Reconciling Scripture and the Problem of Racism

One of our world’s current “hot topics” is racism. Corporations posture themselves carefully to avoid any allegation of racism. Politicians, media personalities, and sports stars have ruined their careers with racist remarks. Billions of dollars each year are poured into improving race relations. Churches and religious groups are uniting for the all-important task of “racial reconciliation.”

What do we mean when we talk about “racism”? What race of people are we talking about? What does the Scripture have to say about this problem?

“Only In the Lord”

There was a time when many fundamentalist Christians argued against inter-racial marriage on presumably biblical grounds. It was believed that interracial marriage was an attempt to rebel against God’s division of the races at Babel and a foretaste of the sinful uniting of humanity against God that will characterize the rule of the antichrist.

Such arguments against interracial marriage are flawed on a number of levels, particularly because they arise from a mishandling of the Scriptures. They wrongly assume that there is more than one human race (an idea which Mark Perry effectively disproves in this month’s feature article). Further, they wrongly assert that the distinctions made by God in Genesis 11:9 were physical and final, when in fact they were linguistic, geographical, and reversible. No one would argue, for example, that a European whose native language is German is forbidden on the basis of Genesis 11 from marrying one whose native language is English, or whose native land is Australia. The distinctions made at Babel were neither physical nor absolute. Finally, the union of mankind under the antichrist and against God will be sinful, political, economic, and religious, not ethnic (Revelation 13 and 17).

Does Scripture teach that there is a factor which prohibits marriage between men and women with deep-rooted differences? Absolutely. But that factor is spiritual, not physical. When addressing the permissibility of a widow remarrying, Paul provides an inspired answer that must inform our understanding of marriage even today: “she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39). Paul, a Jew by birth writing to a church filled with Gentiles, placed only one prohibition on the marriage of two single people: both must be Christians. Marrying outside of the Christian faith rebels against a clear command of Scripture and has tragic results—marriages in which Christ is the source of division rather than unity and children who are torn between the irreconcilable values and worldviews of their parents. We must marry “only in the Lord.”

However, just as we would be wrong to omit this God-breathed requirement, we are also wrong to add to it. Given the perfect opportunity to forbid marriage between different ethnicities, Paul did not do so. Nor should we.

Lest it be argued that the Old Testament forbade inter-ethnic marriage, it is clear that even texts such as Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy 7:1–5 were concerned with the faith of would-be spouses, not ethnicity. Among other examples, God’s ordaining the marriage of Boaz to Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 4:10) and including her in the lineage of Christ (Matt 1:5) proves that spiritual rather than ethnic factors must be weighed in the selection of a spouse. Despite her ethnicity, Ruth was an eligible wife for Boaz because she had come to faith in Jehovah (Ruth 1:16).

Of course, our desire is not to be politically correct. We cannot merely capitulate to the opinions of our day. However, fundamentalists of all people should yearn to be biblically correct. The standard for marriage in Boaz’s day and Paul’s day was simply that a potential spouse be “in the Lord.” The same standard is sufficient in our day, as well.

March 2009

The Independent Church and Its Missionary Program

Periodically we reprint articles from past issues that offer helpful insight for us today. Roger Bixler pastored Westerville Bible Church from 1963 to 1996 and now serves with Gospel Fellowship Association as a mission representative.

Someone has made the statement, “The church is missions and missions is the church.” Every local church is, or should be, interested in missions. Rarely does a week pass in which the pastor does not receive some inquiry from a missionary desiring to present his work to the people of that church.

Pride, a Groundless Thing

Let’s be frank: the reason humility is so elusive and pride so natural is that we think we have so much about which to be proud. We roll our eyes at the hickish (and irreverent) crooner who complains that “it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way.” Yet, his self-estimation is very like our own. The essence of every person’s sin nature is a self-love that strives for the exaltation, freedom, and pleasure we believe we deserve. Of course, such inborn idolatry has no grounding in reality. We have no reason to be proud, as Isaiah 6 vividly demonstrates.

God’s infinite majesty is humbling.
Isaiah 6 begins with a reminder of how finite even the greatest of men are: “In the year that King Uzziah died.” Uzziah had enjoyed a 52-year reign! Yet, he succumbed to death like all others before and after him.

The passage immediately contrasts Uzziah’s death with the eternal and infinite majesty of King Jesus (for we learn in John 12:41 that Isaiah saw Him!). The names used of God in Isaiah 6 highlight His majesty—He is “the Lord” (adonai, v. 1), “Jehovah of Hosts” (the Commander in Chief, if you will, vv. 3, 5), and “the King” (v. 5). Furthermore, His royal train (much like the long train on a bride’s gown) flooded the entire Temple
(v. 1)! God’s majesty and our finiteness should humble us.

God’s infinite holiness is humbling.
King Jesus is served in Isaiah 6 by royal attendants. Seraphim offer Him constant and humble praise. They cry that He is holy—entirely “other,” separated from everything, without rival (v. 3). They demonstrate this point by humbly covering their eyes, lest they look on God, and their feet, lest they offend Him (v. 2). What is so fascinating about their abject humility is this: they are sinless! They are humbled not because they are wicked, but because they are creatures, as are we. God’s holiness and our creatureliness should humble us.

God’s infinite purity is humbling.
Finally, God is contrasted with Isaiah himself. Upon seeing a glimpse of God, Isaiah fell prostrate and confessed the sinfulness of his heart and his people (v. 5). What he did not do was side with God in an “us vs. those sinners” spirit. Though undoubtedly among the godliest men of his day, Isaiah rightly associated himself not with God, but with every other sinner in the world. He was broken by God’s unimaginable purity and his own wickedness. God’s purity and our sinfulness should humble us.

Are we proud? Absolutely, but not because we have any real cause. In the words of Spurgeon, pride is “a groundless thing…a mindless thing…the maddest thing that can exist” (Park Street Pulpit, No. 97). Pride is delusional, and only gazing on our infinitely majestic, holy, and pure God will cure us of it.

February 2009

For God and Country? God, Government, and the Godly

This article is continued from the previous issue.

People have a seemingly insatiable desire to criticize government. Certainly there have been times and nations in which the King or Queen was loved and revered, but for the most part people love to hate government and complain about it loudly. The knee-jerk reaction of the governed is to say “Phooey on government!”

Fear God. Honor the King.

Peter’s first epistle describes the need for holy living in persecution. Peter reminds believers that we are a holy people, a spiritual body, and God’s own possession (2:9–10). We must live as God’s people, refraining from sinful desires so those around us who desire to slander us will have no choice but to glorify God (2:11–12). As a heavenly people, we might suppose it is unnecessary to obey human laws. Peter answers this with two commands.

First, submit to every human authority for the Lord’s sake (2:13–15).
As Paul said in Romans 13, all authority has been put in place by God. Refusing to submit to human authority is refusing to submit to God. God’s will for us is that we silence the ignorance of foolish people by our blameless lives.

Second, demonstrate your fear of God by honoring the men set over you (2:16–17).
Someone might object that since we serve God we can ignore unbelievers in authority. However, Peter reminds us that although we have been freed from all human enslavement, we are still the slaves of God. Therefore, we must be respectful of all people, demonstrate genuine love toward believers, fear God above all, and respect the rulers He has set up.

January 2009

For God and Country? Politics and the Gospel

America has elected a new president, and the “religious right” is reeling. In the last decade, political liberals have gained the House, the Senate, and now the White House. After thirty years of intense political activism, American Christians have very little to show for their efforts. Abortion is still legal. Though there have been small restrictions for which we can be thankful, even those baby steps may be erased by a new administration. Evolution is accepted as an undeniable truth. Pornography rages. The homosexual agenda is gaining steam.

He Puts Down and Lifts Up

The book of Esther illustrates God’s silent hand of providence working in ordinary ways, using everyday events, and accomplishing his will even through flawed individuals. In the first chapter, queen Vashti rebels against the king and is deposed. The second chapter, describing the king’s selection of a new queen, is a real-life illustration of Psalm 75:6–7. “For not from the east or from the west and not from the wilderness comes lifting up, but it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another” (ESV).

After deposing his queen, King Ahasuerus began to have second thoughts (2:1). As a greedy and lustful man who desired female companionship, he set about acquiring a new queen. The king’s selection criteria were not very rigid—he simply had attractive girls brought to him (2:2). In his lustfulness and greed for power, he chose a new queen (2:3–4). How could God work here?

Since Esther apparently met the beauty requirements of the king, she was taken to the palace as one of the women from which King Ahasuerus was to choose (2:8). Esther does not seem to be a model of purity and conviction (compare her actions with Daniel’s, another Jewish young person in a pagan king’s court). When Esther went to the king, she won this pagan’s heart (2:15–16). He immediately called an end to the parade of women and proclaimed Esther queen (2:17).

Where is God in all of this? Even in what might appear to be random actions, God’s hand is at work, working through (and often in spite of) sinful people, using them to accomplish his will. God silently used a stubborn queen (Vashti) and a lustful king (Ahasuerus) to bring a compromising Jewish girl (Esther) to a position of power. Furthermore, in the first verse of chapter three, we find a treacherous man (Haman) elevated to the second highest position in the kingdom. The crisis Esther would be able to avert was not even on the horizon when she became queen, but God was working all things according to his perfect will.

As a side note, Haman certainly received his comeuppance, but not as a matter of justice or punishment for his wickedness. The king charged Haman with treason for plotting to kill the queen—but Haman didn’t know Esther was a Jew! Then when the king returned, he construed Haman’s actions as inappropriate advances—a total misunderstanding! God used even the king’s confusion to remove Haman from power. The book of Esther is the story of God’s providence, told without even mentioning his name.

Because of God’s sovereign providence, we can say with complete confidence that every person in authority is there because God placed him there.

December 2008

The Emerging Church (part 3)

This is the conclusion of an article continued from the two previous issues of the Visitor.

At the outset of this series of articles, Pastor Ashbrook indicated he would make ten statements about the emerging church. The first installment (August 2008) contained the first four statements, the previous issue (September 2008) presented the next three, and this issue will conclude with the final three statements and a conclusion.

Rethinking Retirement Some More

In last month’s Sound Words column, I applied Luke 12:13–21 to the topic of retirement, urging readers not to retire from life and ministry. Devoting your final decades to golf, gardening, and grandchildren would be unwise and unscriptural. Moving to Florida may be a selfish thing that leaves a gaping hole in your local church. On the other hand, your remaining productive years could be eternally useful, whether working in your local church, helping a church plant, or going to the mission field—without having to raise support!

While wasting the freedom afforded by your “autumn years” is tragic, the pattern of neglecting eternal needs for temporary pleasures starts long before retirement parties. We must not neglect urgent ministry needs in the “spring and summer” of life in order to stockpile for the future.

In James 5:1–6, James rebukes and warns those who are wealthy. Why? The riches with which they had been blessed were being misused—or not used at all! They were saving for “the last days” (v. 3) even as those less fortunate were unable to meet life’s basic needs (v. 4). In an apparent allusion to Christ’s teaching in Matthew 6:19–20, James bemoans such short-sighted and selfish hoarding. Unused possessions were rotting in storage (v. 2a); garments which could have clothed the needy were hanging in closets, moth-eaten (v. 2b); gold and silver that might have funded gospel ministry was “corroding” (v. 3). Such abuse of God-given wealth disgusted James. He warned of coming and ironic judgment in which hoarded riches would hinder their long-term security rather than insuring it (vv. 1, 3, 4).

To be sure, much of the reason for James’ frustration is that some of the wealth had been gained dishonestly, (vv. 4, 6). Still, there is a sense in which their hoarding and luxurious living—to the neglect of urgent needs—would have been unconscionable even if the riches had been gained honestly (cf. 1 Tim 6:18–19). While investing for the future is commended in both Testaments, we must ask ourselves “how much is enough?” We must invest in such a way that current needs are not neglected.

• Ought we to stockpile for future comfort when hard-working brothers cannot make ends meet?
• Ought we to plan for lavish vacations when missionaries toil three or more years to raise support?
• Ought we to invest so much of our extra income into a dicey(!) stock market when our local churches are unable to meet budget?

We need to rethink retirement—both what we intend to do with it and what we’re willing to sacrifice in order to get there.

October/November 2008