Race Matters… Sort of. But Should It? (Part 2)
My previous post is HERE.
In the Bible, there is no EXACT equivalent of “Race” as we presently use the term. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to come up with any sociological term that has an exact equivalent two millennia ago. People group? Culture? Religion? Ethnicity? The closest to something that is constant is “family” perhaps but that is not to say that the range of groupings we might define as a family would be identical to what might be in other settings
The Bible has terms that get translated today as “nations,” “tongues,” and “tribes.” These terms all point toward the clumping together of people into social groupings beyond individual and family. They don’t however, line up exactly with “race.” Frankly, there are inconsistencies in how we use the term today. From a biological frame of reference, there are no races. There are no sub-categories of human that are sneaking up on developing into a new species. We are remarkably similar and compatible genetically to each other. Therefore, we we put together a hodge-podge of differentiating qualities and label them races. But consider Revelation 7:9
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
John is given a vision of Heaven. I don’t see this as our eternal state in the sense that I don’t believe this should be interpreted as what we will do minute by minute, hour by hour, century by century, forever. First of all, that would undermine other visions of Heaven that include the joining of Heaven and Earth, a city with many gates, a river with fruiting trees, animals in peaceful coexistence. What is the point of telling us all about these if we will never have a chance to walk the restored Heaven/Earth? Eat the fruit from the trees along the river? Enjoy interacting with animals in a restored creation? Use the gates for entering and leaving the heavenly city? If we are only standing in a big room all the time, much of what we know about the eternal state is irrelevant.
Instead, we should see this verse as a snapshot, a performance to reveal some things to John and to us. God’s reign is universal. It is for all. The differences we see in people around us are not particularly important in God’s Kingdom. We see visualized the complex interaction of UNITY and DIVERSITY
There are representatives of every nation, tribe, people and tongue. Are these differences discernible to us? Is praise here done in different languages? Don’t know. Do people have different skin tones, hair types, sexes, apparent ages, and more? Presumably. Does the cultural backgrounds have an honored place in Heaven? Not sure.
The key point is that there is diversity. But there is also unity. They are all dressed in white robes– not to stifle individual and cultural uniqueness but shown for the sake of John of their moral purity– despite their differences because of the Lamb of God. All of them have palm branches in their hands. Again, this is probably not seeking to suggest a cultural sameness, but to help John (who was a Galilean Christian) to recognize celebratory praise.
But what does this tell us about the church today?
-The ideal is where all people are welcome and join together as followers of Christ— placing none above or below others.
-Differences do not undermine the common goal and oneness through Christ.
Paul speaks of this Unity and Diversity
Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Paul suggests those under the Law and those not under the Law (Jew/Greek), those of different social or legal statuses (bond/free), and those of different sexes (male/female) are united, or one, in Christ. The passage goes on to make clear that we all part of the Abrahamic promise— heirs of the Kingdom. This, however, brings up the question of whether diversity is still honored or recognized. I would argue that differences are still honored. The Jerusalem Council sought to find ways for Gentile and Jewish Christians to identify themselves as united in Christ while practicing their faith differently. Unity did not suggest blind to unique differences. The same can be said as to social status. The older are to train the younger. The master is to be benevolent to the enslaved. The enslaved are to serve in good conscience. Social status was not to be ignored completely. Men and women are seen in the Bible as having (somewhat) different roles.
I feel like I am throwing out random thoughts. Let’s ‘cut to the chase’– Here are some thoughts I have:
-The Bible supports common purpose, but not sameness.
-Differences can be celebrated without undermine commonality.
I add, with caution the conflict between Paul and Peter recorded in Galatians. I struggle with whether Paul was right or Peter was right. Paul was the writer of Galatians and he clearly thinks he was right. But the Holy Spirit blessed us in making the story available enough for us to decide for ourselves. Was dishonoring a cultural tradition of one group/race the way to show spiritual unity (as Paul suggested), or would honoring the differences better show such unity (as Peter at least was practicing). I truly don’t know. And that is part of the problem of celebrating differences.
We see a similar struggle in the US with ethnic churches. Do having churches for different ethnicities express a moral good by honoring differences? There were, presumably different housechurches in cities in the first century church where different languages and other discernible variations were practiced. On the other hand, bringing together different groups into one local church setting— does this better express unity, or does it stamp out variety?
In the US we have had centuries of systemic racism. In the 1960s and 1970s there was growth of affirmative action and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion)— where hiring and other selection activities may be done based on race and other characteristics to broaden the diversity of the membership. Right now, that is being undermined by a call to “color-blindness”— or completely ignoring race in selection. Some see that as a noble goal. Arguably that is true. However, if things were lopsided for decade after decade and century after century, to (almost literally) turn a blind eye to the problem simply leaves the problem unaddressed. DEI at least acknowledges the problem and seeks address it, even if it is not a long-term solution.
The same problem can happen in the church. We are not particularly good at being race-blind, gender-blind, language-blind, nationality-blind, citizenship-blind and more in the church. The goal would be a place where differences are celebrated while unity is fully maintained. However, we are nowhere near that point. Pretending that differences don’t exist, sadly, mean that we will leave inequities unaddressed— unaddressed because they won’t be seen by people who benefit from the inequities.
