Jesus reversed over 800 years of racial trouble in 24 hours. Racial reconciliation isn’t difficult. It’s only hard because we don’t follow Christ.
Samaritan Woman. (John 4)
Jesus, verse 4, had to pass through Samaria. But Jews did not. They went out of their way to avoid the Samaritans. Jesus had to pass through Samaria – not because there was no other way, but because he had an appointment with a woman, set up by God. He met her at the well (v5) of Sychar. Jacob’s well.
Why this well? Both loved Jacob. Jesus met her on common ground.
There was a spiritual need. That is what drove him.
He told her to give him drink. He asked for water. Editorial note. Disciples were gone to get food. Jesus was alone. She is surprised that he asked for water. Jews don’t normally do this. How did she know? Something in Jesus’ appearance or clothing was obviously Jewish.
He did not give up his Jewishness to reach her. He didn’t fake it. He put was willing to put aside the prejudices and hatreds normal to his race aside so that he could reach out to her. We don’t have to stop being white or black, we just have to be biblical. We have to be Christian. Just act unlike the bad side of the race. You can be a Jew, just don’t act like the Pharisees.
Jesus was willing to drink from her cup. Through social interaction he showed that he valued her as a person. He didn’t just proclaim truth to her, he put his lips to her cup.
Because Jesus was willing to drink from her cup, he could then discuss issues of eternal life with her, and she would listen. She is interested in his message because she knew he was interested in her as a person.
Jesus then dealt with her generations of history and heritage (long, outstanding racial division and history of hostility between Jews and Samaritans). Jesus explains the important issue. It’s not history, heritage or such – it’s spirit and truth. Black is only beautiful when it is biblical. White is only right when it conforms to holy writ.
The reason it is taking forever to fix things today is that we have abandoned truth for culture. We are letting the culture drag the truth instead of vice versa.
Peter and Cornelius. When God opens his heart to the Gentiles, and eats with them, then feels pressure from the Jews of Jerusalem and separates. Galatians 2 says even Barnabas was carried away by the hypocrisy. The pressure to conform to culture caused a rift in the Body. Peter had no trouble eating with the Gentiles until “his people” showed up. Then, Paul showed up.
Paul says, “they acted not in concert with the gospel.” Paul publicly rebuked Peter for not acting in line with the GOSPEL because he separated from Gentiles for a meal. The gospel content is the finished work of Christ. But the scope of the gospel includes sanctification. When you split the Body you offend the gospel. You kick the gospel in the teeth. You create an illegitimate division in the Body of Christ.
You do not ask the Kingdom of God to adjust to you and your beliefs. Your culture is not what matters. You come to God and you adjust to him. Your culture fades in the light of who God is and you conform to him instead of demanding that God and the church conform to who you are!
Whites tend to be Republican because of issues that matter to us. Blacks tend to be Democrat because of issues that matter to them. But in the kingdom, those political differences are not the defining issue.
The disciples came back and were upset with him for speaking to a Samaritan woman. Jesus didn’t let the racism of others stop him from doing the Father’s business. Jesus told the disciples that he had food that they did not understand. Note – they were the disciples, but they did not understand the real harvest! The harvest is ready right now! Let’s not talk about it. Let’s do it. Let’s engage. The fields are ready.
The Samaritans came and asked Jesus to stay with them for two days. He stayed with them. Galatians 2:20 comes at the end of the story about racial reconciliation the Paul and Peter incident.
1. Solemn assembly in a community.
2. Church, school and family. Bring them together
The gospel emulsifies us. Grabs people who cannot mix together in humanity and pulls us together and makes us one.
(Big standing Ovation!)
Tony spoke the same powerful truth as Dr. Moore.
He weaves a lot more humor!. Good stuff.
“”Paul says, “they acted not in concert with the gospel.” Paul publicly rebuked Peter for not acting in line with the GOSPEL because he separated from Gentiles for a meal. The gospel content is the finished work of Christ. But the scope of the gospel includes sanctification. When you split the Body you offend the gospel. You kick the gospel in the teeth. You create an illegitimate division in the Body of Christ.””
I for one, would like to hear Rick, or someone else, explain how it is fair to criticize Dr. Moore for saying “racial reconciliation is a gospel issue” …in light of Paul’s words about Peter. What exactly is the difference in what they are saying? Thanks!
Andy,
Amen!!!
Rick, we are waiting. Thanks in advance for your answer.
“But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel…” (Gal. 2:14, ESV)
I do not believe for a minute that Peter was living out the proper implications of the gospel in his daily life. He was indeed “not in step with” the truth of the gospel that transforms us from within as the Spirit of Christ takes up residence in our lives. Peter was disobedient and in sin when he showed racial prejudice.
With a clear conscience I maintain that good behavior (of any kind) stems from the gospel, but is not intrinsically the gospel itself. Hence, I would not call it “a gospel issue” so much as an “issue that springs from obedience to Christ made possible by the new birth which takes place when one hears and responds favorably to “the gospel.”
And in the same way, I would view virtually any other sin as a “gospel issue” in the sense that only through Christ’s work within us are we capable of overcoming that sin, and the only way we can have Christ within us is to respond favorably to “the gospel.”
If we’re going to call it a “gospel issue” then I think we have to call a TON of other things gospel issues as well–virtually any act of Christian obedience.
I would call racial reconciliation an issue of “sanctification” that a Christian experiences after they have been “justified” by accepting the gospel of grace.
I believe this is consistent with Paul’s “not in step with” language, meaning “not proceeding from” the gospel.
Rick, it seems there is some confusion as to a “gospel” issue, and a “gospel related” issue, as indicated by Andy’s post.
I would say, “Rick believes that race issues (or any sinful behavior) is gospel related, but not the central theme of the gospel.” Rick may disagree with this assessment of the situation and can clarify.
I think that Rick has the right perspective in making the distinction he does–since it is the distinction that seems to arise out of the Word of God.
Racism (or any sinful behavior) can be elevated to a central focus of Christians by too closely associating it with the gospel proper. I think that is the caution Rick is suggesting.
The gospel deals with the root problem of man that never changes in any given context. Those who want to make any particular sin the “sin du jour” risk moving the sin issue from the realm of the spirit world to the social world in a way that actually makes the situation worse, not better.
The gospel gets at the heart of the matter–which is what I think Moore and others would agree with–but it remains a separate issue from the social particulars.
In other words, sin cannot be solved by a social mandate even if the majority (or all) agree on the problem.
A good historical example of conflating the spiritual and the social can be seen in the development of the Salvation Army. It was a “Salvation” Army with a deep social conscience. It is much more “Social Army” than “Salvation Army” in many (though not all situations).
I’m not so sure there is as much disagreement as this blog conversation might suggest.
Though, I could certainly be wrong. I was wrong once before.
Rick,
The way we got in the racial mess that we are in, is by not making race-which is inherent in the Great Commision, “every ethnic group”-a gospel issue. As long as it is an optional matter, the church will continue to be plagued by racial issues. I applaud and appreciate Russell Moore for his efforts to relate the gospel to race. By not doing so, it led to the legacy of SBC as proponents and practioners of slavery. Just think, what if there had been a RM to remind them that “Brothers, you can’t enslave your brothe, because it destroys the heart of the gospel.”
Dwight,
I don’t think it is “optional” at all for a Christian, as a matter of discipleship, to be concerned about racial reconciliation. It is a non-optional discipleship issue, like loving others, giving, serving, praying, etc.
Please don’t misunderstand those of us whose definition of gospel is a bit more narrow as saying, in any way at all, that because it is not a “gospel” issue, it is therefore not a “mandatory” issue for every Christian who seeks to obey Christ.
Guys, just give us some other words besides “gospel” that you can live with. How about: “Racial reconciliation is an imperative requirement for a true disciple of Jesus Christ.” I’m fine with that.
It’s a demand for Christian obedience, which takes place AFTER a Christian surrenders to the gospel demands of repentance and faith.
Good question:
The difference in what they’re saying is WHY, WHEN and HOW they’re saying it.
I am actually pretty disturbed by the backlash the “Gospel Centered” stuff is getting…
This article by Dr. Randy White, Pastor of FBC Katy, Texas, will either inflame you further or help explain the distinction. http://bit.ly/1BQMRbQ
He writes: “If racial reconciliation is a ‘Gospel demand’ then we should include it in our presentation of the Gospel. ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and reconcile with all races, and you shall be saved.'”
Dr. White is simply saying there is a distinction between an issue being good, moral, biblical, Christian, obedient, righteous, etc., and it being the good news of salvation in Christ. He is saying it flows as spiritual fruit from one’s acceptance of the gospel, but that it is not a gospel issue per se, at least not in the way the word gospel has been used historically.
Don’t be disturbed as if any of us were implying that racial reconciliation was unimportant, not a Christian concept, unfounded in Scripture, etc. No one, and I mean no one, is saying that.
Many of us simply have a more precise and specific definition of the gospel, one which renders important matters like race relations in the category of Christian sanctification or discipleship, a result of the gospel at work in a person’s life, but not really the very message of the gospel itself.
In another thread I found myself agreeing with Lydia, Scott Shaver, and Vol….Now I am agreeing with Rick Patrick?!?!?! Strange bedfellows indeed!
LOL SV.
You’ll be signing the Traditionalist Statement in no time!
(Joking if you haven’t figured that out)
I’d sooner root for the Yankees!!! 😀
No one is mistaking the definition of the Gospel. We are simply saying the Gospel effects how we are to different races. Racial reconciliation is not the Gospel, however it is fueled by the Gospel.
As I say below I think it is fueled by the gospel. But it is more than this…racial reconciliation is part of what Christ is doing in the gospel.
Tyler,
I certainly believe racial reconciliation is “fueled” and “driven” and “flows from” and “in step with” the gospel.
I’m just not comfortable expanding the definition of the gospel beyond the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus for the sins of the world.
All the stuff that flows from that, like love, peace, humility, service, kindness, etc., are areas of Christian growth and sanctification.
Incidentally, Mike, this kind of fruit is also what Jesus is doing through the gospel, I believe.
Tyler, we are not so far apart on this as you might think. I just need a few more words between “issue” and “gospel.”
It’s an issue, like many others, that is “fueled by,” “that stems from,” “that results from” the gospel at work in a person’s life.
Rick, I can agree with that. Blessings!
This is where I think I differ a bit on this issue as I noted in a previous thread.
I get what you are saying about the overuse of the word gospel. And that often we are saying something is a “gospel issue” whenever it is actually an implication of what happens in someones life when the gospel work of Christ changes us.
So I totally agree that racial reconciliation on our part flows out of the gospel work in our lives. We are no longer racists because Christ changes our heart and we work to be consist in the way we interact with people who are different than us.
But I think part of what Christ has accomplished in the gospel is being missed here. When Jesus died on the Cross he broke down the dividing wall of hostility. He DID bring about racial reconciliation. This is not something that flows out of the gospel–this is part of what he accomplished in the gospel. He redeemed sinners of all peoples and because of His work we’ll see this unfold in the new heaven and new earth. So in this instance it is MORE than just saying “racial reconciliation is something we do because of what Jesus has done for us as individuals”.
Racial reconciliation is what Christ has done in the gospel.
Well, it is easy to say something now. They should have tried it back when. Yes, back when you could get beat up by the KKK and have your tires slashed on the campus of the most liberal seminary in the SBC and all for integrating the local swimming pool. Yup, that happened to a friend of mine, and the school got him to go somewhere else. So I do now understand some of the reason why they thought my subject, Christian Love and Race Relations, (for my Doctor of Ministry Project) was controversial. In fact, the director of my project would say to me, “You ought to have known better than to select a controversial project like this. If that church fires you, I will be right there, behind them, supporting them.” When I got the project done without getting fired, he then tried to nit pick to death my writing of the project until I blew up and threatened to the President of the seminary that I was going, not to the board of trustees but straight to the floor of the SBC and raising the biggest stink I could. That was on Friday. By Tuesday the project was approved and the Friday after that Tuesday I attended the baccalaureate and on the very next day I received my doctorate. My friend graduated from Southern and then came to be pastor at a neighboring church where we became friends. Even then I did not find out until the 21st century about what had happened to him.
I think what happened in my case was well summed up in the humor of the Black agitator in every white washing machine. Truth, be told, we needed to have went at this thing like it was missions long ago. Instead it cost our nation 650,000-750,000 lives in the Civil War, not counting the number of Africans who died in the middle passage and in slavery and in segregation due to disease, etc. Now they are angry. Recently, I spoke on the subject of Agape Love and African Americans at a Senior center. A number of Whites shook my hand, telling me what it meant to them, but no one Black said anything. I am still grieving over it, wondering where I failed, for I was showing how Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., planted Agape Love at the very apex, summit, and pinnacle of Western Civilization in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in 1964, the very thing we need now to win the whole earth in one generation and for the next 999 generations (I Chron.16:15) (even if the reference is merely figurative, it still suggests a success such as we have never seen to this day).
Most of em were not alive or old enough to witness and understand what was going on the 50s and 60’s Dr. Willingham.
Scott
You are exactly right. Therein lies much of the issue. I know I will be hammered for this but what we are experiencing today is a product of and continuation of those turbulent years. The more we can understand that the more we can interpret what is happening today. While I love Civil War history that is not now the driving force of the conflict between races. The framework of the discussion must focus on the late 50’s and 60’s. Dr. King began a paradigm shift that set the stage for moving forward. The problem was that SB did not move with the movment. We must frame the discussion in that.