“Heal Us, Emmanuel: A Call for Racial Reconciliation, Representation, and Unity in the Church” is a collection of 30 essays by PCA
Elders on the subject of race and reconciliation (a hot topic
especially as this year the PCA's General Assembly approaches). Many
of these elders have been pushing for some sort of statement or
public confession by the PCA General Assembly that deals with Race,
especially concerning the acts of “conservative Christians” in
the Civil Rights Era.
The
book is laid out in 6 sections: An Invitation to Listen, Awakening to
Privilege, Sins of Omission and Commission, Historical and
Theological Perspectives, Confession and Reconciliation Are
Necessary, and A Way Forward. Under each are five or six essays on
that theme.
This
review will seek to summarize some of the content of the book as well
as give a critical response. The book is a “call” but I hope to
invite a conversation on it, rather than a monologue of demands. I
found the book to be mixed in its effectiveness, depth, and quality.
As such, let us first look at what are a few truly interesting and
worthwhile articles for your time. So first, the positive:
HELPFUL
AND INTERESTING:
Chapter
11 includes an entry by Samuel N. Graham, an elder on the session of
Independent Presbyterian (IPC) in Memphis. This was one of the few
entries in which the relating of personal biographical details was
interesting and relevant to the topic. The Chapter on Independent
Presbyterian in Stephen Haynes' “The Last Segregated Hour” gives
a better narrative of the process leading up to IPC's racial
repentance, however Graham's article gives a glimpse of the inside
process that compliments that narrative in helpful ways.
Another
essay worth considering is by Kevin Twit of RUF (Chapter 15). Rev.
Twit details some of the thought process behind the latest Indelible
Grace record and the incorporation of different styles to reflect
diverse cultural inputs. It certainly is worth considering, even if
Twit's Nashville context is perhaps a unique case of cultural and
musical diversity.
Briefly,
a few other chapters offer relevant information, and most interesting
were the five essays on a Historical and Theological Perspective.
Sean Lucas' personal history in regards to race (Chapter 18) provides
the background to his recent book on the history of the PCA and work
with a movement for a Civil Rights Era statement from the PCA.
Chapter 17 contains Bobby Griffith's summary history of race in
American Southern Presbyterianism, which despite its choppy
structure, offers a few nuggets of historical interest. Chapter 19
contains William Castro's critique of “racialist” views of the
church, which tends to divide along racial lines rather than bringing
them together. His critique of Frame and others who justify separate
churches based on cultural preferences is intriguing, even though the
solution is often allusive evidenced by the lack of integration in
most churches on Sunday morning.
All
of these essays seek to build a historical foundation for the
conversation over race. These help us understand the questions of
both “why now?” and “why this subject?” To show my cards,
this reviewer tends to agree broadly that race is a present issue in
the church and in particular in the history of the Presbyterian
Church in America by reputation of certain particular churches
especially in the south, and even of entire presbyteries (especially
those of the former Synod of Mississippi which explicitly defended
segregation in the 1950s and 60s).
The
conversation broached in this book is a necessary conversation, even
if uncomfortable. Part of that uncomfortable aspect is exploring the
paradigms we use to approach this subject, and here is where critique
is also necessary. Scripture tells us that when exploring a sin and
solution, two ditches must be avoided. As the prophet Jeremiah puts
it some “have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying,
'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace.“ (Jeremiah 6:14) While our
Lord warns others “ tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay
them on people's shoulders.” (Matthew 23:4) The essays of the book
falter when falling into one of these two ditches.
A
CRITIQUE:
The
weakness of the book is largely in what it carries as features of the
book.
1)
The book is heavily personal, but in so doing at times becomes too
autobiographical in nature. The book is intended to be personal, but
despite the number of writers, the biographical details become
repetitive.
2)
The book is intended to be a “call,” however this causes the
essays to feel largely monolithic in perspective. Again, the book
itself is not a dialogue, but rather a “call” as the title
declares. Thus, let us explore having the conversation.
CAN
WE DIALOGUE?
If
this book is inviting a dialogue on the issue of race, let's address
why this topic is so messy: Racism
is hard to have a dialogue about. Motives are constantly questioned
and when writing about such a serious issue it is tempting to signal
your virtue, rather than acknowledge the complexity and messiness of
the issue. Racism is a result of the fall, not mere history, and so
is universal in its subjects. Thus it is easier to signal your
innocence than to actually process it.
My
reservations with the book have nothing to do with the subject, or
even most of the recommendations. I have set myself to the task the
2015 GA gave to elders, namely to explore racial sins and the
relation of the denomination to those sins. I believe there are
issues of sin related to race at the individual level, the local
church level, and in more than one presbytery. I was interested if
the book would touch on any of the questions I recorded nearly a year
ago that accompany the current issue such as what is the nature of
covenantal repentance, the types of racial sin that exist, and on
what level of church government they occurred in the past, as well as
practical ways to address them in the present.
There
are omissions that hamper the final product in its execution. While
the book wants to be a monologue (a call), I hope this book can be
part of a dialogue. As such, I aim to push back and challenge the
thrust of the book in two areas:
1)
Resist
the adoption of the
terminology and categories of the political left.
Beyond
the acceptance of of terms like “Microaggressions” (page 21) the
most troubling term of the political left used in the book is “White
Privilege” (page 60, 91, 95, 238, etc.). White Privilege has arisen
in the political realm, largely on the political left, and as such
both carries baggage from that realm and has secular ideologies
informing its use.
Granted,
there is existing institutional power to certain families that can be
identified along racial lines. Also, we should note that while
everyone has obstacles to overcome, some have more obstacles based on
their ethnicity than others. To frame this reality, and blame “white
privilege” rather than focusing on true racism creates guilt
burdens about realities that are not necessary to repent over. One
should repent over placing obstacles in front of others based on
race. One should not repent for not having as many of those
obstacles.
Ethnicity
exists alongside economic position, education, and two-parent homes
as factors which shapes future success and progress of persons into
adult life and society. Focusing on the fact that white families tend
to have more factors that lead to education and job opportunities
mixes too much correlation with causation. It also unnecessarily
sweeps whites without those advantages into this stereotyped “white
America” that all has these advantages. As I work in an area with
much blue collar poverty, many in our area would be surprised to hear
of their privilege based on their race, when their education,
economic, and family situation is anything but privileged.
The
most troubling aspect of this, however, is the diversion it makes
from the ecclesiastical and spiritual realm into a focus on the
secular and political realm as paramount. This shows itself most
starkly in the repeated implied message that pastors need to side
with specific political or current event controversies to be
sufficiently race conscious. Let us take Doug Serven's piece in
Chapter 16 as the prime offender: Ferguson, Charleston, and the
McKinney Texas Police incident, and the name of the Washington
Redskins were all cited (pages 156-159) and the “right side” is
always implied as synonymous with the right spiritual attitude to
race. This suggests a need to be up to date on all the current media
events, and to take public political positions on them.
I
have my own personal opinions and thoughts based on what I know of
those events. Yet, the requirement to be fully read up on media
events (real or generated by the media for ratings), and to take the
particular views Serven has taken as a precondition for being
racially conscious is a human requirement, not a spiritual or
Scriptural one. I certainly have my own thoughts on some of these
events, but I have purposefully not made them public because I think
it would be needlessly controversial, and misinterpreted - a barrier
to the gospel rather than an avenue to it.
Why
am I as a minister supposed to speak publicly on an issue that
happened, for instance in Missouri, that is quite complicated (more
complicated than I think Serven lets on)? It is not to argue that
particular case, but one sees the issue of the sin of racism becoming
bogged down in the particulars of media and social media events.
To
have silence about those events equated to apathy is just wrong. Why
am I morally required to speak on every event listed?
By what authority? In fact, shouldn't our judgments especially on
murky criminal acts be tempered by the fact that we are not on the
jury and not privy to all evidence? Shouldn't wisdom be used to
distinguish between clear instances of racism such as Charleston, and
more complex issues such as etymological histories of the names of
NFL teams?
The
weight of the 9th
Commandment would seem to dictate to not bearing false or at least
not bearing uninformed or hasty witness. To take it a step further,
why does the author think
his opinion is the clear Christian opinion? In at least two cases, I
disagree with his verdict, and so does that make my private opinion a
sin? Why are these reactions and “hot takes” of media events the
gauge of our biblical obedience rather than our individual
interactions and actions with people? We must be careful not to think
our political opinion on a complicated issue or event is synonymous
with the law or the gospel.
That
leads to my second challenge:
2.
Address Racism with Deep Biblical Exegesis
Scripture
is sufficient to address all things we need for the man of God to be
complete (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I wish there were more deep biblical
exegesis and application in the essays of this book to the problem of
racism, rather than the adoption of socio-political categories and
theories. Sociology and Politics will not address this problem
adequately, nor a general call to grace or the cross.
This
is not to say there is no Scripture or exegesis in the book on these
matters. In Chapter 19, “Toward a Compelling Theology for Unity,”
Rev. Garriott makes a few brief universal theological points. Rev.
Ward in Chapter 21 does as well by way of a thorough and fair
critique of Morton Smith's 1964 article that argued for segregation.
This is helpful as a picture of the theological errors of the past,
though I would be surprised if there is much agreement today in the
PCA with Smith's 52 year old article.
Yet,
where is an extended look at Ephesians 2:11-22 or Galatians 3:27, or
the biblical theological theme of the bringing in of Ruth the
Moabitess to God's People or Solomon's Temple as a place for
inclusion of the nations into Israel? Certainly, Galatians 3:27 and
Ephesians 2:14 are cited, yet they are proof texted rather than
expounded in the depths those passages can teach us.
A
great missed opportunity of this book was to explore the nature of
the repentance/confession that some call for. Chapter 24 is titled
“Why we must confess corporately” but the article is only 4 pages
long, and does not exegete Scripture so much as cite it and offer
some quick application. Part of this exegesis should be anticipating
objections: What are the limits, intent, and effects of covenantal
repentance over racism? Who has covenantal relationships with each
other to accomplish such a task? Is there a difference between
confessing the iniquity of our fathers and confessing the sins of our
fathers? How does the 5th
Commandment relate to Daniel 9, Ezra 9 or Nehemiah 9? What is going
on in those passages and why do they confess the particular sins they
do, and not others? How does someone individually innocent relate to
his covenantal guilt, especially of previous generations? What steps
are taken after such confession toward repentance?
These
questions have answers, but they are not in the book. I agree with
the conclusion of Chapter 24 on the sins of racism within the church:
“I did not personally commit them; nevertheless, they are mine.”
(page 252) Yet mere “corporate identification” is not a
sufficient argument for this conclusion. Rather, the corporate
covenantal body, as an acting body with members that suffer corporate
pollution and contamination of the sins of the past, mired in the
iniquity of the fathers, is the point of Daniel 9, Ezra 9, and
Nehemiah 9. Exegetical explanation should include the historical
context (Babylonian exile), the past sins (Sabbath breaking,
inter-faith marriage, etc.) that caused it, and what that particular
repentance meant, namely 1) being currently guilty of sin by
imitation, 2) being currently polluted by the consequences of those
sins, and 3) being committed in the future to turn from the sins of
their fathers to obedience of God's Law.
These
principles should have obvious application to the issue of racism
today, which plagued many of our forefathers in the PCA. These are
iniquities that still pollute the witness of PCA churches today that
are associated with it, that certain churches have needed to address
in order to move forward.
Thus,
this collection of essays was a golden opportunity missed to make the
case why
denominations, presbyteries, and local church bodies need to repent
and not just individuals. They could have also offered details on how
these bodies repent with regards to Scriptural precedent. Merely
citing Daniel 9, Ezra 9, and Nehemiah 9 are not enough, they need to
be deeply exegeted and applied. Indeed, the Bible is capable of, and
should, deeply impact our view of race and the sins of racism, so
shouldn't ministers bring that fully to bear on this subject rather
than assume it?
CONCLUSION
First
this book certainly has an important subject matter and notable good
efforts to identify the history and personal aspects of the problem.
Furthermore, the book excels when addressing real racism at the
individual and local level that were solved by true and detailed
confession and repentance such as at IPC. For those essays in the
book I am thankful.
However,
the book shows its deficiencies when there was a vague or undefined
view of repentance, surface exegesis, or when it relied on
non-theological diagnoses and prescriptions to the problem. The task
of the church is not to syncretize political and sociological
paradigms into its theology, but to bring the gospel of grace to bear
on the problems of sin, not just in the notional or “awareness”
realm but in the practical realm.
The
solution to the problems of the sin of racism must be of a sufficient
level to answer the problem. While this book may identify many of the
problems, I fear it heals the wounds of the people too lightly and
generally, while bringing unnecessary burdens with some of its
adopting of outside sociological and political concepts.
APPLYING
LESSONS
During
the upcoming PCA General Assembly, I hope that commissioners are
aware of the history in this book (which if they have read Lucas'
book or Haynes' book, they will be aware of the important details
already). But the issues need to be framed in biblical rather than
political ways. The PCA General Assembly should avoid vaguely
confessing sins, with no specificity of the current polluting sins
that linger, no biblical idea of its connection to those sins, and no
plan of repentance. To treat the wounds of racism too lightly, or as
a way to placate white guilt, rather than address racial sin nearly
guarantees that the exercise will merely placate consciences while
leaving a sin issue largely untouched in its treatment.
Since
racism is not a mere cultural or ethnic problem, and is a human
fallen condition, we must seek the answers to those problems in
something bigger than political, sociological or historical analysis.
It must be examined in the heart of every individual, and not just
one ethnic group. It must be based on the Scriptures, on true
covenantal connection to a particular body, with a right view of
repentance, sin, iniquity, covenant, and costly grace.
I
am encouraged that a few of the Overtures (Overture 1 and 50 in
particular) this year names particular sins, and directs the bodies
of the church (presbyteries and local churches) to examine if and
where they have occurred to address them at that level. I hope
specificity and localness are embraced by the Assembly. Our sin
problem is deep, and in need of deep exegesis, and deep grace from
Christ to address. I pray we can see with the eyes of Scripture to
address this problem without either creating artificial burdens or
crying “peace, peace!” where there is no peace.
-Review by Jared Nelson
Pastor New Life PCA
Aliquippa, PA
To follow up with more detail about my
particular problem with the idea of “white privilege” being used in the
ecclesiastical conversation.
