The rise of modern racism and the Christian answer

Racism is a growing trend and problem in our society. The emergence of free trade and a more global economy have resulted in the migration of workers to Western nations, which means greater cultural interaction between ethnic groups.

Since people's tendency is to prefer familiar and similar peoples as neighbors and friends, a common result of this forced integration is fear and distrust.

But there's another problem that's causing the rise of racism: the way we define our identities as people.

The primary way people define themselves today is through Functionalism.

Functionalism says, "you are what you do." Your station in life, your own purposes, they define who you are and they determine your value.

In the West we championed this philosophy out of the belief that any of us could become anything we dreamed to be. We've tried to take away limits of what we can do and attempted to view freedom as meaning the power to become anything we want. We've even tried to apply this to gender and sexuality, saying we can all choose what best for us to do and then define ourselves that way.

Here's the problem, Western culture is also largely built around science, and the science of race and ethnic genetics is presenting problems to Functionalist doctrines.

Namely, genetics limit what we can actually become, and genetics also impact the traits of entire people groups. For instance, different ethnicities have consistently different scores on IQ tests, world champion sprinters are predominantly of Western African descent, so on and so forth.

It's readily apparent to everyone that much of our strengths and weaknesses come from our genetic code. Another huge chunk comes from our upbringing, which also brings ethnicity and race into the equation.

I can't choose to become a champion sprinter, both my nature and my nurturing say no.

Now, since we tend to build identities on what we do, we also tend to value some identities more than others. The dramatic increase in numbers of people pursuing college degrees and post-grad degrees demonstrates a society of people falling into the trap of Functionalism in trying to prove that their own personal identities are grand. We all have delusions of grandeur and are constantly attempting to justify them.

A likely consequence of studying genetic differences between people groups for a Functionalist society is that each ethnicity pumps its chest out about it's own strengths and uses those as a reason for why they are superior to other races.

There are no easy solutions to this problem and it causes many people today to simply ignore issues of race or genetic patterns because they destroy Functionalist utopian ideals. We don't talk about race and we are terrified of offending people or being labeled a racist but behavioral trends reveal the truth.
The trap ensnares and we have a divided and unequal society instead of the ideal and people are regularly made to feel bad about their identity.

The good news, this simply isn't a problem in the Christian worldview, because Christian conceptions of personal and cultural identity are different.

Instead of defining ourselves by what we do, we are defined by our relationship to God. Namely, we are his beloved children and we embrace his purposes and gifts for us. Christian worship and community already contains the answer to genetic strengths and weaknesses because we have the concept of the body of Christ:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

-1 Corinthians 12:12-27

If we try to puff ourselves up in the Church based on our role in the body we make a mockery of ourselves. If we have strengths they are there to serve others. If we have weaknesses it's not a big deal because praise God! he's provided people with strengths in those places to help us out.

Different races are then free to take ownership of strengths and weaknesses, submit themselves to God, and allow his purposes to flow through them. In all likelihood, this will actually create more equal stations in life than a Functionalist society where everyone is looking to seize power and wealth for themselves out of a need for self-justification.

Christian teachings on living in relationship in which we are submitted to God first, and then each other, and are defined by our relationships to others necessarily rules out Functionalism and all its terrifying traps.

The only problem is that we have to submit to the will of God for our lives instead of acting in rebellion and hoping to make ourselves gods who are in competition with other gods.

Racism is only likely to increase in our post-Christian world because different people groups are being brought together and a post-Christian society isn't equipped to handle it with love but is instead conditioned to respond with insecurity and fear.

As Christians, we have to show the more excellent way, of love and submission.

Should Christians own guns?

While gun violence is actually down in the US, and gun ownership seems to be on the rise, it's hard to believe that the overall trends in society's take on guns are positive. Essentially what we have to assume is that Americans feel less safe with their neighbors, less trusting in their government, and more willing to contemplate violence in order to protect their families.

Anyone can agree that society devolving into a more fearful place is not a promising development for Western civilization.

The issue of whether the people of God should use violence is a tricky question. On the one hand, you have the Lord not only condoning but even calling for the Israelites to pick up the sword to seize or defend the promised land. The Bible is also replete with examples in which God withdraws protection and allows violence to occur to discipline his people or further his purposes on the earth. Then Jesus complicated issues with some of his teachings like:

"But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -Matthew 5:39

So what does that mean, exactly? If someone breaks into my home and assaults my wife...what are my options here?

Some Christians interpret that as a call to avoid violence even in self-defense, but then embrace strategies like owning a big dog or simply calling the cops.

Owning a guard dog or calling the cops is not turning the other cheek, you are simply outsourcing the needed violence to someone or something else. Are you going to stop your dog from biting the intruder if they don't run away from the bark? Will you request that the police don't actually use their weapons when you call 9-1-1?

Circumstances regularly arise where if people want to protect themselves or their family they must invoke violent reactions of some kind. Otherwise we wouldn't have police or government.

Some Christians work around this by saying "that's the role of government, not of the Church" but then this would imply that Christians aren't to hold office or serve the community as policemen. Is "the Church" only something that happens on Sunday mornings?

You begin to approach something that appears to be a parody or self-creating reductio ad absurdum. Christians shouldn't serve or protect their neighbors as a part of institutions? We should live as beneficiaries of government's legal and physical protections without contributing anything ourselves? That's the way to love our neighbors? What do we do with our taxes that go towards these things? How do we respond in elections? We just detach ourselves? Surely not.

Many Christian pacifists also propose risky non-violent strategies in extreme situations. Such as something like this; if someone attacks you, crush them with love, give them a word of encouragement or correction and trust that it will stop them. No doubt that may be worth attempting at times and there are stories of violent attackers being laid low by a loving word from the victim. However, it's impossible to believe that violent people will always be stopped in this manner.

What's more, it's actually a measure beyond what we see God himself do in scripture. If God often has to resort to violence to accomplish his purposes, why are the standards higher for us?

So then the question becomes: What was Jesus' point in his sermon on the mount? It's all fine and well to pick apart the ultra-pacifist interpretation, but without a substitute interpretation that is intellectually honest we run the risk of disobeying the Lord Jesus, which should be untenable.

The best explanation has to take into account Jesus' mission and overall purpose on the earth. This was, to fulfill Israel's commission to be the "salt of the earth" and produce the "faithful servant" who would win a victory for God on the earth and inaugurate the Kindgom of Heaven.

Jesus' mission then had to strike a delicate balance between overthrowing evil's grip on the earth while also winning over powers and structures over the earth such as the Roman empire. He essentially created the non-violence resistance movement as a means to advance the Kingdom of God across the Roman empire.

Seen in this light and historical context, this passage comes across more as a means of offering non-violent resistance to Roman control, consider the passage with more surrounding context:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 

-Matthew 5:38-43

As with the other passages in this section, Jesus is providing commentary on Torah and how to fulfill it in keeping with the will of God. The relevant law is the lex talionis, in which recompense is made for wrong doing but limited to what is actually fair. Only an eye for an eye, nothing more.

Further context reveals other crucial details. Being slapped on the cheek does not mean "when you are assaulted" but if you should be demeaned, that you should turn the other cheek as if to say "you've insulted me, do you intend to beat me as well?"

The example of the tunic and going a mile with an occupying Roman soldier carry the same meaning and context. Roman soldiers were allowed to force a Jew to carry their equipment, but only for a mile. Jesus is instructing the powerless to confronting the powerful person with a rebuke as though to say, "are you really going to abuse me in this way? Are you going to take the shirt off my back? Are you really going to use your power to make me carry your equipment?"

Jesus was clearly not speaking to an instance in which you are being assaulted and have the option to defend yourself. Nor to an instance in which your family or neighbors are being assaulted, and you have the option to defend them. He's speaking to how Israel could interact with governing powers and hold them to account to fulfill their duty to provide justice and order for mankind as Paul describes in Romans 13.

When understood properly, the sermon on the mount does not clash wildly with the rest of scripture in which God provides clear expectations for his people to use force, when necessary, to defend the weak and vulnerable. The advance of the Kingdom of God is primarily through non-violent means and in cooperation or dialogue with power structures, but that doesn't mean that our lives will never require us to resort to violence.

So now we come to Christians and gun ownership, service as policemen, or service in the military. There may be other valid reasons for not wanting to own a gun, work as a cop, or find yourself in the military, but avoiding violence on behalf of the vulnerable should not be included.

I propose that loose gun laws are actually in keeping with Christian ethics and that Christians in the US should use their influence to push for loose gun control for a few key reasons:

1) Otherwise we defer responsibility for protecting our families

As a father and husband, if you refuse to account for the protection of your family you leave them at the mercy of your neighbors and government. Many people see a society that's growing more dangerous and demand that the government more strictly control who has guns but this is essentially relying on the government to fulfill the role that primarily belongs to the man of a household.

2) Otherwise we defer the responsibility for protecting our communities

Given the strong positioning of the US in a geo-political sense, we don't often think of the need to protect our towns or villages from attackers. In the event that we did, as people in the southwest might have to if Mexican cartels push farther north, we may see the value in militia groups or volunteer "armies" or companies of men who gather to protect their communities.

In the event that this became necessary, I imagine that we would rather that we have easy access to firearms.

3) Otherwise we leave ourselves at the mercy of the government

You commonly hear expressions like "who needs an assault rifle!?" bandied about by opponents of free gun access for American citizens.

The obvious answer is "the person who needs to shoot someone." After all, why does the government need assault rifles? Why does the government provide assault rifles and even more explosive weapons to militia groups in other countries? In case they need to use them to defend themselves. Well the same reasoning applies to US citizens. We just may need to shoot people and we'd rather have the best available firearms with which to do so.

If we deny citizens the right to weapons we leave them at the mercy of their rulers and are forced to hope that there are never people in power who wish us ill. A cursory glance at the history of human societies and governments suggest that this is not a good bet. Human societies are much more likely to enjoy a larger degree of freedom if their government lacks total control and leverage over their lives.

4) Otherwise we fail to see Heaven come to earth

Is it possible to help bring God's shalom to earth if we refuse to get our own hands dirty in bringing order and justice to a broken world. If we are God's solution doesn't that mean we have to attempt to work in broken situations? Too often Christians say, "this situation is broken" and use that as an excuse to avoid sacrificing themselves to be a part of an inevitably flawed solution.

All our attempts to see peace and justice reign on earth will be flawed. That doesn't mean we don't give it our best go and allow the perfect God to work all things for his good purposes.

Christians should never seek out violence and I wouldn't suggest that every individual should own a gun, but to rule out the possibility cedes the responsibilities of men and is a dangerous practice that I think is best avoided.

We don't want to punt on what might be our ethical responsibility to act with force to serve and protect our neighbors. That is not what Jesus had in mind.

Millennials, Patriarchy, and the Lion King

My generation, the millennials, are often defined as the literal children of the baby boomers, born between 1980 and 2000. We are numerous and poised to eventually dominate this nation and its culture by virtue of our sheer numbers.

We are also struggling to find work and loaded down with student loan debt which some of us are unlikely to ever pay back. Many of us were encouraged to pursue degrees of questionable value while the Universities we attend continually jack up their costs in response to the huge increase in demand for education created by the student loan bubble.

Only 21% of millennials are married and I'd venture a guess that those who are married are disproportionately devout Evangelical or Catholic Christians. It's a stereotype, but it's one that I've found to be 100% reliable in my everyday experiences.

Millennials are often the children of divorce and family brokenness. Our culture does an undeniably crap job of initiating and developing millennial men to provide moral leadership in society, and either choosing to build marriages or sacrifice themselves for their families.

It's hard for people to blame the institutions in which they've already invested hope, money, and time for their problems but it's very easy in today's culture to blame our parents and upbringing. Consequently, many young people are wallowing in the feel good teachings of universities and continuing on destructive paths rather than looking to turn things around.

Many jobless young men are living at home and wasting their lives online or with video games while unprotected young women feel totally let down by their situations and are blaming "the Patriarchy" for their lack of security and fulfillment in the modern world.

The "patriarchy" is not to be confused with the ancient men who were given the promises of God to bring redemption to the world, but to their descendants who are blamed for lording over women and denying them the equal privileges and access of men. Of course, what most of the women who use the term really want is not the responsibilities of men but the security and love that a protective father or jealous husband was supposed to offer. Instead, they've been hurt by people who failed them in these roles and are now in rebellion against the entire system.

Young men are too disheartened and coddled to do anything about it. They can get sexual access without offering any kind of protection, commitment, or real love to women and they can even get it without having to interact with a real woman. There are few forces at work in our culture that demand or expect our young men to rise up and take leadership roles or responsibility. Instead, we are taught to defer to women and allow them their chance.

There's a story that nails down this whole process and most of us millennials watched it growing up. It's called "the Lion King."

(Spoilers warning***)

The lion cub Simba begins the story as the heir to the Lion King, Mufasa, who provides him with both loving fatherly wisdom and rebuke to help eventually develop him into a worthy king and successor. Then of course, black sheep Uncle Scar ruins this plan by murdering Mufasa and scaring Simba off into the jungle. Scar then takes over leadership of the lion kingdom and the hyenas are promised their chance to live "as equals" amongst the lions whom had failed to adequately provide for their needs.

Uncle Scar might as well be the baby boomer generation, the hyenas the feminist movement, and of course the jungle is the University experience. At college the jungle, his professors Timon and Pumba teach Simba the life of "hakuna matata" which means "no worries." He's taught to put off responsibilities like finding a job/paying off debt/becoming king.

He's essentially living entirely for his own pleasure with very little in the way of structure or accountability, much like many of us millennial young men did in college.

Until finally, he's confronted with what the consequences have been for his lioness friend Nala, and he sees how the lion's kingdom has come unglued without him stepping in to bring order, good stewardship, and protection. Of course he's afraid to step into that role, until his father Mufasa appears to him in a vision:


"Simba, you have forgotten me...you are more than what you have become..."

It's easier to blame our parents, blame traditional social structures, or blame anything else than to confront the choices we've made as a generation and assume responsibility as young men for the future and direction of our futures, our potential families, and our communities.

We need Mufasa in the cloud telling us that not only CAN young millennial men pay off their student loans, work to find traction in the career world, and overcome the selfish sexual sins that hold us back but that anything less is simply inexcusable.

Sometimes the prevailing theologies of today hold us back. We're often taught that "we're already spotless and pure in God's eyes" and that stepping into a place of holiness is simply a matter of realizing what we already are.

This is, of course, patronizing nonsense and entirely unBiblical. What we possess are the promises of God that through the Holy Spirit, we can become sanctified. In the meantime, Paul, Jesus, and every other New Testament author exhorts us to put sin to death, repent, and embrace discipline in life.

When that happens, and men act as men should, then all the griping about "patriarchy!" and the complaints about our situation in life will fall away. We'll become loving husbands, protective and providing fathers, and leaders in our community. The rest of society will follow that leadership.

Then, perhaps things won't be as difficult for the next generation.

Understanding the main points of Genesis 1

Although commonly misunderstood, the early chapters of Genesis are chock full of powerful statements that serve to explain questions such as "Why was the earth made?" and "Who made it and for what purpose?" The answers that Genesis provides are powerful and resonant to the human experience.

Of course, after the modern era people want to ask scientific questions of the text, something that the Hebrew authors wouldn't have had in mind and something that God would have had little need to provide to his people Israel in order to help them fulfill his purposes for them. 

The same is also true today, we often miss out on how the Genesis account of creation has the intention of revealing God as the one who created of the heavens and earth for the purpose of filling it with his glory.

The 6 day account, rather than attempting to provide the Hebrews with an unwanted scientific account of "how" God did it, are presenting this powerful truth in temple language. God's process of creation matches the process of building a temple and communicates to the Israelites that God wants to inhabit the earth and mankind is the "image" of himself much like the images pagans would insert into temples to represent gods.

Here are some of the powerful revelations that a proper understanding of Genesis provides to us about mankind and the will of God for his creation:

1) God intends to fill the heavens and earth with his glory through his image-bearers, mankind

Have you ever wondered why God labors so hard to accomplish his purposes with such unwieldy instruments as the Hebrews, Peter, yourself or me? Why Jesus didn't wrap up the whole project after raising from the dead but instead entrusted a mission to his disciples? Why Jesus spent so much of his time on earth teaching and raising up followers before finally getting to the part where he triumphed over death?

Because he is a God of relationship who wants to express himself across the potential barriers of misunderstanding and human failure and is committed to his original Genesis task to fill the earth with his glory primarily through his image-bearers. Hence Abraham's election, hence Israel, hence the incarnation, hence the Church.

Every part of the Bible and every description of God's actions to effect his will on the earth flow from this original intent demonstrated in Genesis.

2) God created the heavens and the earth, they are separate from him and under his authority

There are some definite apologetics at play in the Genesis account. Pagan explanations for life and creation are swept aside in favor of the simple explanation of the first cause who is eternal.

While ancient pagans and modern pagans tend to view the world as a violent place that is pulled this way and that by uncontrollable and unaccountable forces or gods, Genesis stresses that there is underlying order and intention that will eventually break through and win the day. That's good news regardless of the era in which you live.

3) God is committed to his original intentions and they still govern the world

The book of Proverbs describes how Wisdom is an abstract form of the intentions of God in Chapter 8. In verse 27 wisdom speaks to us saying,

"When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was his daily delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man."

The world is governed by divine laws, and they include mathematic or physical truths as well as spiritual ones. For instance, when God created them "male and female" that was his intention for how man's relationships would reflect the glory of the creator. When he designed sex, he did it with image-bearing in mind. Mutual submission, partnership, delight, joy, and creation. Sex is a powerful metaphor for God and an important way in which man demonstrates who God is on the earth.

When we try to redefine sexuality, invent orientations, or otherwise twist God's purposes for how humans are intended to interact we are essentially rebelling against God and attempting to deny something as fundamental to creation as the fact that adding two and two will equal four.

Later in Chapter 8 there are warnings for those who despise foundational wisdom:

"Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death."

When we attempt to thwart, ignore, or twist God's intention for creation we are working against the will of God and working against the purposes of the Lord that he was willing to give up his son to accomplish. When we ignore God's intentions for life we embrace death. That's not the side of history we want to be on.

4) Creating and stewarding reflect the person of God 

God is described in Genesis 1:1 as "hovering over the waters" with the language used to describe a mother bird watching carefully over her nest. When we create and steward children, homes, societies, buildings, etc on the earth we are reflecting the image of God. This is our purpose.

That truth has powerful ramifications for art and culture that we'll have to examine in a later post but it's worth noting that when a non-Christian culture raises children or paint artwork they are demonstrating the glory of God whether they intend to or not.

5) We are free to be a scientific and progressive people

Despite Christians in the west having a major hand in the development of the scientific method and many of the advances that led to the technological benefits we enjoy in our society today, people who believe in Creation are often considered to be at odds with scientific or societal advance.

We can blame this, in part, on those who attempt to treat Genesis 1 as a science textbook instead of God communicating deeper and more important truths. When we grasp the deeper truths of Genesis, we realize that we have license, favor, and ability to see continued scientific and societal advances in society.

As GK Chesterton notes in "Orthodoxy," it's not possible to be a successful progressive unless you understand that God formed the universe with wisdom and there are standards and laws at play.

If you don't believe the universe is orderly and reflects design, you cannot make scientific hypothesis and generalizations to use in understanding how to unlock the potential of our world's resources. You have no guarantee that your discoveries of the world will actually be consistent and allow you to use natural laws to accomplish anything good.

Similarly, unless there is a divine will and intent for the world, we can never progress towards falling more closely in line with that purpose.

Chesterton describes the modern progressive as a man trying to paint the world. On Monday he decides that the world should all be colored blue, so he starts painting everything blue. On Tuesday he realizes it should actually be green, so he goes back and starts painting everything green instead.

Will this artist ever actually progress? No, because he's always changing the standard he's aiming for.

When we believe that the world is created with specific intents and purposes by a divine maker and we have access to what his purposes are, THEN we can work with science, laws, and our own moral choices to try and progress closer to his purposes.

These are some of the main thrusts of Genesis 1, rarely understood or applied within our times as we attempt to find answers the text isn't intended to provide while ignoring the tremendous wisdom it does offer us. When we get this right, the whole Bible and world becomes open to us to discover and delight in.