Samuel Sey (click here for his bio) has good intentions as he writes about racial reconciliation from religiously conservative Christian point of view. His point is that if reconciliation was humanly possible, then we would have seen it by now after legislation such as in the Emancipation Proclamation, after the Civil Rights Movement, and after Obama's Presidency. But since we don't see that reconciliation, then he reasons that racial reconciliation can only exist in Christ and what He did on the cross. That racial reconciliation was solved theologically in that believers are reconciled to each other and God through what Christ did for us. We just have to "remember" and "live like" that is true (click here for the article).
His intentions are good, but we might want to ask about what follows his premise. For example, if racial reconciliation can only be accomplished theologically, does it follow that we should pass no laws that protect the equality of all regardless of race? If racial reconciliation can only be accomplished theologically, should we expel from our natoinall who do not believe in Christ? If racial reconciliation can only be accomplished theologically, can we expect the absence of racism in a nation filled with Christians?
Before answering those questions, we need to ask ourselves what we mean by racial reconciliation? Do we mean a state of being where there is equality for everyone regardless of race including peace and harmony between the races? Are we expecting the age of Aquarius here? Or is racial reconciliation a process that we will always be working for until the end of time?
To define racial reconciliation in ideal terms is to condemn it to failure even among Christians. We should note that when America could be consider more of a Christian nation, we saw a Christianity that was based on white supremacy. European Christian settlers and later American Christians took land from Native Americans because they assumed that, because of their religion and race, the land was theirs to take. In addition, American Christians owned slaves in a race-based slavery system and they used the Bible to defend Jim Crow and other forms of discrimination. Why doesn't that cause Sey to conclude then that there has been no theological racial reconciliation just as he used history to show that neither legislation nor activism to accomplish racial reconciliation? Why does his theological reconciliation get a bye here when other ways of achieving racial reconciliation did not?
The racial reconciliation of which Sey speaks shows a confusion of racial reconciliation that is defined as a state of being and that which is defined as a process. And the same kind of difference between those two definitions is similar to the difference between the justification of a Christian their sanctification. We who believe have been reconciled to God in Christ and have been justified because Jesus Christ's righteousness has been credited to us and He has taken away our sins. But such does not imply that we are always living that way. And we will never reach a perfect sinless state in living for God this side of the grave. Our attempts to resist sin and live lives more pleasing to God is called sanctification. While justification can be considered complete in the here and now, sanctification cannot. And this is why it is important that we determine whether racial reconciliation is a state of being that we have accomplished or not or whether it is a process for which we should always participate this side of the grave. For if we define racial reconciliation as a state of being, then it is like justification in that it is either complete or incomplete. However, if racial reconciliation is a process, then, like sanctification, it is something that we should always be working toward knowing that we will never fully achieve it.
What Sey has done in his analysis is to judge racial reconciliation as a state of being as it can be completed either politically or through activism. But he is inconsistent in terms of applying the same standards when speaking about racial reconciliation occurring through theological events. For though the state of racial reconciliation has not been completed in the lives of Christians, he counts it as being completed anyway because of how Christ has reconciled those of us who believe. In addition, though he says that all we have to do is live like Christ has accomplished far more than racial reconciliation for us, that we don't live like it enough shows, according to how he judged political and activist attempts at achieving racial reconciliation, that he is not applying the same standards to theological attempts at reaching racial reconciliation as he did with its non-theological means.
Also, in light of the fact that once we call ourselves Christians, all that we do and not do becomes associated with the Gospel, how should Christians approach racial reconciliation in society? This is an important question because we share society with unbelievers. Should we make no effort to support political and/or activist means of achieving racial reconciliation? And we might ask if just because we don't see a complete racial reconciliation in society through political and activist means, does that mean that no degree of racial reconciliation in society has occurred? And if some has occurred, then should we consider political and activist means at attempting racial reconciliation as having some value?
One final issue needs to be resolved here. Sey accuses Black Lives Matter as preaching Black Supremacy. The reason for his accusation is that some individual leaders have espoused Black Supremacy; but it is questionable as to whether they have done so as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. Thus, it seems that Sey has much more work to do in order to make his accusation stick.
No comments:
Post a Comment