations while doing a fair amount to complicate matters and frustrate people.  I’ve become a fan of the old rules of engagement: If a person speaks or publishes something for public consumption, that speech or publication is automatically fair game for public critique and correction.  It can be useful, courteous, and sometimes necessary to contact a person to be sure you’ve understood them correctly.  But public addresses are fair game for public redress.  This in no way releases us from all the biblical requirements for charity, grace, and the like.  But it does free us to respond where situations warrant.

7.  Our cooperation needs to be principled rather than pragmatic.  This has really come home to me in a powerful way.  I realized something about myself.  My cooperation in TGC has largely been pragmatic.  I learn so much when I’m with the guys.  I’m stimulated by the conversations we have.  Many lessons and resources are shared with the church I pastor.  In all these ways I benefit from TGC.  Here’s the problem: I’ve been essentially selfish.  I was in danger of only cooperating for as long as it benefited me.  I was in danger of being “at the table” but not really contributing fully.  That’s selfish and it’s sin.  The divisions and threats to unity forced me to remember (realize?) that I need to remain involved in TGC because there are important principles at stake.  There is the evangelistic signal effect of unity with other disciples who hold the same gospel (John 13:34-35).  There is the need for unity beyond my local congregation.  There is the necessity of defending and confirming the gospel (Phil. 1:7; Jude 3-4).  There is the necessity of every part of the body contributing to the whole (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4).  I could go on.  The point is simply this: One danger to our unity and our coalitions may be the tendency to think in pragmatic rather than principled terms about our cooperation.  I need to be principled.

8.  Our cooperation can have a liberalizing tendency.  I’m all for a more robust unity across denominational lines.  But I’ve seen enough situations where “cooperation” becomes code for liberalizing.  I’ve seen this in denominational mergers here in the Caribbean, where groups from quite distinct confessional traditions have rushed to the lowest theological common denominator to create unity.  I’ve seen it in international churches in some of the great crossroads cities in the world.  The great diversity in those churches can subtly pressure leaders to minimize doctrine in order to “fit as many people in as possible.”  The victim will inevitably be doctrinal integrity and truth.  This doesn’t have to happen; it’s not a foregone conclusion.  I’ve seen international churches thrive quite well across wide diversity anchored in a shared confessional stance.  And we’ve seen the rise of trans-denominational networks that have held fast to robust theological commitments.  So, the act of cooperation does not lead inexorably to theological laxity and liberalism.  But it can if we’re not watchful and if we’re not constantly sharpening our commitments and restating them in fresh, living ways.

9.  There are descriptive and prescriptive ways of using “race.”  I injected the notion of ethnicity in my original post on the Jakes invitation.  I did so by pointing to the enormous influence the man has in predominantly African-American churches.  The intent was simply to describe an effect, to note a phenomena.  Such description is sometimes necessary and helpful.  But description is miles apart from injecting “race” in a way that prescribes how people should act, whether coercing certain behaviors or playing to certain expectations and stereotypes.  These prescriptive uses cross the line, in my opinion.  Attempting to prescribe behavior along “racial” lines keeps us locked into unhelpful “racial” categories, histories, and sins.  It’s one thing to say descriptively “Thabiti is African American” or “Sarah is Kikuyu.”  It’s an entirely different thing to say prescriptively, “All African Americans must act this way” or “Kikuyu people should be treated thus.”  One simply helps us observe the world as it is while the other attempts to sinfully manipulate and control others.

10.  ”Race” is not only powerful, it’s also about power.  These categories and histories affect us–sometimes viscerally.  They’re powerful. Just the mention of racial stereotypes or insinuating racial motives is enough to stir heated reaction and even riots in the streets.

But another thing for us to keep in mind is that “biological race” as a construct has always been a sibling to power.  Racial categories were created and put in the service of oppression and claims to supremacy.  The categories became justification for slavery, prejudice and bigotry, and all manner of evil.  The ability to define someone as a “racial other” is, plain and simple, an act of power.  The greatest acts of power occur when you not only define someone else’s reality but also when the persons so defined willingly accept your definition.  We have real power when people freely see themselves as we tell them to see themselves.  So, when African Americans or any ethnic group accepts “race” as a category–a category we did not invent but was forced upon us and used to justify our subjugation–we unwittingly succumb to the power of others to define us.  Without question, African Americans have appropriated those categories in subversive ways.  Think of the romantic appeals to Ethiopia in the 18th and 19th centuries, the New Negro movement, the Black Pride movement, and Afrocentrism.  All of those efforts to redefine categories–Ethiopian, Negro, Black, African American–largely thrust upon us but ultimately accepted, while subversive, are ultimately capitulations to the very categories themselves and to the power dynamics coupled with the categories.  The real power of self-determination doesn’t settle with redefining the categories, tinkering around the margins of color symbolism and cultural romanticism, but rejects the categories outright.

The Power we should be happily submitting to is that power to define us that YHWH alone has.  He has purposed that various families, clans, and ethnic groups exist, but not that those families should be categorized, marginalized, subjugated, or separated based upon the phony notion of “race” as “biological otherness.”  The question simply becomes: Who has power to define us and to define our behavior–God or man?  The answer ought to be obvious.  But here’s the challenge: Will we willingly endure the cognitive dissonance, social dislocation, and emotional discomfort to live under God’s definition?  In other words, will we be sanctified enough to conform more fully to the new humanity in Christ to which we’re called?

While I’m at this, I should point to something that seems to escape the notice of some people.  It’s just as much an act of power to define people in such a way as to deny their ethnic identity as it is to define them in ways that insist upon a racial identity.  Some people think that saying “‘race’ does not exist” provides a warrant for saying all that’s happened in the name of “race” did not happen or does not matter.  They seem to think that saying “‘race’ does not exist” means there is no sense or aspect of “otherness” that matters.  ”Race does not exist” becomes a magical mantra that wipes the slate clean and absolves us of any responsibility for pursuing reconciliation and justice.  ”Forget about culture.  Forget about ethnicity.  Let all that stuff go,” they tell us.  But, friend, doing that to someone is no less an act of power than defining them in a “racial” category of your choosing.  It’s simply a box marked “nothing,” which can be as debilitating as one of the many boxes marked “race.”  And it trades in the same power differential and dynamic.

What’s the solution then?  Let people self-identify.  Let’s be honest: None of us has this figured out.  Even those who feel they understand the Bible quite well on these points, if they’re honest they must admit that they understand these truths better than they live it.  So, people are in progress.  The light we have today we didn’t have five or ten or fifteen years ago.  If that’s true of us, then we should give others the five, ten, fifteen, twenty or more years they need to figure some things out, too.  Let’s be patient with one another and let folks grow into what Christ has called them to be.  Relax.  We don’t actually have to define one another into neat boxes with stereotypes and judgments.  We can actually allow the Lord by His word to define us and to define others.  We can and must allow Him to remove the old man and to renew us in the new man, a new man who remarkably includes in himself every ethnic group, family, or clan of the world.  It’s worth figuring out our ethnic selves because in the age to come our ethnicity will redound to the Lamb’s glory.

11.  My assumptions about my usefulness need chastening.  What do I mean by that?  Two things.  First, it was evident that a lot of the actors and commentators before, during, and after the event had very little knowledge of Jakes and his teaching.  Some of the least familiar have been the most unhelpful.  I’m not blaming them because I recognize in this situation my tendency to sometimes speak when I should really remain silent, listen, and learn.  I’m sometimes asked to speak at various places or address certain topics for which I have little to no expertise.  Thankfully, to this point, I’ve been able to spot most of those invitations and turn them down.  Recent events have made me all the more concerned about rightly assessing what I know (or don’t know!) and responding accordingly.  I can’t be helpful where I’m really ignorant.  Second, it was also evident that we live in a complex world with lots of factors and pressures acting on people all the time.  We can sometimes think that action ‘x’ should lead to result ‘y’.  But, if I’m honest with myself, I almost never see that happen in life and ministry.  I’m far less influential than I sometimes think.  Seeing the complexity and seeing my limitations have taught me in some measure, however small, to think less of myself and my ability to be strategic, influential, helpful, etc.  I’m not that useful.  The work and the battle is the Lord’s.  I rest in Him.

Well, that’s my 11 things for tonight.  Tomorrow, Lord willing, we’ll try to put a face on some of this.

In the comments, I’m not looking for more debate about recent events.  I’m registering my thoughts for what they’re worth.  Feel free to comment.  But if the comments get steered toward acrimony or allegation, I’ll either delete the comment or close it altogether.  I’m hoping these are constructive thoughts and hoping yours will be, too.

At 1pm CST, I’ll have the privilege of joining the students and faculty at Trinity Evangelical Divinity school for an event entitled, “Jonathan Edwards and American Racism: Can the Theology of a Slaveholder Be Trusted by Descendants of Slaves?”  How’s that for a provocative subtitle?!

Here’s a description from the website:

Jonathan Edwards is arguably the most important theologian that North America has produced. He is a hero to many Christians. Yet he also owned slaves, a fact that has raised important questions about his moral credibility. Should we really be holding Edwards up as a theological role model? Should we be trying to learn from him? These are live questions here at Trinity and beyond. Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile has thought about these questions-as a pastor, an African American, and adherent to Reformed theology. We invite you to listen in as he reflects about them personally, engaging two other African-American pastors and the audience in an edifying installment of the Edwards Center series ‘Jonathan Edwards and the Church,’ moderated by Dr. Sweeney.

This event is cosponsored by the Henry Center and the Jonathan Edwards Center at TEDS. Pastor Anyabwile’s lecture will take place on Wednesday, Feb 1, 1-2:30pm in the ATO Chapel on the TEDS campus. The responses will be from Pastor Louis Love of New Life Fellowship Church, Vernon Hills, and Pastor Charlie Dates of Progressive Baptist Church of Chicago-Q&A to follow.

If you’re interested, you can check the live-stream here.

I don’t know what I expect when I write some blog posts.  Usually I’m just in my own little head trying to get some coherent thoughts out so I can learn and think.  So, I write what I’m thinking.  Somewhere in the back of my mind I do hope it’s helpful to someone else.  But sometimes it stirs up questions and comments I didn’t anticipate.  Like the post “This Black Leader or That Black Leader.”  I suppose I knew it would stir conversation, but I didn’t anticipate being accused of furthering Black-White divides, especially when I’ve written so much to challenge the very question of “race” itself.  Outflanked on the right, I suppose.

Then there was this great question: “Where does the idea of ‘blackness’ come from anyway?”  Hmmm.  That’s a fine question.  It revealed my assumption that everybody had a working notion of “blackness” or “whiteness” and some sense of where it comes from.  I’m glad for the question for two reasons: (1) It proves not everybody does–that’s good news; and (2) it suggests real progress on this front–also good news.

But, perhaps it’s good to attempt a short answer to this question before resuming the schedule of posts I have for this week.  Perhaps answer this question will help make some sense of the previous posts and make the subsequent ones more helpful (at least understandable).  So, where does “blackness” (and for that matter, “whiteness”) come from?

Not from the Bible

First, we ought to say something about where it does not come from.  It does not come from the Bible.  As I understand the Scripture with what light the Spirit has given me, the Bible’s story line emphasizes our great continuity with one another.  To be sure there are different families, clans, nations, languages, and religions, but there is one humanity, descended from Adam, made in God’s image and likeness.  Genesis 10 tells us of the fracturing of peoples into various clans and regions.  But note that everyone there descends from one family, Noah’s.  Acts 17:26, a favorite text of early African American Christians fighting to be regarded as human, reads: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (KJV).  I suspect Paul had Gen. 3:20 and Gen. 10 in mind when he preached those words in Athens.  So, if by “whiteness” or “blackness” we mean something approaching “race” as biological other, then that idea finds no support in the Bible.

Not from Genetics

Acts 17:26 (KJV) is also interesting for another reason.  At least in terms of American views of “race,” there has been the long-standing “one drop rule.”  That’s the idea, at first social and then legal, that one drop of African blood made a person “black.”  This is why we ask insane questions like, “What color is Johnny?” or “Is Barack Obama black?”  And this is why we make the equally insane conclusion once we find out that somebody in Barack Obama’s family was black-skinned that, in fact, Barack Obama is “black.”  The one-drop rule resulted in terms like “full-blooded” (as in the case of “full-blood Cherokee”) or “half-breeds” (a pejorative if ever there was one), and “mixed-race” people.  The one-drop rule rests upon a faulty genetic premise: that there is sufficient genetic difference to constitute different “races” (read, “species”) among the peoples of the world.  The mixing of these “bloods” resulted in, it was assumed, real genetic differences between the “races.”  However, you’d be really hard-pressed to find one genetic scientist today who would argue for any genetic basis for different races.  The genetic difference between blacks, whites, browns, etc. is so marginal that we’re left to affirm Acts 17:26: “He made from one blood all nations of men.”  So, race (and therefore “blackness” or “whiteness”) has no genetic foundation.

From Society

So where does “blackness” and “whiteness” come from?  There are four interlocking sources, if you’ll let me speak in general terms.  First, it comes from society.  ”Race” and attendant ideas like “blackness” and “whiteness” are social constructs, made up by people and cultures everywhere.  One thing many people don’t realize is that there has never been in worldwide consensus on precisely how many “races” there are.  Different societies developed different definitions.  In America, most of the history focused on two “races”–black and white.  But in South Africa, that society classified people into three “races”–black, white, and colored.  Early Chinese ethnographers argued for ten racial classifications.  We could go on.  If you want more about this, read the introduction to Colin Kidds excellent work, The Forging of Races.  The point is that “race” and “blackness” or “whiteness” are socially constructed identifiers.

What’s fueling these social constructions of racial categories?  That brings us to our second of the three interlocking sources: spiritual alienation from God and one another.

From the Fall

Read Genesis 3-4 and 10 again.  What was meant to be one humanity under the reign of God subduing the earth and filling it with His glory became a alienated, hostile, murderous, dispersed, confused, and separated mass of peoples.  The effects of the Fall are real, and it’s our fallen nature that drives us to not only classify ourselves along racial lines but also to join feelings of alienation, hostility, and xenophobia to those classifications.  What’s the first thing Cain says when God pronounces his banishment?  “Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (Gen. 4:14, NIV).  Do you see the alienation from God and other peoples in Cain’s speech?  It’s an alienation he received from his parents and that we receive from his parents.  The spiritual “other” or “alien” really emerges from sin’s entrance into the world.  And it’s partly what explains the existence of “blackness” and “whiteness.”

From Psychology

The Fall touched every part of man, corrupting him at his root.  The rational faculties of man are no exception.  That’s what I mean when I say “race,” “racism,” “blackness,” and “whiteness” come from our psychology.  There’s a theory in social psychology called “social attribution theory.”  Simplifying a bit, the theory teaches that basically all of our minds are pretty quick stereotyping machines.  We recognize certain characteristics in others and then our minds–often so quickly that we’re not conscious we’re doing it–begins to make attributions.  You’ve perhaps heard of the famous (though flawed) psychological study that showed a black baby doll and a white baby doll to little children and asked the children to describe what they thought about the dolls.  Routinely the children rated the black doll as dirty, dumb, and so on, while rating the white doll as pretty, desirable, etc.  That study was pivotal in the Brown v. Board case that led to the end of racial segregation in the United States.  I point to the study simply to illustrate the point: we are assigning attributes to one another all the time based upon things like skin color and hair texture.  It’s not simply that we have a category of “races” in our minds, or simply that we notice skin color.  That’s not how the mind works.  We notice skin color, file the person into a racial category, and then our minds take over by filling in assumed attributes (positive or negative) about the person.  We do it and we often don’t even know we do it. The mind is a mercilessly efficient stereotyper.  That’s why we have the notion of “blackness” or “whiteness.”

From Interaction

Now, there’s a fourth source of “blackness” and “whiteness” we need to consider: cross-ethnic interactions.  Our experiences with one another have a lot to do with forming, reinforcing, and shaping our notions of “blackness” and “whiteness.”  Part of what it means to be “black” or “white” gets formed in the crucible of shared pain, suffering, joy, hope, failure, success, loss and so on.  Despite our various categorizations, we share one planet and occupy one social world.  There are places in this social world where we may retreat with others who share our identity, but even then we’re aware of “the others” and that awareness shapes how we’re together.

Now, here’s an important point under this category of interaction: White people helped define “blackness” for Black people, and Black people help define “whiteness” for white people.  The entire argument for slavery which depended on defining “blacks” as inferior and subhuman had and has a tremendous effect on how others see Black people and how Black people see themselves.  Many others bought and buy the lie.  So, too, did some Blacks.  And those Blacks who did not nevertheless had to forge a definition of “blackness” in response to the negative definitions of whites.  There’s a dynamic negotiation and struggle for the control of “blackness.”  Where does “blackness” come from?

But the truth is: White people created “blackness,” and Black people have returned the favor.  ”Blackness” and “whiteness” come from the conflicts and interactions of black-skinned and white-skinned people fighting for that most absolute power of defining self and others according to your own social location.  In the same whites, Blacks have mounted counter-strikes to define white-skinned people, so that “whiteness” in the Black imagination includes certain things.  To be silly and very stereotypical, “whiteness” includes the inability to dance, strange tastes in music, no ‘cool’ or ‘soul,’ and so on.  Or, to be more serious, “whiteness” represents risk to one’s Black self, oppression, marginalization, and so on.  We are simply one lifetime away from a social setting where mistakes with Whites ended in lynchings, cross burnings, and so on.  That’s ugly, real, painful history.  It illustrates how “blackness” and “whiteness” result from a fallen social world where attributions and interactions happen at the speed of thought and carry enormous consequence.

So…

That’s why any discussions of “race” almost immediately move to discussions of our experiences.  It’s in the interactions that these things get defined in powerfully personal ways.  Now the problem with the quick move to experiences is that (a) we can’t change our histories, (b) our histories can enslave us, and (c) our personal histories often blind us to the underlying issues of the Fall and the social attributions we make.  So, our histories keep us from doing the harder, deeper work of forging a biblical view of ourselves and others.  And this is very important: Because these ideas are formed through interaction, it’s going to take massive levels of interaction to undo the damage that’s been done and to forge a new path.  We won’t escape the quagmire by waving a wand or by fiat.  Nor will we get there by simply decrying the fact that others “still think this way.”  We have to roll up our sleeves, reach into our hearts, pull out the old and plant the new.  I pray the Lord will allow us to do this more and more by His word and His Spirit.

Some References for Those Who Might Like to Read More:

Collin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000 (Cambridge, 2006)

Joseph L. Graves, Jr., The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America (Plume, 2005)

Nell Irvin Painter, The History of White People (Norton, 2010)

Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill, 1968)

David R. Roediger (ed.), Black on White: Black Writes on What It Means to Be White (Schocken, 1998)

Debra J. Dickerson, The End of Blackness: Returning the Souls of Black Folk to Their Rightful Owners (Anchor, 2004)

W. Fitzhugh Brundage, The Southern Past: A Clash of Race and Memory (Belknap of Harvard, 2005)

Mia Bay, The White Image in the Black Mind: African-American Ideas about White People, 1830-1925 (Oxford, 2000)

Eric L. Goldstein, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity (Princeton, 2006)

Mark M. Smith, How Race Is Made: Slavery, Segregation, and the Senses (Chapel Hill, 2006)

Scott L. Malcolmson, One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race (Farrar Straus Giroux, 2000)

Amitai Etzioni, The Monochrome Society (Princeton and Oxford, 2001)

Grace Elizabeth Hale, Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940 (Pantheon, 1998)

I enjoyed this conversation between Colin Hansen and John Piper regarding John’s new book, Bloodlines. I deeply respect and admire John’s faith in the Lord, willingness to risk, and courage to stand on this issue. And in these videos you can see his passion and investment in arguing for a blood-bought reshaping of our thinking about ourselves.

Confronting the Racial Sins of Our Fathers from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Can’t Afford to Be Color Blind from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

I think John nails the colorblind issue in the second video. He captures the tension and dynamic very well, showing both the pros and the cons of the issue.

If I might, I’d want to tack on one footnote to what John has said extremely well. Sometimes the appeal to being colorblind masks a deeper issue of being “justice blind.” That is, some people have called for a colorblind society or positioned themselves as colorblind people as a means for willfully ignoring justice issues that themselves are predicated upon color. Examples abound. Fill in the blank.

So, there arises a suspicion of the notion because of very real justice or injustice issues attached to color. We don’t want a naive movement toward colorblindness (in the positive sense) when it gives room for “justice blindness.” That’s part of the tension and concern. In a society filled with systematic statistical disparities on the basis of skin color on everything from educational achievement, employment rates, internet access, incarceration, banking access, poor health, home ownership, poverty, and so on, we cannot afford a blindness to color that perpetuates a blindness to justice.

I’m grateful for Piper helping to make this plain. The move toward a post-race society must include movement to a color-just society. This is better known to us as judging a man by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin–whether that “judgment” be the charitable interpersonal judgments that help to eliminate prejudice and racism or the charitable judgments of “justice for all.”

P.S.–I’m certain someone will wish to point out that I’ve at least intimated that “justice” looks like “equality of outcome” and not “equality of opportunity.” Fair enough. But before you dismiss the thrust of this post with that critique, how about defining “justice” yourself and attending to the color-based injustices and disparities so plentifully around us before/as you point out your disagreement with my definition. Until then, I need to let you know that I kinda like the definition of “justice” that I use and pursue over the definition of “justice” you don’t.

Protesters took over a Wake County Public School board meeting in Raleigh, N.C., during a protest of the school board's decision to eliminate a busing policy focused on diversity.

You’ve heard of Brown v. The Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court case that began the dismantling of “separate but equal” in public education.  Well, it seems that the gains of the Civil Rights movement are imperiled in at least one jurisdiction, Wake County, North Carolina.

My wife served in a Wake County high school for three years as a history teacher.  I coached junior varsity and varsity basketball in the same system.  In North Carolina, Wake County schools were the gem of the state.  And with good reason.  The system managed an integration policy that to some extent ameliorated some of the wide income and resource gaps between various neighborhoods in the system.  It was a busing strategy that had some challenges (many of our students were bused past three or four high schools in order to attend school, leaving home sometimes as early as 6:30am).  But on the whole, the system worked to give greater opportunity to all.

Thanks to the backing of sibling billionaires, what was once widely regarded an effective system for ending both segregation and class disadvantage may now be dismantled.  Black Voices, an internet newspaper associated with The Huffington Post, reports on the community’s response to the election of five school board members bankrolled by Charles and David Koch (not N.C. residents), the Tea Party, and State libertarians.  Those school board members received millions in support from the Kochs on a platform to end the school district’s policy of diversifying student bodies and returning the district to neighborhood schools.

Following Brown v. Board of Education, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus deployed the state national guard to deny the "Little Rock Nine" entry to Little Rock's Central High school. President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to escort them into the building.

Critics rightly understand this to be a return to segregation along ethnic and class lines.  Neighborhood and class segregation remains a stubborn reality in most places around the country.  Poverty concentrates, and so does wealth.  And while neighborhood segregation no longer holds sway in the country as a matter of law, we’re nowhere near the level of meaningful social interaction we might like to see across class and ethnic lines.  The new proposal for neighborhood schools just might be a giant step back to the 1940s.

Do we really want that?  Do we really want armed soldiers escorting students into schools?  Do we really want to strategically limit opportunities by zip code, skin color, and income?  Surely the lessons of Jim Crow are not already fading from public memory and conscience.

Don’t make me dust off my red, black, and green!

This left me speechless.

Newsweek features a cover story on the Rev. Al Sharpton entitled “The Reinvention of the Reverend Al: From Tawana to Obama, What Sharpton’s Longevity Says About Race in America.”

As the subtitle suggests, the article covers Sharpton’s career from the shiny jumpsuit days of marching and bullhorns to a 100-pound lighter Sharpton donning custom suits and appearing regularly on cable news programs.  We see the transition of Sharpton from boy preacher to presidential candidate.

Sharpton himself contends “My mission, my message, and everything else about me is the same as always.  The country may have changed, but I haven’t.”

The authors ask whether Sharpton’s role as agitator for racial justice “is still needed in an era when the man atop the national power structure himself is black, and Sharpton now regularly meets with him–issuing not just demands but advice.”

I would heartily answer “Yes!”  Both the people of God and the nations who do not know God need a prophet from God.  Truth must be spoken to power on behalf of the most powerful Truth himself.  But I can’t say that that has been Sharpton’s mission or message.  In the entire article, there was no reference to Jesus, the cross, the gospel, judgment or anything remotely Christian except references to Sharpton as a preacher and a Baptist.

The article reveals the fact that “prophetic preaching” itself has been hijacked.  Many lay claim to the mantle and call for the prophet’s voice to be heard.  But is there a genuine prophet in the land?

I’m certain there is, but they’re not the prophets of CNN or MSNBC, or the liberal  and conservative academic “prophets” of a Christless, crossless “faith.,  compassion-less faith.  On August 28th, the anniversary of the historic March on Washington where Dr. King delivered the famous “I Have a Dream” speech, Sharpton is planning another march on Washington.  It’s billed as an anti-Glenn Beck “Take Back America” rally.  I say let all the social gospel prophets on the left and the right have their bonfires of vanity.  What we really need is for the word of God to fall like a hammer, for the Spirit to powerfully enlarge His work of conviction and conversion, and for the people of God to be revived.  It’s revival we need, not reinvention.

As for Sharpton’s contribution to the country’s understanding of race, the article fails to answer its own question clearly or compellingly.  That, too, is telling.  Sharpton’s career, in my opinion, has muddled and confused issues of “race” and racial understanding.  It’s fitting that an article examining his career should leave us with questions and uncertainty.  It’s what Sharpton has left us.  We can do better–especially if we reject the myth of “race” itself.

Related Posts:

Former Racist
Talking to Children about Race
Thabiti’s Top Ten Tips for Talking about “Race”

Senator James Webb (D-Va) offers an interesting op-ed at The Wall Street Journal entitled “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege.”  Webb questions the validity of viewing white America as a monolith along with the continuation of government programs originally designed to remedy slavery’s legacy but not serve all “people of color.”

Here’s Webb’s conclusion:

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.

Read the entire piece.  This isn’t typical Democrat speak.  And it’s a certainly a rare opinion in Northern Virginia.  Webb gets points for breaking the party line with a dissenting opinion.

But is his reasoning solid?  I’m curious; what do you think?  Does Webb’s point of view hold?  Is white privilege a myth?  Ought tenure in the country privilege someone to government support or resources?  And curiously, are southern white Baptists really an ethnic group?

A couple days ago, I posted a brief list of Christian denominations in the U.S. having their annual meetings this week.  While I’d count myself among the many who break out in hives at the thought of attending denominational meetings, these are important gatherings for the life of the church.

For instance, at its annual synod meeting, the Reformed Church of America, the country’s oldest Protestant denomination, adopted the Belhar Confession written in the 1980s by Dutch Reformed South Africans.  Once adopted, the Belhar will join the three historic statements of faith–the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession and Canons of Dort–as the RCA’s organizing documents.  The older three have served the denomination since its founding in 1628.

Proponents say this is an important development.

“It is historic and it adds a needed component to the confessions, the social dimension,” said Mitch Kinsinger, a religion professor at RCA-affiliated Northwestern College.

“For a denomination that has been historically Dutch and white, it opens the windows to a broader sense of what this church is and what it should be.”

The document instructs people to “love one another; that we experience, practice and pursue community with one another; that we are obliged to give ourselves willingly and joyfully to be of benefit and blessing to one another.”

“This is a way to ground our commitment to justice and to reconciliation and to unity,” said the RCA’s general secretary, the Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson said. “This means that every theological student will be shaping their faith in light of not only the Heidelberg, the Belgic and the Canons of Dort, but also the Belhar Confession.”

The full text of the Belhar is available in pdf here.  Along with the move to adopt the Belhar, RCA synod president James Seawood presented a report “calling the RCA to engage in “ministry from the bottom up” by practicing a ministry of presence, listening and learning with the ear and heart of Jesus, and acting as the hands and feet of Jesus.”  You can watch the report here:

Many grapple with the church’s role on social issues and community engagement.  The RCA has chosen this path forward.  I’d be curious to what others think about the Belhar,  whether there are other documents like it that could be part of the discussion, and Seawood’s proposals.

Kevin DeYoung, ain’t this your gang?  Any comments on this?

Without doubt, Cape Town is one of the most beautiful locations on earth.  Two oceans meet at its southern-most point and look up to Table Mountain.  Breathtaking.  Complete with Great White sharks.

But along with the rushing currents, the cloud laced mountains, and ferocious sea life, there are warm-hearted, joyful, hospitable, Jesus loving saints in Cape Town.  During our recent trip, we had the privilege of receiving incredibly gracious hospitality from the Sutherland and Eloff families, and to share in the warm fellowship of saints from around Cape Town.

I also had the privilege of preaching several times.  My main engagement was the Cape Easter Convention 2010, where St. James Church extended the opportunity to address “the gospel and race”.  Words fail to express what an immense privilege it was to address this topic in post-Apartheid South Africa.  The three talks are here:

“One in Adam” (Genesis; Acts 17:26)

“One in Christ” (Eph. 2:11-22)

“One in the Church” (1 Cor. 12:12-27)

I also had the privilege of preaching at the morning services of St. James on March 28th.  Given that we were approaching Easter, we considered Matthew 27:45-46, “God Forsaken?!”

Later that evening, Kristie and I journeyed to downtown Cape Town to Holy Trinity Church.  I was asked to preach Ephesians 2:1-10 and share something of my testimony.  While I enjoyed preaching at Holy Trinity, Kristie and I really enjoyed the heart-felt, lively, and Christ-focused singing in both English and Xhosa!  Yeah… we were lip-sinking on the Xhosa–but we loved it!

To cap all this off, we also were able to see Claire and Michele O’Donovan, dear sisters from South Africa who were members of FBC for a season.  We enjoyed seeing Cape Town through their eyes and were wonderfully encouraged as they came out each night to the talks.  We gave them warm Caribbean greetings, and they sent their love back to the saints here.  To be a Christian is to have brothers and sisters 100-fold all around the globe!  How sweet it is!