Forgive the scare quotes, but they’re employed in the title
with good reason, as will hopefully become clear.
We have been discussing the modern, leftist redefinition of
the word ‘racism’ to include any and all generalizations about race, speaking out against sinful behaviour (or even identifying it) and even gently humorous references to obvious differences between racial groups.
This is not ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’, as racism has
historically been defined, but an evanescent, constantly morphing definition of
what is acceptable that functions largely as a means of disqualifying and
marginalizing opponents of progressive social engineering.
Why does this matter
to Christians?
It is clear that those who genuinely hate and behave
intolerantly toward other believers simply on the basis of genetics are not living out Christianity as taught in the epistles.
But Christians may be inclined to indulge a certain
elasticity in the traditional definition of racism in the interest of goodwill
and out of a desire for peace. After all, not all North American Christians
self-identify as Republicans or Conservatives. For those of us who do not, does
the shape of the public debate over race really matter?
I believe it does. All Christians need to be careful that
our understanding of what is appropriate to the follower of Christ in terms of
attitude and behavior is framed by Scripture alone, and is not merely an empty,
worldly imitation of love, goodwill and tolerance that actually serves and
perpetuates someone else’s agenda.
Let me give you an example, and you can tell me if your
reflexive reaction to this verse is a desire to modify Scripture to
accommodate society’s current views about racism.
A Problem Verse
Here’s a verse that those Christians who have adopted the modern standard for crying ‘racist’ at the most meager of provocations need
to incorporate into their theology:
“One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith ...”
(Titus 1:12-14)
Huh. What are you going to do with that? That is, by modern
standards, some serious hate speech, folks.
If Robin Williams had said, “Iranians are always liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons,” the PC crowd would have eaten his lunch before he could finish his stand-up comedy routine. The statement has all the social justice hot buttons: it is a generalism (“always”) that would almost certainly hurt the feelings of any touchy Cretans who happened to read it (assuming, of course, that their evil beastliness didn’t hinder their ability to register criticism).
If Robin Williams had said, “Iranians are always liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons,” the PC crowd would have eaten his lunch before he could finish his stand-up comedy routine. The statement has all the social justice hot buttons: it is a generalism (“always”) that would almost certainly hurt the feelings of any touchy Cretans who happened to read it (assuming, of course, that their evil beastliness didn’t hinder their ability to register criticism).
It will not do to say that the writer is only quoting a Cretan
here because he goes on to add “This testimony is true”.
But the writer of this statement was Paul, the very apostle who set out for believers the standards by which we are to think of and treat people from other ethnic backgrounds and cultures, as laid out in detail in yesterday’s post. Surely Paul is not at odds with his own theology? Surely Paul is not racist?
There are two possible ways of dealing with this apparent
racism, given the Bible’s teaching that it is the
inspired word of God and that Paul was “carried
along by the Holy Spirit” as he wrote:
1. Paul is
giving his own personal opinion here, not that of God. This is
not as crazy a position as it sounds, because Paul does
this twice in Corinthians.
The problem with taking this position is that, when Paul does so (no doubt
conscious of the potential difficulties it may cause for his authority down
through the centuries), he labels the occasions explicitly. We are not left to
conjecture about when he speaks for himself; he tells us flat out. To speculate
that there are other, unmarked occasions on which he speaks uninspired by the
Holy Spirit of God is a slippery slope that no sane believer in the authority
of Scripture will think is worth descending;
OR
2. The Holy
Spirit is a racist. Really. That’s what’s behind Door #2 if you go
down this road.
Those are the options, folks, neither one particularly
tenable. Oh, okay, fine — you figured out where I’m going here. Of course there
is a third option:
3. Political correctness notwithstanding, there are legitimate circumstances
under which generalizations about national groups (even negative ones) are not
actually ‘racist’ in any sense that matters. That is to say, they are not
sinful. One of these circumstances would be when you are acting out of
love to address a genuine moral problem that must first be identified, then
acknowledged, rejected and dealt with, in order for those you are concerned
about to grow in the Christian life. This was most certainly the motivation of
the apostle in quoting the Cretan proverb. He was not out to hurt feelings or
demonstrate disregard for an entire group of human beings; he was speaking on
behalf of God about issues of spiritual significance.
Factual statements about race do not, in and of themselves, constitute racism. Racism has to do with motive, and should not be assumed without evidence. Even generalizations
about race, when true and motivated by love, are not sinful.
What Can We Learn Here?
Nobody actually thought I was going to insist that the Holy
Spirit is racist, did they?
If modernism insists on its expanded definition of racism,
the only logical conclusion for the believer is that ‘racism’ of the sort Paul
is engaged in is not actually a sin.
A few things may be concluded from the Titus passage:
1. Racial groups may possess identifiable
characteristics beyond the obvious physical externals. These may be good or bad
characteristics, depending on the cultural choices made by that group (and,
yes, maybe
even genetics*), but they are certainly identifiable. Putting blinders on in
the interests of pleasing the world does not make them go away.
2. Criticism of what a racial group is currently
doing is not wrong when their behavior is immoral. Our standard is the word of
God.
3. Knowing the natural tendencies and habits of
particular groups of Christians enables a believer to identify their potential
struggles, point them out and correct them. This is love, not racism.
4. We can choose to allow society to define our
terms for us, or we can define them from the word of God. While we need to be
conscious of the changing dialogue on the subject of race and avoid giving
unnecessary offence to those with whom we find ourselves in disagreement, we
should not and cannot, if we wish to remain faithful, shirk our responsibility
to declare the whole counsel of God.
There. Isn’t that better than making the Holy Spirit a racist?
So What Do We Do About It?
I am generally reluctant to spend too much time spelling out
how we should apply Scripture. We all have our individual situations and those
who attempt to point out what the Bible teaches can rarely be expected to anticipate
them all. It is largely the work of the Holy Spirit to teach each believer how
to most effectively put his word into practice in their own circumstances.
Because the subject of race is so volatile, however, I would
like to be clear what I am not
advocating, like, for instance, wholesale racial profiling, losing sight of the priority to present Christ first and above all, or getting entangled in profitless debates with the unsaved over their misuse of terminology. For me
to reply to Robin Williams’ Twitter critics with a shot over their bows about
how they have been brainwashed or can’t use a dictionary would be imprudent and
useless, to say the least.
On the other hand, I think my own kids and others who are
inclined to listen and learn ought to be clear on what words mean and what
Scripture teaches. It’s part of my obligation both as a Christian and a father.
Further, when I see other people accused of racism (and other thought crimes), as a Christian I ought to (1) most importantly, not pile on; (2) reserve personal judgment until the evidence of such racism is well established; and (3) where it is feasible to do so, encourage others to do the same. Blessed are the peacemakers, I think someone once said.
Further, when I see other people accused of racism (and other thought crimes), as a Christian I ought to (1) most importantly, not pile on; (2) reserve personal judgment until the evidence of such racism is well established; and (3) where it is feasible to do so, encourage others to do the same. Blessed are the peacemakers, I think someone once said.
As for those very few believers who find themselves in public debates
on this or other issues where progressive ideologues have coined or coopted
language to silence debate, Peter Hitchens gives a pretty good two minute example
of how to turn things around without being rude.
Note the female panelist’s confidently delivered litany of
leftist bromides that garner applause … until Hitchens speaks up. Note the
attempt by the host and fellow panelist to derail Hitchens’ point around the
0:54 mark and to interrupt again at 1:31, as well as the audience member in the front
row who unsuccessfully tries to interject his opinion around 1:40. And note the
applause for Hitchens at the end.
________________
* Bear in mind that if, in fact, genetics are involved (something I am in no way qualified to determine), their influence can result in no more than a predisposition, as opposed to any kind of behavioral stranglehold, otherwise it would hardly make sense for Paul to advise Timothy to “rebuke [the Cretans] sharply”.
No comments :
Post a Comment