How the Church Resolved the Problem of Racism...

...and still has the power to do the same thing today.

One of the most remarkable days in the early history of the Christian church is the Day of Pentecost.  Jews who had been scattered by various conquests and invasions but had remained faithful came to Jerusalem to celebrate.  The Holy Spirit came upon the members of the Christian church at that time in dramatic fashion, visibly appearing as flames of fire while breaking down the barrier of language among the Jews gathered from different parts of the known world, allowing those gathered to hear that the Messiah had come in the form of Jesus of Nazareth who had just been crucified and resurrected from the dead.  Peter preached, the message was heard and received, the Holy Spirit was present and three thousand souls were added to the kingdom.  The conversion of so many Jews from different places guaranteed that the gospel would be spread and churches would be planted among Jewish communities everywhere to which those who were saved in Jerusalem would return.

But as miraculous and barrier-crossing event as that was, even after Pentecost, the Christian church and its leaders still saw the gospel as only being for Jews.  The church had bridged the social and religious prejudices and barriers that existed within Jewish religious culture, but its leaders still could not fathom that the message of salvation in Christ was intended for gentiles.

The first indication that the developing church would break down, and inevitably ignore, ethnic and racial barriers is found in the account of Jesus and the disciples travelling through Samaria, where Jesus encounters the woman at the well and miraculously reveals himself as the messiah to her.  While Samaritans were not really of a completely different race, the differences that developed between them and the Jews taken into captivity in Babylon meant that they were separated by ethnic prejudice and hatred.

Following Pentecost, the first account of the conversion of a Gentile to Christian faith is slipped into the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.  Prompted by the Holy Spirit, Phillip encounters an Ethiopian court official returning home from Jerusalem.  Apparently, he was a Jewish proselyte, not an unlikely situation at the time.  At the instigation of the Holy Spirit, Phillip does something a good, practicing Jew would never do.  At the invitation of the Ethiopian, Phillip gets into his chariot.  This would be a "double whammy" in Jewish culture since the man was a gentile and a eunuch, both conditions which would have made him "unclean" and caused Phillip to become unclean as well. But this racial barrier is broken in an instant.  Phillip shows the Ethiopian that Jesus is the Messiah about whom Isaiah speaks.  The Spirit opens his heart and mind to the gospel and he is baptized.  This is clearly a spiritual initiative because Phillip is "swept away" and the eunuch does not see him again following his baptism.  So this African man becomes the first gentile convert to Christ mentioned in the New Testament.

The narrative in the book of Acts moves to Peter's encounter with Cornelius, a Roman who also appears to be a proselyte to Judaism, or who at least has a working understanding of the Jewish covenant and scriptures.  A meeting that wouldn't have happened without the prompting of the Holy Spirit, who moves Peter through a vision in a dream, giving him the courage to set his Jewish convictions aside and visit Cornelius' home where a potential church was already gathered.  Peter explains that it is unlawful for him, as a Jew, to enter the home of a gentile.  The key words in the English narrative as translated in the NRSV are "but God."  

"But God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean."  And right there, in the words of one of the church's Apostles, is the whole foundational Christian teaching on the matter of race and ethnicity.  Cornelius had gathered all of his relatives and friends and they were sitting there, ready to listen and willing to respond, waiting to hear from Peter.  Pentecost happened again as the Holy Spirit appeared, giving each of those who were gathered the same miraculous gifts that confirmed his presence the first time Peter preached.  Grace was poured out, God answered the question and resolved the difficulty right then and there.  Peter would still struggle with this issue, and so would the church, which struggles with every issue that it attempts to resolve on its own and not by depending on the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, it caused a controversy.  Peter faced a critical inquiry when he went back to Jerusalem because the word had come back to the church leaders there that Peter had gone to Cornelius' house and that he had preached, fellowshipped, and eaten with the uncircumcised, and had baptized them. The scripture says that after he explained everything to them, "they were silenced."  (Acts 11:18).  And they praised God saying, 'Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life."  Was it really that easy?  Was an ingrained, cardinal doctrine based on centuries of religious bigotry and hatred overcome by a single encounter with the Holy Spirit based on the testimony of the experience by a single apostle?  But God....

But God...
The boundaries of centuries of religious and racial prejudice set in place by Jewish practice were swept away in these encounters with the Holy Spirit.  God had a purpose he intended to accomplish through Christ and that was the salvation of his human creation.  Think about the depth of religious bigotry that prevented people from associating with people of a different racial and religious background to the point where it was believed that to do so separated one from the presence of God and required a lengthy, obnoxious purification ritual to regain your previous status.  How would the gospel get shared across a gap like that?

But God's presence gave both Phillip and Peter confidence that they were following his will and boldness to take the necessary steps to do it.  Phillip climbed into the chariot with an Ethiopian who, by Jewish law was unclean first because he was a gentile and second because he was a eunuch.  Phillip's action not only won the man to Christ, but also opened the door for the gospel to be preached in Ethiopia.  Peter crossed the threshold of a house where a group of people had gathered for the purpose of becoming a church.  The Holy Spirit's response, witnessed by one of the church's apostles, open the door for the eventual evangelization of the whole world but the miraculous signs poured out on the gentile believers testified to the fact that they were God's chosen as well and that what had been symbolized by the torn veil in the Temple was a prophetic occurrence come to pass.

The Church Resolving Racism Today
The early church in Jerusalem clearly did not have a concept that included preaching the gospel to gentiles.  Even though it can be seen from this side of those events in the Old Testament scriptures, at the time they were blind to it.  Look at the dramatic transformations which were required to convince the leaders.  Phillip was physically moved from the spot where he baptized the Ethiopian to Azotus as confirmation of the Spirit's presence.  Peter witnessed a full repetition of the Pentecost experience at Cornelius' home following a supernatural revelation through a vision.  It took the same kind of spiritual encounter to lead Paul to a transforming encounter with Jesus.

In spite of the fact that the indwelling Holy Spirit gives Christians direct access to the "mind of Christ" and to the very wisdom of God (I Corinthians 1 and 2) it is also evident that the fallen nature of the world has had an impact on the church's effectiveness.  Having this spiritual power and wisdom is one thing.  Using it is quite another.  It is not there for us to conjure up at those moments when we seem to need it the most, but set it aside, counting on our own wisdom when we want to do something our own way.  Submission is a requirement when it comes to accessing the Spirit's power because using it is intended to accomplish God's will, not our own.

"But God..." Must be Experienced
The title of the conference was intriguing, the "Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit," hosted by Dr. Dwight McKissic, pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist Church of Arlington, Texas on the church's campus.  The speakers and presenters included pastors from a variety of Baptist churches, some dually affiliated with National and Southern Baptist conventions, some independent, some predominantly African American, some predominantly white, with participants mainly from Texas but from a scattering of other states including Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana.  The title caught my attention, so I went.

Unlike most other church conferences I've attended, the purpose of this one was more on the experiential side and less on the informational side.  The lineup of speakers and worship experiences was intended to focus participants on the Spirit's presence, discerning the Spirit's will, submitting to the Spirit in order to be transformed through an encounter in worship.  I had never experienced anything like it.  The only way I can describe it is that the presence of the Holy Spirit is truly transformational.  I felt conviction, the release of forgiveness, a variety of other emotions, a sense of the presence of God and unity with the other believers who were present.  In the follow-up sessions on the second day, there was openness and fellowship with people I'd never met before.  God was present in the form of his indwelling Spirit.

There was unity.  The divisions between people that were present, from different local churches, different denominational backgrounds, different racial and ethnic backgrounds, were gone.  It dawned on me that, for the first time in my life that I could remember, I was submitted not only to the Holy Spirit, but to the preaching and spiritual guidance of men who were of a different race than me, and it didn't make a difference.  No one pointed that out, not that they had to, but it was something that I noticed.  It made permanent differences to me in many things, not just in the way I approach worship and submit to the Holy Spirit, but in the way I relate to Christian brothers and sisters of different racial, ethnic and denominational backgrounds.  Those are all things which the enemy has used to divide and attempt to conquer the church, quite successfully in most cases, at least among American Christians.

"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God" 
There can be no human agenda in this.  Anything less than complete reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit will fail.  The wounds run too deep.  There are those who don't want to see this issue get resolved, who prefer the status quo and who thrive on hostility.  It's not easy being a peacemaker, it comes with a price called sacrifice.  Look at what happened to Jesus.  We still live in a world where there are those who would rather burn a cross, or nail someone to it than to lift it up as a symbol of redemption.

But God...

Time to Be Silent and Let Somebody Else Speak: Shai Linne on George Floyd

There is very little I can say at this point that will contribute anything to the discussion prompted by the murder of George Floyd.  I think there are plenty of voices coming forward whose life experience has been so very different from mine when it comes to experiencing injustice because of their race.  I do not have anything to contribute to the discussion except that I will do whatever I can to stand against injustice and support the kind of change we need to make things better.

Shai Linne is a recording artist who has released numerous acclaimed Christian hip-hop albums, including his recent release for children, Jesus Kids. He is the author of God Made Me and You: Celebrating God’s Design for Ethnic Diversity and coauthor of It Was Good: Making Music to the Glory of God. After completing a pastoral internship at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., Linne cofounded Risen Christ Fellowship, an inner-city church in his hometown of Philadelphia. Linne, his wife, and three children live in Philadelphia. Learn more at www.shailinnemusic.com and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/george-floyd-and-me/

The Church and the Governing Authorities

During this current pandemic and the accompanying states of emergency, stay-at-home orders and measures taken by state governments in an attempt to stop its spread, at least to avoid overwhelming hospitals and trying to save lives, the political climate of the day has contributed to a conversation centered around whether or not a state government, specifically a governor, has the authority to include churches in executive orders which limit the size and scope of public gatherings.  The courts, and inevitably the Supreme Court, have been called on to interpret the constitutionality of their executive orders and the extent of their authority.

In a decision specific to a California congregation, the court majority ruled that churches are subject to a governor's emergency executive orders, specifically, orders which limit the size of a gathering during a pandemic.  You can read the media account of their ruling here.  The ruling would also have applied to two Chicago-area churches who had also filed a case with the Supreme Court but the governor changed his executive order when the state moved to a new phase of its re-opening plan.  There has been a lot of muttering, along with some outright civil disobedience, on the part of some churches over whether closing churches is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.  The correct course for churches to pursue in this regard was the pathway through the court system.  The incorrect course, according to the Bible, would be civil disobedience.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.  Romans 13:1-7, ESV

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.  I Peter 3:13-17, ESV

These are the words of two of the most prominent Christian Apostles to the churches.  They have a meaning within the specific context that they were written and there is an interpretation that provides relevant instruction to the church today.  There are some additional scripture passages, among them Jesus' own words, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's", in Matthew 22:21.  Paul puts some clarification to the context behind these words in explaining how Christians in the Corinthian church should handle the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols.  It was an issue that went to the very core of the church's testimony of faith in Christ.  A church that was seen as rebellious against the governing authority would be seen as just another faction, not as a church bringing a message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.

There are no places in the scripture where there is an "opt-out" or an exception to the principles given by the church's apostles in these two passages of scripture.  And while there are a few examples in the New Testament where Christians found themselves at odds with the civil government regarding the restriction of their activity, instead of resistance or civil disobedience, they followed the principles outlined in these scriptures, accepting the consequences that came as a result of their actions.

Paul was a Roman citizen and invoked the rights of his citizenship on multiple occasions to clear a pathway for the gospel ministry to move forward.  This included his eventual appeal to Caesar.  Had Paul been labeled as a troublemaker, rebel, or been involved in civil disobedience as a result of the wrongs done to him by the government authorities, he likely would not have survived.  As it was, his demeanor led to his being permitted to live in a house and continue his gospel ministry in Rome while waiting on his appeal.

The argument that Christians don't have to apply these verses to a "tyrannical" government, or one that doesn't reflect their values has no Biblical support.  In fact, it would not be very many years after these words were written that one of the emperors whom Peter says to honor would begin to distinguish the Christian church from Judaism, perceive that its growth and spread, visible within the city of Rome itself, was a threat to his authority and to his rule and would light the fires of persecution that would result in the deaths of literally thousands upon thousands of Christians and last for over 200 years.  If the church had responded by rebellion or civil disobedience, it would have been wiped out when its numbers were decimated.  But it was the steadfastness of their obedience to Christ, visible in their obedience to these specific passages of scripture, that amplified their testimony among their neighbors, convincing them that Jesus must have been real if he was worth obedience to the point of death.  By the beginning of the third century, evangelism had overwhelmed most of the empire, leading to the conversion of the emperor himself.

I've seen some attempts to justify bypassing the literal application of these passages from Old Testament examples.  But the context in the Old Testament doesn't apply here.  These passages were instructions given to the church in the first century, not to Israel in captivity so the example of both Daniel and that of Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego do not apply.  God allowed the captivity of Israel as punishment for disobedience to his law.  Through his prophets, he gave a direct word to Israel regarding his expectations for their obedience during their captivity and for those who were obedient.  And while the Old Testament makes a clear distinction between the theocratic government of Israel and the surrounding pagans, the Apostles established a church that would transcend the artificial divisions of humanity and be capable of spiritual transformation through the gospel of Jesus Christ in any culture or nation.

Peter makes this distinction very clear:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. I Peter 2:9, ESV

Those words are written to the church, made up of a variety of different nationalities, cultures, former religious backgrounds, races and even economic status.

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:11, ESV

There's no question that the early church faced far more opposition and found themselves at odds with the civil government of their day in far more serious and consequential ways than the American church faces in a democratic republic where its members have been a dominant force in the political system and a majority of the members of the elected government at every level are also professing members of Christ's church.  There is no comparison between the persecution that the early church faced at the hands of the Roman emperors and a disagreement with the political position of some members of the various levels of government entities in America.  What others have endured for the cause of Christ makes our grumbling and complaining pitifully petty.

Nothing about the American system of government in any way resembles the context of the times during which Peter and Paul wrote those words.  Executive orders and emergency restrictions issued by governors of various states (irregardless of partisan political affiliation, since such orders were issued across the board by Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike and some of the more restrictive orders were issued by Republican governors) are not some kind of sign of an outbreak of persecution against Christians. 

In the broad, collective definition of the term "church" as it applies to the institutions which exist in the United States, Christianity is still the biggest single influence at virtually every level of government, from municipal to state to federal and there is no other place in the world where the Christian churches receive anywhere near as much government favor.  The churches and church-related institutions in this country just received billions in government assistance for their payrolls and expenses, including churches themselves, which used the funds to pay pastors, church employees and missionaries serving in the field. 

It would have set a better example, and been more in line with the mission and purpose of the church, if more Christians would have looked at the pandemic as an opportunity to step up and do more in the way of outreach and ministry, and less whining and complaining about infringement on rights that they still have and privileges which go beyond the scope of government "neutrality" toward religion and which still cross the line of church-state separation.



.