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),[1] Jarvis Williams (Redemptive Kingdom Diversity),[2] Irwyn Ince (The Beautiful Community),[3] and many others. And importantly, all of these works point to Michael Emerson and Christian Smith in their landmark book, Divided by Faith.[4]
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.”[5]
Ince continues:
“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.”[6]
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).
Read More
Related Posts:

[Paragraph regarding the first Thanksgiving] Our harvest being collected our governor sent four men fowling together so we might rejoice together in a more special way after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. In just one day the hunters killed as much fowl as if their hunting party had been larger. The fowl fed the company almost a week at which time, among other recreations, we drilled with our fire arms. Many of the Indians joined us including Massasoit, the greatest king, and some ninety of his men. We all entertained and feasted together for three days. The Indians went out and killed five deer which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, the captain, and others. 

The letter that follows this introduction was sent by Edward Winslow from Plymouth Plantation to George Morton in December 1621 as part of what came to be published by Morton with other material as A Relation or Journal of the Beginning and Proceedings of the English Plantation Settled at Plimoth in New England, 1622, henceforth abbreviated A Relation. The book is specifically identified as having been published by “G. Mourt” at the end of its “To the Reader” section, thus the true identity of Mr. Mourt has been debated given the difference in spelling between Morton and Mourt. The issues involved in Mourt’s identification are addressed by H. M. Dexter in the edition of A Relation he edited for publication in 1865. The ship carrying Winslow’s work to England was the Fortune which had recently arrived in Plymouth. The letter and other material in A Relation were likely taken to England by Robert Cushman and given to George Morton. It is a wonder that A Relation made it to England because the Fortune was seized by the French as it neared the English coast and robbed of anything valuable, but it was later released after a short time of capture. One particularly valuable and bulky part of the cargo was clapboards hewn from the rich forests of America and there were some casks filled with pricey beaver and other pelts.
Edward Winslow was born in 1595. He married Elizabeth Barker and at the time of their arrival in Plymouth they were guardians for a little girl named Ellen who was the sister of Richard More. The family also had two male servants named George Soule and Elias Story. Winslow was educated in an Anglican school. He was a printing apprentice, however, he did not complete his training before leaving England for Holland to reside with other separatists. He worked in printing in Leyden with fellow separatist William Brewster until they boarded the Mayflower for Plymouth. Elizabeth Winslow died shortly after arrival in Plymouth. Edward then married Susanna White who was a widow and the mother of the first child born in the colony, Peregrine White. Winslow was a governor of Plymouth Colony and highly influential for the success of the community. He died aboard ship near Jamaica in 1655.
George Morton would arrive in Plymouth in July 1623 aboard the Anne with his wife Juliana Carpenter Morton and their five children—Nathaniel, Patience, John, Sarah, and Ephraim. Morton received seven acres in the land division of Plymouth in 1623. But the difficulties of New England life quickly took its toll on Mr. Morton as it did so many other colonists because he died in June 1624.
The letter provides an interesting overview of life for the first year of Plymouth Plantation. Most importantly for this article there is a paragraph about the first Thanksgiving, but do not look for the word because it is not in the letter.
As compared with other early seventeenth-century authors, Edward Winslow is not one of the better writers. The following text has been modernized and the more cumbersome lengthy sentences have been broken into shorter statements. Also, the paragraphing has been modified. In one location an ellipsis, three periods in a row, will be found in the place of about four lines of text which I could not understand sufficiently to compose in a coherent form. There are many ambiguities in Winslow’s text at least partially due to his composing it for a friend whom he assumes knows certain facts, issues, and events which are mysteries to modern readers. In several locations I have turned to paraphrasing and completely rewriting sentences for the sake of clarity. Some archaic terminology has been explained in [ ].
Sources for this introduction include the Plimoth Plantation website and William Bradford’s journal as cited in last years article on Thanksgiving. The edition of A Relation edited by Dexter was located in PDF on Internet Archive; Winslow’s letter is on pages 192-203 of the PDF, which are pages with the dual numbering of 60 & 131 through 142 & 65 of the original book as scanned to PDF (when you see the PDF you should understand what I mean). Note that there have been several editions of A Relation over the years including abridged versions which Dexter mentions in the introduction to his edition, and he has observed that some editions are not very well done.  Dexter includes in his extensive footnotes a list of the passengers who arrived in Plymouth on the Fortune. 
The original Plimoth (Plymouth) Plantation is a living museum which can be visited to experience the world of Winslow and the colonists. The village provides a wonderful experience through its buildings, grounds, and interpreters. At a separate location near Plymouth Rock there is a replica of the Mayflower which may lead visitors to revise their understanding of how large a vessel needs to be before it can be called a ship.
The images of both Edward Winslow and the title page of A Relation were located in The Story of The Pilgrim Fathers 1606-1623 as told by Themselves, their Friends, and their Enemies, which was written by Edward Arber, published in London in 1897, and found in digital form on Internet Archive.
A LETTER SENT FROM
New-England to a friend in these parts [England],
setting forth a briefe and true Declaration
of the worth of that Plantation;
As also certaine useful Directions
for such as intend a Voyage
into those Parts.
——————————-
Loving and old Friend, although I received no letter from you by this ship [Fortune], yet forasmuch as I know, you expect the performance of my promise which was to write unto you truly and faithfully of all things. I have therefore at this time sent unto you accordingly referring you for further satisfaction to our more large relations [the rest of A Relation]. You shall understand that in the short time we few have been here, we have built seven dwelling houses, four buildings for the use of the plantation, and have made preparation for several others. We sowed last spring some twenty acres of Indian corn and some six acres of barley and peas. According to the manner of the Indians, we fertilized our ground with herrings, or rather shads, which we have in great abundance and catch with great ease near our homes. Our corn did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn and our barley was fairly good, but our peas were not worth gathering. We feared that they were sown too late. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom.
Read More
Related Posts:

As saints who still sin, we regularly have need to be restored in the knowledge that we are forgiven and cleansed before the Lord. The Lord lifts us out of the guilt and defilement that we bring on ourselves. He assures us of his faithfulness to forgive and cleanse us once and for all, based on the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. — 1 John 1:9

When our lives are under a great amount of stress, it is easy to fall back into the mindset that our acceptance with God is performance-based. The best of saints struggle with this problem. Do you experience the sense of guilt that you are never doing enough to please God? Is there a lingering fear that maybe God does not love or accept you?
Stressful times can lead to the resurrection of old addictions and struggles of the past.
Most likely, those sentiments arise in connection with certain sins in our lives. Maybe it is that same sin you have struggled with for years without the deliverance you thought would be given by now. Maybe it is because you struggle with how little your devotion is to the Lord. Maybe the experience of constant failure has become overwhelming.
What may actually be happening to many believers in times of uncertainty is not stronger devotion to Christ but rather the resurrection of old addictions and struggles of the past. Stress and anxiety have a strange way of prompting us to reach for old idols. Those idols always have been and still are death to us, and yet we grab them for relief. Through it all we wonder, does the Lord still accept us?
In 1 John 1:9 God provides ongoing help for those who are already forgiven of all their sins.
At times like this, it is good to meditate on the promise of 1 John 1:9. The Holy Spirit inspired these words to reassure believers who are confused and struggling over the continued presence of sin in their lives. Here, God gives his prescription for how we can respond in faith when we find ourselves doing the things we do not want to do, or neglecting to do the things he wants us to do (see Romans 7).
In this remarkable promise, God provides ongoing help for those who are already forgiven of all their sins.
Read More