Racism is a sin.
The only cure for sin is the gospel.
Therefore, the only cure for racism is the gospel.
So, racial unity only come through gospel proclamation.
This seems like flawless logic. However, I don’t believe it is a right understanding of the gospel. If we are talking ultimates or foundations then I agree wholeheartedly. Ultimately the only cure for the complete obliteration of racism is a changed and regenerate heart which only comes through the finished work of Jesus. And the gospel grows in our hearts as it is consistently proclaimed.
The problem, however, is with that fourth step and the word only. I’m one of the guys who is consistently proclaiming the sufficiency of Christ and His Word. I’ve been known to even annoy people by my insistence that the gospel is sufficient and therefore we ought to camp out there and put all of our eggs in the gospel basket. So, to say that the above logic is a bit flawed causes me to bristle a bit at first. It sounds like I’m saying the gospel is insufficient. That if racial reconciliation is to happen then it needs something more than the gospel.
But the gospel is more than proclamation. This isn’t about gospel sufficiency it’s about preserving the gospel from being a book of magical incantations which work ex opere operato (from the work worked). Things are not magically healed just because we speak gospel at them. I appreciate these words by Mark Jones:
Not infrequently will one hear that we should just ‘preach the gospel’ and then let the Spirit do his work in believers. Of course this statement can be taken in a number of ways that even the staunchest opponent of antinomianism could agree to. But often there is such an overreaction to ‘moralizing sermons’ that preachers fail to give appropriate, soul-searching application in the form of commands. Direct and specific application is something that Paul does not omit in his letters. For example, he reminds the Thessalonians to love one another and then urges them ‘to do this more and more’ (1 Thess. 4:10
). Try harder? Yes. Do more? Yes. For Paul the law functioned as a means of sanctification. (Jones, Antinomianism, 38)
Allow me to illustrate this. Say that you’ve got a husband who abuses his wife. Would your answer really be, “All we can really do is keep preaching the gospel to him, only that will change his heart”? Or are you going to do things as you are proclaiming the gospel. One of the first things you are going to do is protect the wife, involve the authorities as necessary, and work towards reconciliation and redemption. Hopefully, you aren’t going to just preach gospel and assume you’ve fixed the whole thing.
Yet that seems to be our solution when it comes to racial reconciliation. I’m certain some will point out that my analogy isn’t perfectly fitting. Much of the talk in our day about racial reconciliation is about righting wrongs which were done in the past and improving upon structures and systems which still have vestiges of racism.
So one might say a better analogy would be a husband who has never laid a hand on his wife, but he is still impacted by his upbringing. His father was abusive to his mother. His grandfather and his grandfather’s father were also abusive. This created a pattern and a culture in which women were objectified. Even though our present day husband doesn’t physically abuse his wife he still has a pattern about him which tends to objectify and demean his wife. How do we know this? His wife will tell you. She feels ridiculed, demeaned, and emotionally battered by her husband. Yes, he is a million times better than his own father. She thanks God for that. But he’s still not the man he ought to be.
How would you then counsel this man? Would your counsel towards him change if he came into your office with a posture of, “I’m not sure what she wants out of me”? Wouldn’t that attitude be exhibit A of the wife’s plea that her husband tends to treat her as an object and not a person? I’m certain you would rightly proclaim the gospel to this husband. But would you leave it there? Hopefully, not. You would put together a plan to not only proclaim the gospel but also to rightly apply the gospel. This would include real practical steps to being a better husband to his wife. Wouldn’t you also consult the wife? Wouldn’t it matter how she viewed reconciliation?
I’m sure this analogy breaks down on several fronts, but I believe it gets at my main point; namely, racism is ultimately cured by the gospel but that doesn’t mean racial reconciliation only requires gospel proclamation. It needs what Kevin DeYoung calls Spirit-powered, gospel-driven, faith-fueled effort. (See Hole in Our Holiness).
—
Photo source: here
