God is beautiful. Rightly seen, God evokes awe and wonder. God is worthy of glory—as much more glory as the maker of a mountain has more glory than the mountain itself (Hebrews 3:3). It is fitting that we gaze at him and admire him and it is fitting that we tell others about him. This is how we glorify him—to see him, enjoy him, admire him, and let all of this overflow into a life of worship and proclamation.
A friend recently asked, “What does it mean to glorify God?” It is a phrase we know and a phrase we often repeat. But what does it actually mean? How do we go about it? And in what ways may we do the very opposite?
I write today from New Zealand where I have spent a couple of days in the shadow of Mount Cook. Mount Cook is the tallest mountain in New Zealand, its highest peak soaring to over 12,000 feet. It is as majestic a mountain as you will ever see and, for obvious reasons, a must-visit for tourists.
Not surprisingly, you can’t drive or walk any great distance before you spot people taking photos of the mountain. They most often stop in the middle of the lone road that leads to Mount Cook so they can take the shot we have probably all seen on Instagram—a shot in which the road serves as the line that leads the eye to focus on the mountain. Like a good tourist, I stopped to take the photo as well.
As I stood in the roadway and gazed at the mountain (listening carefully for cars racing up from behind), the thought entered my mind: “There is Mount Cook in all its glory.” And it is, indeed, glorious. It is glorious in the sense that it is beautiful and that it evokes awe and wonder. It is right and good that we pause to admire it and right and good that we wish to record the memory with a photograph. It is right and good that we wish to share those photographs with others so they, too, can admire the mountain and right and good that we encourage others to see it and enjoy it. If a friend ever tells me that he intends to visit New Zealand I will be sure to tell him, “Make sure you visit Mount Cook. Make sure you enjoy the majesty of that mountain.”
You Might also like
By David Schrock — 2 months ago
If the church is to be on earth what it is in heaven, the church’s mission is to see sons of Adam become sons of God by the preaching of the gospel. More predestinarian, the mission of the church is to find the lost sheep in every fold (i.e., in every nation), and by so gathering God’s elect this increases the divide between sheep and goats. Truly, the truth of two races— one natural, one spiritual—is so important today, because there is a spirit of Babel that wants to unite the human race and eliminate the divide between sheep and goats.
Here is the thesis that I want to argue: Your race is more important than your ethnicity.
When defined biblically and not sociologically, one’s race is more important for identity formation than one’s ethnicity. And by extension, the mission of the church is to help you make that statement true. Which raises the question. What is race? And do you know what your race is?
As insulting as that question may sound at first, I am going to suggest it is an easy question to mistake—especially if we have fused biblical ideas with worldly ideologies. At the same time, if we can answer this question from the Bible and the Bible alone, then we have hope for knowing and growing the mission of the church. This is the point that I will argue here, and here is how I will proceed.
I will show why the concept of racialization in America is popular and pervasive, but ultimately unhelpful—if not harmful.
I will attempt to draw the lines of race and ethnicity according to the Bible.
With those lines in place, I will demonstrate that the mission of the church helps men and women, who hold PhD’s in ethnic Partiality, ethnic Hostility, ethnic Discrimination, grow up into Christ, who is the head of a new chosen race, redeemed from nation (ethnē).
So that’s where we are going today.
Racism (Re)Defined as Racialization?
If you have not seen or heard this word before, you probably have not been reading the newer books on the subject of race and racism. Not that I am counting, but this term has been used by John Piper (Bloodlines), Jarvis Williams (Redemptive Kingdom Diversity), Irwyn Ince (The Beautiful Community), and many others. And importantly, all of these works point to Michael Emerson and Christian Smith in their landmark book, Divided by Faith.
Irwyn Ince is a wonderful brother who has been a PCA pastor for years. He has served as Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCA. And most personally, I met him a few years ago when I sat in on one of his classes at Reformed Theological Seminary. After that, he preached in our church’s pulpit and delivered an edifying message from the book of Hebrews. So I deeply respect Dr. Ince and there are many parts of his book I appreciate. That said I find his use of the idea of racialization unhelpful.
In The Beautiful Community: Unity, Diversity, and the Church at Its Best, Ince describes the effects of Genesis 11 on America. And in that discussion, he cites Ibram X. Kendi and Kendi’s thesis that racist policies in America have always come from racist ideas (pp. 75–76). Affirming this sociological perspective, Ince makes a theological connection. He says, “Put in theological terms, our racialized society is an outworking of our ghettoization at Babel. And the devastating reality is that groups of people still seek to serve the interests of their ghetto.”
“Kendi’s point about the changing nature of racialization in America reinforces what Christian Smith and Michael Emerson explained in 2000 when they wrote: “The framework we here use—racialization—reflects that [post-Civil Rights era] adaptation. It [Racialization] understands that racial practices that reproduce racial division in the contemporary United States [are] (1) increasingly covert, (2) embedded in normal operations of institutions, (3) avoid direct racial terminology, and (4) invisible to most Whites.”
Without getting into all the details of racialization, we need to consider where this new, Post-Civil Rights racism comes from. If you look at Ince and all the other evangelicals who use this term, almost all of them cite Emerson and Smith. And where do Emerson and Smith get the definition of racialization, the idea of racist ideas hidden in plain sight?
The short answer is Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a sociology professor at Duke and a leading proponent of Critical Race Theory (Divided by Faith, 9–11). What is important about Bonilla-Silva, is that racism after the Civil Rights movement has been transformed and is now embedded in social, political, and legal structures. The result is that racism can now exist without racists. That’s the title of his book (Racism with Racists), now in its sixth edition. This book was published after Divided by Faith, but Emerson and Smith cite an unpublished paper that he wrote in 1997.
Here’s the point. Without getting into the details of CRT, when you use, or hear, or see the word “racialization,” take note. It is not a concept that comes from the Bible, nor is it a word that comes from a sociology grown from biblical stock. Racialization is a term that comes from a view of the world that is wholly inconsistent with the biblical narrative. And thus, Christians should take caution whenever that word is used and should seek a biblical definition of race and ethnicity, as well of the universal sins of ethnic pride and hostility.
In what follows, I will argue that if we are going to rebuild our understanding of race, ethnicity, and the ministry of reconciliation, we must not borrow the idea of racialization. Instead, we need to go back to the Bible itself. We cannot simply employ the tools of CRT, or any other religious ideology (e.g., White Supremacy, Black Power, or anything else), to assist biblical reconciliation. Instead, we must mine the depths of Scripture to find God’s perspective on fallen humanity, its sin, and God’s plan of reconciliation in Christ. Because Scripture is sufficient to handle any type of sin, importing the concept of “racialization” does not give us a better understanding of Scripture. It only confuses the problem.
For not only does racialization, a concept drawn from the quarries of CRT, identify sin with groups of people—specifically, people with power—but it also ignores human agency in sin. Even more, it gives a view of the world that comes from sociology—and not just any sociology, but a sociology that redefines biblical words and concepts, so that in talking about race, ethnicity, justice, and the church, we end up talking the language of Babel. Therefore, we need to go back the Bible.
One Human Race, Or Two?
With our eyes fixed on Scripture we need to see what the Bible says about race, ethnicity, and the pride, hostility, and discrimination that arises in the heart of every son or daughter born of Adam.
The first thing to observe is that the Bible identifies two races, not just one. This might sound strange, if you have been schooled in the biology of Darwin and his kind, because various Darwinists have argued that different races came from different origins. This was the scientific rationale that supported the racial inferiority of blacks.
By contrast, Paul declares there is one human race, derived from one man. “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26).
Still, this singular human race, with one common ancestor, does not deny a second race in the Bible—namely, a people born from above (John 3:3–8). As Scripture presents it, every child of God has a Father in heaven and an older brother in Christ, not Adam. In Romans 5, these two races are set against one another. There is the human race whose head is the first man, and there is the new human race whose head is the last man. Maybe we do not think of Adam’s family and Christ’s family as two separate races, but we should. Peter does. Just listen to 1 Peter 2:9: “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.”
So, does the Bible teach us about race? Absolutely. Race is a biblical concept. For all the ways that sociology has (wrongly) defined race, there is something in Scripture that speaks to this very issue. The word “race” is the word genos, a word that can mean descendent, family, nation, class or kind. Indeed, it is a word that deserves its own study, but in 1 Peter 2:9, it is clearly speaking of a new humanity, chosen by God, redeemed by the Son, and made alive by the Spirit. And this “chosen race” is set against another “race,” the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.
In this way, we should see in Scripture one fallen human race and one redeemed human race, thus producing two peoples, or as Genesis 3:15 would have it, “two seeds.” From the beginning, there was a single divide in humanity, producing two kinds of people. And in the fullness of time (i.e., when Christ came), this divide manifested in the two races referenced in 1 Peter 2:9. Today, all biblical thinking about race begins with this fact—there is not one human race, but two.
A Biblical Theology of Race
Moving across the canon helps us take the next step in a biblical theology of race. If we had more time, we could consider all the ways that the Law divided Jew and Gentile as two “races.” Indeed, if the language of Scripture means anything, it is striking that in Acts 7:19, Stephen speaks of Israel as his “race” (genos) not his ethnicity (ethnos). Indeed, because the divide in the Law separates Jew and Gentile as two peoples, set under different covenantal heads, the division between Jew and Gentile stands in typological relationship to Adam and Jesus. To put it in an analogy,
Jew : Gentile :: Christ : Adam
More fully, we can say that the legal division between Jew and Gentile, did not create a permanent, spiritual, or lasting division in humanity, but it did reinforce the divide created in Genesis 3:15, when God set at odds the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent. Ever since, the biblical story carves out one people to be God’s chosen race. In the Old Testament, this was the nation of Israel according to the flesh (see Exod. 19:5–6). And during the time of the old covenant, there were two “races”—the Jews and the Gentiles. Typologically, these two races were roughly equivalent to the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, even though not every Israelite was truly a seed of the woman (e.g., Saul) and some Gentiles would become members of the covenant community (e.g., Rahab and Ruth).
In the fullness of time, however, this covenantal difference would be brought to an end, and the real, lasting, and spiritual divide, of which God promised in Genesis 3, and again in Genesis 12, would be created in the new race of men created by the firstborn from the dead, Jesus Christ (Col. 1:18). And this again is what makes two races.
Therefore, “racism,” according to Scripture alone, should be defined as the hostility that stands between seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Indeed, what is commonly called racism today is not racism at all, but ethnic hostility, ethnic pride, ethnic partiality. Moreover, what is called diversity, equity, and inclusion is actually an affront to the very division that Jesus is bringing into the world (see Matt. 10:34).
Now, in redefining racism according to Scripture, I am not trying to ignore the fact that our world is filled with pride and partiality amplified by color-consciousness. America’s history is filled with hatred and violence due to skin color. If there is anything redeemable in Divided by Faith, it is the selective but shocking history of slavery and Jim Crow that it reports. Those who deny the horrors of history should listen to the testimonies of Frederick Douglass (Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass), Booker T. Washington (Up from Slavery), and Solomon Northrup (Twelve Years a Slave).
By Jonathon Van Maren — 2 years ago
If you have children and you want them to develop a healthy, biblical view of sexuality, you need to know that you are facing off against the forces of Big Tech, the government, the entertainment industry, and what passes for education these days. Parents have told me that it is pretty much impossible to let kids pick out their own books at the public library these days, because LGBT themes pervade the children’s section (all funded by you, the taxpayer!) To ensure that your children do not see the ugliness, hedonism, and confusion of today as “normal,” you will have to be extraordinarily vigilant.
This comes as no surprise to those of us who have been following the LGBT takeover of culture over the past decade or so, but it is still worth noting: Activists now feel comfortable enough to say the quiet part out loud. That is, as I’ve written in this space before, they are no longer pretending that the education (or re-education) of children is not the goal of their movement.
Writer Anukriti Prasad says as much this month in an article titled “How children’s literature can help in the move to normalise queerness.” This can be difficult, Prasad says, because many parents are still homophobic and dedicated to “heteronormativity.” As such, it is important that the education children receive at school be designed to subvert the upbringing they might receive from such parents. An excerpt:
Nandini Choudhury, relationship expert and meditation mentor at a Kolkata-based wellness organisation called Crystal Minds, believes this cycle runs on modelling. “Being especially impressionable in their formative years, children often emulate their parents’ exhibited behaviour. Along with adopting demonstrated vocabulary and mannerisms, they also inherit the biases they hear most often. How they witness elders, whether at home or in school – the two most crucial sites in children’s lives – approaching various topics, defines the formation of their own responses to these concepts.”
It is important, Prasad writes, not to “perpetuate” the “generational prejudices that we inherit from our elders.” In other words, certain views of sexuality and gender are outdated and must be dispensed with. It is the task of educators to ensure that parents do not pass their beliefs on to their children. An important aid in that, Prasad says, is children’s literature, which as the power to “endow their young readers with lifelong values.”
By Andrew J. Miller — 3 months ago
Written by Andrew J. Miller |
Friday, June 23, 2023
Even when we disagree with how a case was settled, we must trust that God is working through his church. Even when the courts of this world leave us still crying out for justice, Christians find joy and peace in the gospel truth that God will never summon us to face his wrath and judgment. When Christ died for our sins and was raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25), we had our day in court. No matter what the verdict of any earthly court holds, God’s court will never put us in double jeopardy (8:33–34).
Have you been hurt in the church?
The church isn’t always a safe space, as much as we’d like it to be, because it exists (for now) in a sinful world and sinners still inhabit the pews. Ecclesiastes 5:1 says, “Guard your steps when you go into the house of God,” and adds in the next breath that there are sometimes fools offering sacrifices inside.
Thankfully, many churches are concerned to redress the wrongs God’s people suffer from other churchgoers and the errant decisions of church leadership. I encourage you to find and join a local church that takes seriously church discipline, which the reformers understood to be one of the marks of a true church.
Justice demands that those hurt have the right to complain to the church and that those disciplined receive due process, including an impartial appeal of their case. I once heard it said that rightly ordered church discipline is like a fire extinguisher—you don’t give it much thought until a crisis, and then you’re glad it’s there.
Ecclesiastical discipline is theological. I’m a pastor, not a lawyer. How the church listens to and adjudicates appeals and complaints is shaped by theological and ministry principles. It’s Christian discipline; whether we’re pastors and elders hearing appeals and complaints or a church member making an appeal or complaint, we do well to consider how these matters relate to God.
God Hears Appeals and Complaints
Theology begins with God and extends to all things in relation to God. Church practice seeks to faithfully reflect God’s practice. The church hears complaints because God hears complaints.
David, on the run from Saul and separated from the visible church, raised his voice to God: “With my voice I cry out to the LORD; with my voice I plead for mercy to the LORD. I pour out my complaint before him; I tell my trouble before him” (Ps. 142:1–2).
If you’re crying out to God because of unjust treatment in the visible church, you’re in good company: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence” (Heb. 5:7).
Christ entrusted himself to “him who judges justly” (1 Pet. 2:23), a reminder our practice derives from God’s character.