Racism, and an Ecclesial and Missional Perspective

Introduction

With the charge of racism in the USA as prevalent as that of being ‘enemies of the people’ in the French Revolution, we might also ask whether the former term is in as much want of definition as the latter phrase.  Terms vaguely defined are powerful weapons on the tongues of revolutionaries.  In an effort to achieve greater clarity, I would suggest that at least some of us might be helped first by defining our terms.  A clearer analysis of demographics and statistics in US cities and other cities in the world would also be of help to diagnose the problems of our times.  This would lead to real solutions to urban problems that get behind the simplistic rhetoric of racism.  This essay, however, is not about that research.[1]  (It can be done by anyone, since the statistics are online, but it also has been done and is often ignored by people whose political agenda depends on a racial narrative that will not be belabored, let alone undermined, by facts and research.) 

In this essay, I focus instead on how the discussion of racism is more a factor of a larger social movement that uses racial unrest to bring about social change—change sought by social Marxists.  I also intend to consider the Bible and the Church in the discussion of racism, taking issue with the inadequate analyses and ‘easy solutions’ of so many Evangelical spokespersons at this time.  My conclusions are that we need to have a better understanding of ‘racism’, we need to redirect our focus on the Church as itself the counter-cultural community of Christ, rather than throwing our efforts into support of political and social justice struggles that have no need of the Church.  And we need to refocus our attention on the Church’s missional theology and practice.

Definitions and Distinctions

I suggest that we distinguish three very different types of racism and, perhaps, use related but different terms for each.  Taxonomy and diagnosis are equally important for social distinctions as for medical.  A wrong analysis will lead to a wrong treatment.  All three types of racism share the view that individuals should be seen in terms of their race.  This would be the broadest definition of racism.  Racists do not see individuals for who they are as individuals but for the racial group to which they belong or are believed to belong.  This is different from stereo-typing individuals, which can be along a variety of lines other than race and which can be done as an initial analysis that is then subjected to further enquiry.  In the case of all three types of racism, there is no further analysis to get to the individual’s identity apart from the group.

We might use the term ‘racism’ more narrowly than the broad definition, and this would then be the first sub-type.  In this case, people view certain other individuals negatively because of their belonging to a particular race.  Germans might view Poles negatively, the British might view the Dutch in South Africa negatively, or white Americans might view black Americans negatively.  In Africa, tribalism includes a racism that usually does not involve considerations of skin colour.  If a Luhya thinks of an individual Kamba in terms of his group that used to practice cannibalism, there is a racist view at work—the individual is seen in terms of the group—even though both tribes are black and Kenyan, and the Kamba are no longer cannibalistic.  What makes these examples racist is when individuals are defined by their race and that definition includes a negative assessment of a whole group for one or more reasons.  This may or may not result in how the person is treated—racism can refer simply to attitudes.  Persons holding this perspective would be called ‘racists’.  It should be noted that some racists can be kind and helpful, just as a master could be so to a slave in ancient Rome.  There are also degrees of racism that have to do with attitudes and actions.  On the other hand, responses to racism can also be racist when the individual racist is seen in terms of some group.  

The second term that we might put forward for more clarity is ‘racialism’.  In this case, people again see individuals in terms of their race, but they do not necessarily look down on a different race or the individual.  ‘Racialists’ tend to see politics, social issues, economics, and so forth in terms of race.  This can extend to religion if a particular race is thought to go necessarily along with a particular religion.  On this view, culture is usually considered to be static, and racialists treat race as something worth preserving in itself: they might be opposed to evangelizing a jungle tribe, for example, because the tribal members’ conversion would mean changes in the culture.  Racialists look at the lower income of inner-city blacks in America and claim that race, not other, urban issues and government policies, are the cause.  In South Africa, the Nationalist Party came to power in 1948 and combined a racist and racialist social and political agenda, Apartheid, that was finally repealed in 1991.[2]

Also, if American, urban, black youths have higher incidents of crime, the fact that they overwhelmingly come from broken homes with an absent father is passed over by racialists, who would rather see the reason as how ‘whites’ treat ‘blacks’.  Any political social policies are equally ignored, such as the effect of social programs creating a dependency on government rather than an independence and responsibility.  ‘Racialists’ have the same problems of racists in that they see the world and its problems in terms of race and see individuals in terms of their race.  Their perspective also suffers from over-simplification at best and may be an entirely erroneous analysis.

The third term is ‘reverse racism’.  ‘Reverse racists’ respond to the initial group—to racists—by trying to reverse racism in the first definition by seeing individuals in terms of their race. Unlike the first group, they tend to view the disparaged group positively or as needing positive affirmation and activism to reverse the discrimination they have allegedly or in reality received.  They identify groups in terms of race and see the minority groups as victims that need to be assisted, promoted, and empowered over against other groups.  A reverse racist might insist that a candidate for a job should be from the racial group that had been disempowered or mistreated.  Or, a reverse racist might call for economic or land redistribution based on race.

There is a distinction that needs to be made between giving underprivileged people an equal opportunity to succeed and insisting on equal outcomes.  Equality of opportunity can be a way to oppose racism, but insisting on equal outcomes, now called 'equity', or even preferential outcomes is a form of racism when races are involved.  Equity as reverse racism advances people in a variety of ways merely because of their race and not their merits.  Soft examples of this are in the form of insisting on putting people into bibliographies or research papers merely because of their ethnicity or using certain authors for textbooks solely because they service a value of diversity.  Harder examples of this involve promoting people and giving them jobs because of their race--and denying others the same because of theirs.  This is reverse discrimination that is racist in showing favour to some and disfavour to others because of their race.

Further Distinctions, and ‘Is the Bible “Racist”?’

More needs to be said about these definitions, and a look at the Bible can help in this regard.  As we ask the question, ‘Is the Bible racist?’, we can see the importance of defining terms more carefully.  In the Old Testament, for example, we see a distinction between the Jews and all other nations, the Gentiles. The Jews viewed Gentiles as sinners both in the sense of being idolaters who did not acknowledge God and in the sense of their immorality.  The Jews sought to separate themselves from other nations, and when they did not, they themselves were led into sin by the other nations.  Individuals who were not Jews were viewed in terms of the identity of their group.

Does this make the Jews of the Old Testament racists?  It could, if it were not for three rather important additional points that figure into the definition of racism.  Jews may or may not have held to these, but the Biblical perspective does introduce these additional perspectives.  First, the narrative of Israel is not about righteous Israelites over against unrighteous Gentiles.  The narrative of Israel is about how Israel failed to be righteous despite all that God had done for them; they behaved like the unrighteous Gentiles.  This perspective is very helpful.  Those who think of themselves as not racist do not work from a narrative of their own failings but from a perspective of their superiority over the others that they view as racist.  Perhaps they are superior, at least in this respect, but the Jew who distinguished himself from the Gentiles did not have a narrative of his own superiority but of God’s favour.

Second, the narrative of the Jews was redemptive.  The three views of racism, racialism, and reverse racism do not work with notions of repentance, forgiveness, and redemption.  They locate people in their racial grouping and determine everything around that identity.  The racial identity is the primary identity of the individual (rather than, e.g., religion), and it is immutable.  The Biblical view is dynamic: things can change and, most importantly, God does bring change.

Third, the Biblical narrative of Israel is missional.  The distinction of Israel from the nations might involve separation from their idolatry and sinfulness, but Israel’s existence as God’s treasured possession is so that they would be the means by which God extended His grace to the nations.  Israel was to be God’s missionary nation to the nations.  Their own sinfulness subverted the fulfillment of this mission.  Their restoration would mean the reinstitution of this mission to the Gentiles.

In the New Testament, the people of God are the Church.  The Jew/Gentile distinction no longer pertains as both groupings of humanity are now included in the Church.  Passages such as Galatians 3.28 do not celebrate diversity, as some have mistakenly suggested, but unity—unity in Christ.  The Church is distinguished from those outside the Church because the Church is made up of those who have been baptized into Christ.  This is no longer a racial distinction—or potentially racial.  Nor is it a distinction between men and women—an even more fundamental distinction in nature than race.  Nor is it a distinction between masters and slaves.  If Galatians 3.28 was celebrating diversity, then we would have to read the passage as encouraging a continuation of slavery; instead, the passage makes the identity of masters and slaves irrelevant because of their unity in Christ.  Texts like Galatians 3.28 are phrased in the negative for a reason: they make these characteristics irrelevant rather than celebrate them.  This keeps the agenda from being about us: what counts is being in Christ.

Second, the New Testament understands the narrative of Israel’s sin in the Old Testament in terms of Jesus’ death on the cross for our sins.  In other words, the members of the Church—those in Christ—are those who acknowledge their need for Jesus’ sacrificial death.  Christians do not believe that they are a privileged group because of the identity they bring into the Church but because of the identity of Jesus in whom they now live—they make His death and life their own.  They also recognize that, just as they came to Christ, all others can as well.  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3.23), but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus (Romans 6.23).  Everyone is equally in need of God’s provision of salvation, and everyone can receive this salvation when they acknowledge Jesus Christ as the one who, through His death, brought this salvation.

Third, the New Testament extends God’s mission of Jesus to Israel to a mission of the Church to all nations.  The death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus mark the beginning of the mission to the Gentiles.  The Church’s history is a history of mission to the nations of the world.  Christians are not racists, looking down on particular races.  They have taken the Gospel of salvation throughout the world, translated Scripture into hundreds of languages, and rejoiced to see others come to the same faith that they have come to by God’s grace.  Christians are not racialists, seeing the world in terms of race.  This is where multiculturalism fails, for it upholds culture as though it is something unchanging and to be celebrated.  The Christian faith has various views on culture—it is positive, negative, and neutral.  That is, it is to be evaluated on the basis of something else, not culture in itself.  To focus on it and/or to see it only as positive is to take the focus off of Christ.  Thus, Christians are not anti-racists, in my definition of it, because they do not privilege one group over another.  They see every individual needing to come to Christ to save him or her from sin.  People do not come to Christ as members of a race, and the Church should not see itself as promoting racial groups but promoting the Church as a people—a third race, as the Early Church preferred to say.  They were neither Jew nor Gentile but the people of God.  The focus in the vision of John in Revelation 7.9-10 is not on multiculturalism, with a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language.  This passage is a reversal of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11), where people of the world were divided into multicultural groups.  The passage is not a celebration of human identities.  It is not a celebration of multiculturalism.  Rather, the passage assumes this diversity due to human sinfulness and puts the emphasis rather on reconciliation to God and one another by those who cry with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ (Rev. 7.10).  The passage is Christ-centred, not human-centred.  These are they who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7.14).  The identity that is cherished is not that of the tribes and nations of the earth but the identity sinners from throughout the earth have gained in the saving blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ.

Peripheral and Central Vision

Too many Evangelicals have a truncated understanding of ecclesiology.  They reduce ‘Church’ to small ‘c’—unaware of and perhaps disinterested in the historic Church and the wider orthodox Church of today—and they reduce their understanding of this local church, for the most part, to a worship service.  Thus, when they think of ‘church’ and race, they tend to think of the worship service being either monocultural/homogeneous or multicultural/heterogenous.  Without a liturgical service, this worship service comes down to trying to blend music and preaching styles with a multicultural group of individual worshipers.

Where a deeper understanding of ‘church’ may come into focus is around the concept and practice of community.  A focus on community is like trying to see at night.  If a person looks straight at an object in the night, using the eyes’ cones, the person will not see it as well as when he or she looks with his or her peripheral vision, using the eyes’ rods on the side of the eye.  In dim light, one sees better with the rods than with the cones.  Valuing community, we might think that focusing directly on community is the best thing.  The church might focus on community worship and fellowship (from tea and coffee after the service to potlucks to multiculturalism).  If a church really wants to build community, however, the church should focus on something else to the side, such as truth and actions.  People who are not likely drawn to one another through interests in sermons, music, and fellowship can be drawn together around the truth that they hold and the actions that they plan as a community.

‘Race’ is something that straddles the line between community and ideal.  It is, of course, a communal term.  It can, however, be treated as an ideal.  Thus, when put into straight-on vision, the community may achieve what it wants, such as a multicultural church worship service in an urban mega-church (reflecting the demographics of the city).  The issue that arises with this focus, however, is whether this becomes the defining ideal—a multicultural church (or seminary or mission agency)—or whether it is the result in that context of some other ideals.  While uncomfortable using the term ‘ideal’ here, it has been helpful because what is being suggested does not only apply to the church/Church.  It could apply, e.g., to revolutionary movements.  Applied to the Church, however, we would replace the word ‘ideal’ with the truth that is the person of Jesus Christ--who he is and what he has done.  What draws people together in a better way—not with better numbers, necessarily, but in what is truly better?  A focus on Christ.  If the focus is on being the city’s multicultural church, this ideal may replace a focus on Christ alone.  Thus, if communal concerns, including race, are put into peripheral vision and Christ is put into the straight-on vision, any community that is built—and it will be—will be built around the centrality of Jesus Christ as Lord.

The ‘welcoming church’ makes the point.  In the age of Western culture’s fixation on sexuality and gender, some communities have taken to advertising themselves as ‘welcoming’ churches; churches, that is, that will not call for a Biblical or historic Christian teaching on sexuality and gender.  Rather, they will focus on community and push Scripture and the historic Church into the periphery (even being critical of it).  This is, actually, the definition of a cult: a community that shifts the focus from Christ, his person and his work, to something peripheral, even extraneous to the Christian faith.  A cult shifts to a new standard (e.g., not Scripture but some ideology) and a new centre (e.g., not Christ but some activist agenda).  The racial focus in some Christian communities raises the same concern.  Are people drawn into fellowship from different groups because they are baptized into Christ or because they want to be multi-cultural?

If I have here focussed on the dangers of a community emphasis that is not Christ-centred, there is more to say about a community focus on activism over faith.  A brief consideration of politics is necessary since the discussion of race easily turns political.

Politics

It is one thing to have a particular understanding of race and a particular ethic regarding race, it is yet another thing to think politically about race.  Different political arrangements will interact differently with views on race.  A laissez-faire political perspective and practice will be quite the opposite of a totalitarian enforcement of certain views.  A more totalitarian approach to government and race may take on the form of a ‘racist government’, such as the fascist-leaning Apartheid government of the Nationalist Party in South Africa, or a reverse racism movement, such as has developed in South Africa post-Apartheid or now in America.  The politics of race has taken a decidedly Marxist turn, sometimes expressed as ‘critical race theory’.  The theory is based in several thinkers associated with the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism and now extended to race.

A totalitarian political approach looks for ways to use the power of government to enforce certain views.  This requires an institution—government—with enough power to enforce the vision for society, somewhere along the lines of socialism, communism, and fascism.  The strong arm of the state uses its power to reform society (as in Plato’s Republic, Friedrich Engels’ and Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, Mao Zedong’s The Little Red Book, or Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf—the last being openly racist).

Alternatively, when the state is not prepared to act or act radically or quickly enough, certain people still turn to the use of power by forming a movement.  Movements that focus not so much on ideals but on action are less defined in terms of their ideals: they are more focused on present action to reshape society.  When movements use power rather than influence or invitation, and when they exist to topple a culture, they might be called totalitarian movements.  They typically pay more attention to tearing down than to what they will build in the wake of their destruction.  They may embrace other movements with which they share little in common if they, too, want to tear down the present society—they will leave their disagreements to the side until later.  The toppling of statues of persons who owned slaves or fought for the South in the American Civil War or of Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, and so forth, has a selective focus and appears somewhat virtuous, except for the unsettling facts that there is some violence, there is an undemocratic approach to the process, the actions are not only symbolic attacks on racism but also on culture, and there is little realistic vision for the future.  In other words, all the elements of a totalitarian, cultural Marxism are on display but ostensibly around a single cause that seems so virtuous.  Those who think the issue really is simply about racism are strongly deluded.

What is really going on is a post-Christian deconstruction of Western society through a Marxist movement,  This is evident not only on the streets but in the legislature, judiciary, educational system—every institutional pillar of Western society—including the Church.  To understand this, consider the Marxist movement advocated by the Italian, Antonio Gramsci, in the early part of the 20th century.  His vision for revolution is being played out in the West, particularly in America, at this time. 

In ‘Our Marx’, Gramsci rejects Marxism as an ideology to follow and sees it as a movement.  He reduces Marx to the call, ‘Workers of the world, unite!’[3]  In ‘The Revolution against Capital,’ he explains that the thinking of Marx involved a programmatic unfolding that the Bolsheviks of Russia have superseded:

The Bolsheviks reject Karl Marx, and their explicit actions and conquests bear witness that the canons of historical materialism are not so rigid as one might have thought and has been believed.[4] 

In other words, activism supersedes theory or ideals--utopia.  (Similarly, the liberation theologian, Gustavo GutiĆ©rrez, said that theology is something to do after sundown—it is for a reflective moment after a day’s activism.)[5]  A progressive development of change is only for normal times.  Also, since ‘men are lazy, they need to be organized.’[6]  Gramsci’s thought is less a theory than a call to action.  Under normal conditions, the source of social unrest begins with a drive for improvement and acceleration of production that results in (1) persons who ‘fall by the wayside’, creating an (2) urgency, such that the ‘masses are forever in a state of turmoil.’  This chaos then leads to (3) some order of thoughts, people become aware of their own potential to ‘shoulder social responsibility and become the arbiters of their own destiny.’[7]  The Russian Revolution, however, ‘galvanized the people’s will…almost overnight’[8] because they were facing hunger and imminent death.  Gramsci then focusses on the need to create a crisis to move development along immediately, noting that this will cause hardships, but ones the people will have to bear.  (December 2021 Note: This tactic is being used by the Left in America with unregulated immigration, a self-inflicted energy crisis, lockdowns due to Covid, proliferation of unchecked crime, freeing of prisoners, defunding the police, fomenting of racial tensions, measures undermining the economy, supply chain problems, etc.  The greater the hardships, the more governmental power can grow and the people become dependent, needing if not desiring big government socialism.)

We see today that American totalitarian movements are using a racial narrative as a means to effect social change.  They are doing so by action in the streets, breaking laws rather than depending on government and its forces (the police) to bring about worthy change.  They have less focus on what they wish to build than on what they wish to tear down.  Most importantly, they are willing to use violence to bring about social instability as a means to bring about social reform.  The official movement, Black Lives Matter, has a racial focus, but its statement of beliefs has a much more radical agenda for social reform.  As a movement, it has shown itself to be open to violence.  By focusing on race in its public slogan, it has pulled in numerous people for support who would not be supportive of their broader social agenda that involves reforming sex and gender, family, and economics and, most likely, everything in society.  Disinformation about the movement and vagueness as to their means and agendas allow them to carry on the present work of ‘cancelling’ culture.

In ‘Discipline,’ Gramsci says, ‘Bourgeois discipline is mechanical and authoritarian,’ whereas ‘socialist discipline is autonomous and spontaneous.’[9]  This is simply a distinction between institutional and operational means of reform.  He calls for autonomous discipline—a rejection of external and a following of self- or internal discipline.  Thus,

the discipline of the Socialist Party makes the subject into a citizen: a citizen who is now rebellious, precisely because he has become conscious of his personality and feels it is shackled and cannot freely express itself in the world.[10] 

The goal is the aggressive conquest, undermining of privilege, and preparation for the final struggle.[11]  The fight is against the state, which represents the ‘economic-political organization of the bourgeois class.’[12]  The Socialist Party understands its ultimate purpose to organize production and exchange, not to be a different voice in the same mode of government of the bourgeoisie.[13]  Before entering into this role, it seeks to undermine the political system, dominated by the bourgeois government, through class struggle.  The goal is control, not the free competition of all social forces that capitalism wants.  In the latter,

Merchants compete for markets, bourgeois groupings compete for the government, the two classes compete for the state.  Merchants seek to create monopolies behind protective legislation.[14]

Gramsci criticizes utopianism, with its understanding of history as a natural evolution over time.  Instead, history should be made through action, with freedom its tool to bring about the deconstruction of past and present forces: ‘freedom is the inner force in history, exploding every preestablished schema.’[15]  This actionism requires a transitional dictatorship to oversee the process, but it is one of spontaneity, not utopia, and involves continual development in which true freedom lives.[16]

By considering Gramsci’s activist Marxism, we can better understand the current cultural movements that seek to bring about cultural revolution and their use of race as a catalyst to accomplish a grand, albeit undefined, social change.  One might further consider the purposes of the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism and critical theory, especially where it is applied to race.  Sadly, many Evangelicals in America at this time have simply jumped onto the wagons carting the present culture to the guillotines in central square.  Their ignorance, if that is what it is, is astounding.  Little do they know that the Marxist movements on the street have Christians on their lists of ‘enemies of the state’.  They are far too eager to identify themselves as ‘anti-racist’ without understanding what this fully means in the current political movements.  ‘Anti-racist’ does not mean being against racism, it means, at best, reverse racism—which is a version of racism, as we can see in the charge of ‘white privilege’ and 'white fragility' and the intersectionality that is promoted. (We hear, ‘You need more non-white authors on your syllabus’; ‘You need to hire a person of colour;’ etc.  This is what happens when Evangelicals lose connection to theological traditions, no longer think denominationally, lack an ecclesiology, and replace missions with identity politics).  They sign up to ‘black lives matter’ without any awareness of what the official movement intends, not sure if they should capitalize the slogan or not.[17]  They want to virtue signal by denouncing racism, unaware that denouncing racism in the Marxist movement of today itself involves a racist agenda that is deconstructive, attacking culture outright and promoting a racist ‘intersectionalism’ (promoting certain groups over others, including denouncing the white race and culture and requiring of it a perpetual obeisance).  It is a significant step on the road to cultural Marxism; it will be followed by others and soon include personal denunciations, if the French Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution are any precedent.  Instead of realizing how these movements are setting themselves up for the persecution of the Church, they identify with them in order to appear virtuous in society.  And who wants to be a racist in the first place?  Yet their ignorance of political theory and cultural will land them squarely in the racism of tomorrow, with its persecution of Christians as well.

Conclusion

The only solution for Christians is to refuse to view individuals in terms of race.  The promotion of racism, racialism, and reverse racism are all anti-Christian in that they see individuals through racial lenses.  Moreover, the West’s current focus on race is by no means a virtuous movement tearing down racism.  On the contrary, totalitarian Marxists are using race to foster social unrest that will then propel society into a new society that will itself use its power to persecute others, including Christians.  Racial concerns may arise—as they did in the Jerusalem church—and may need attention—as that church did (Acts 6).  Yet the focus given in the Jerusalem church to this matter—appointing Hellenists to serve in the church in order to guarantee fair distribution to Hellenistic Jews—further led to mission to Ethiopians and Samaritans.  Ultimately, it was the missional focus, not simply the community focus, that provided the right balance in the Church’s early ecclesiology.  Paul’s mission to the Gentiles proved to be the definitive action regarding ethnic divisions, and missions keeps the Church in focus rather than eclipses the Church in a ‘social justice’ concern that calls on Christians to provide a general solution for society at large.  Missionary outreach was the key.  Making race the object of concern has the danger of turning the community into a movement that does not bring all people to Christ but that celebrates diversity itself with or without Christ.  Worse, it celebrates the intersectionality of reverse racism.  Still worse, this iconoclasm is part of a much larger movement of cultural Marxism that seeks, like Black Lives Matter, to topple all the statues of Western culture, including those set up by Christianity.  Satan’s third temptation of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (ch. 4) was to rule all the kingdoms of the world if He would but fall down and worship him.  The Church today is being tempted to adopt the cultural Marxism of a post-Christian society, enticed by the issue of racial ‘justice’, if it will but fall down and worship it.



[1] An overview article that would help get readers oriented to the issues and authors who get behind the political agenda and to the data has been provided by Peter Jones, ‘Only Five Black Lives Matter?’ Truthxchange; available online at: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwJWrgDPLcrwNkscJtvwpgknLkB (accessed July 20, 2020).

[2] My biography addresses ministry during this time.  See Rollin G. Grams, Stewards of Grace: A Reflective, Mission Biography of Eugene and Phyllis Grams in South Africa, 1951-1962 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2010).

[3] The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916-1935, ed. David Forgacs (New York: New York University, 2000), p. 36.

[4] Ibid. 33.

[5] He says, ‘What Hegel used to say about philosophy can likewise be applied to theology: it rises at sundown. The pastoral activity of the Church does not flow as a conclusion from theological ~remises. Theology does not produce pastoral activity; rather it reflects upon it’ (A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Press, 1988), p. 9).

[6] Gramsci Reader, p. 34.

[7] Ibid. 34.

[8] Ibid. p. 34.

[9] Ibid. p. 32.

[10] Ibid. p. 32.

[11] Ibid. p. 39.

[12] Ibid. p. 40.

[13] Ibid. p. 41.

[14] Ibid. p. 43-44.

[15] Ibid. p. 50.

[16] Ibid. pp. 50-51.

[17] Candler School of Theology’s white faculty offers a good example of what is taking place, although it is not Evangelical but liberal Methodist.  They wrote a letter of apology (June 18, 2020) that is worth reading to get a sense of how reverse racism is expressed and how it would look at an Evangelical faculty if this cultural Marxism finds receptive soil among Evangelicals.  See  https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/candleraction/.


Some Characteristics of the West's Postmodern Tribalism

Western tribalism shares certain characteristics with all tribalism, but it is also different.  The similarities and differences will be explored here.

Tribalism has to do with group identity versus universal identity.  Pre-Modernity’s language of universal human nature and Modernity’s language of rights give way to the discussion of wrongs done to some tribal groups by other tribal groups.  This is partly because Postmodernity gives up on defining the essence of what it means to be human and focusses instead on mere existence.  Existentialism, the philosophical perspective contributing to Postmodernity, is best described as that philosophical understanding of human life that denies that there is an essential reality and only an existential reality for humanity: existence precedes essence.  One version of this conviction is now playing out in Western culture: the denial of a universal human essence and a focus on the relationship of groups.  Tribal identity is being pursued in its Western form in terms of intersectionality, identity politics, and cancel culture.  Christians, on the other hand, maintain that all are equal before God both in terms of being created by Him and in terms of His mission in the world.  Instead of vilifying the enemy, Christians are called to love and pray for their enemies so that they may be like God (Matthew 5.44), who desires that all people might be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2.4).  Western tribalism uses shaming as a power for ostracism and to effect social change; Christians offer forgiveness, grace, mercy, and love.

Tribalism reasons anecdotally.  Anecdotal reasoning is compelling when one has an already constructed conclusion.  Counter-examples are simply dismissed, whereas anecdotes that confirm the conclusion are considered sufficient evidence.  One of the many expressions of Western tribalism is an official movement, Black Lives Matter, which feeds off of emotionally charged incidents of violence that either are or are perceived as racially motivated abuse of black people.   Several commentators on contemporary society also produce anecdotal evidence to support their conclusion that these are proof of a more widespread, institutional racism throughout Western, particularly American, culture. 

Racism, especially institutional or widespread racism, would, of course fit the thesis that the problem in the West is a Postmodern tribalism.  It is an excellent example of tribalism.  This would, however, be a far too simplistic understanding of the issues facing Western culture.  Moreover, this author believes that, despite obvious racism in certain cases and contexts (and that in all racial groups), it is neither systemic nor widespread.[1]  The analysis that it is, however, has been so forcefully asserted that to dispute it is considered racist.  Moreover, this diagnosis and treatments for the disease have very likely made this an additional symptom of Western tribalism—these ‘doctors’ have compounded the disease.  The claim that the primary issue is one of institutional racism is itself a feature of Western tribalism—the insistence on seeing the situation as an issue of tribal divisions (racism).  Racism is a worldview that sees everything in terms of race.  A tribal view sees matters in terms of immutable factors, such as race.  The ‘proof’ of institutional racism is anecdotal, but it is a very long way from there to claiming that an entire society is structurally racist.

Christians need to resist the pressure to see the world through classifications that define people in groups and then values and disvalues them accordingly.  This is not to deny that groups exist or that some groups may be worse than others—there is such a thing as a ‘failed culture’, as we see in the Genesis stories of the culture in Noah’s day or of Sodom and Gomorrah or the Canaanites when Israel enters the land, or Israel itself when God sends it into exile for decades.  However, Christians are called on to regard the world as a whole, not just certain groups, as sinful and yet also as loved by God.  The message of salvation does not deny the depravity of fallen humanity.  ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,’ says Paul (Romans 3.23).  The dividing line among people is not by countries, races, and cultures but between those in Christ and those outside of Christ.  Jesus says, ‘For God loved the world in this way, that He gave His only Son, so that, whoever believes in Him might not be destroyed but have eternal life’ (John 3.16, my translation).  Thus, Christians see the tribal and all other divisions of humanity as accidental rather than definitive; the difference is between those in Christ and those not.  As Paul says, ‘If anyone is in Christ, New Creation!  Old things have passed away; behold, new things have come!’ (2 Corinthians 5.17, my translation).  Those outside of Christ are to be seen as persons to be invited in, through the cross, by which we are all saved.

If one were to replace the word ‘white’ where the word ‘black’ appears on the Black Lives Matter’s website, anyone thinking from the perspective that all are creatures created equal by God or persons God wants to save would label it as a racist organization.  There is a difference between racism in a Modernist and racism in a Postmodernist society.  In the case of white racism, the claim of racism could be made from the universalist perspective of Modernity.  Privileging one race over another, given a Modernist assumption that Creation or nature assures us that all are equal, is understood as ‘racism’.  In the case of Black Lives Matter, given its Postmodern, tribalist worldview, the notion changes: those who do not privilege black identity over white identity are the racists.  To make this argument work, one has to do two things: privilege black identity and deplore ‘white privilege’.[2]  Thus, the meaning of ‘racism’ changes, and it does so in such a way that a Christian or Modernist view would see the Postmodern Tribalist view as racist, and the latter would see the previous view as racist.  This point has not been appreciated as it needs to be.  Most do not think clearly enough about how virtues and values change as we move from Modernity to Postmodernity, but this is essential to do.  Racism now means not saying ‘Black Lives Matter’ and not denouncing ‘white privilege’.

For Christians, privilege is recognized as a reality.  It is a neutral term, since people may have gained what they have through corruption, advantage, and theft or through hard work, birth, and blessing.  Privilege is not treated as negative in Scripture; it is not an occasion for guilt and condemnation, as it might be in a Marxist ideology (cf. the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia as an example).  Two appropriate responses to privilege are thanksgiving and responsibility:

Thanksgiving: ‘I say to the Lord, You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you…. The lines have fallen for me in good places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance’ (Psalm 16.1, 6).

Responsibility: ‘Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more’ (Luke 12.48).

Tribalism is also a constructed identity.  Who is to say what membership requirements are?  In the case of Black Lives Matter—perhaps surprising to many—their literature affirms a selection of identities that are not logically connected.[3]  It is not just about racist brutality against black people and has virtually nothing in common with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  The movement intends to reshape society as a whole.  It is fundamentally an expression of social Marxism (‘Critical Theory’), a Marxist revolution aimed not first at economic revolution (though that is on the agenda) but first at social revolution.  Critical Theory in the form of Black Lives Matter aims to reform the entire society by opposing kinship families, the reality of binary genders (male and female), advocating for homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, and black identity in what can only be seen as racist itself if one’s believes in nature or Creation as foundational.[4]  In fact, saying ‘Every life matters’ is, from this identity perspective, racist.

Tribalism needs its own historical narrative to justify and make sense of its identity politics.  Richard West’s Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia points out that tribal (my term) factions in the Balkans (especially Catholic Croat, Orthodox Serbian, and Muslim Bosnians or Kosovars) reinforced their opposition to one another in stories, ballads, poems, etc.[5]  Narratives are virtue-defining.  The same virtue means different things depending on which underlying narrative fills it with meaning, as Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas demonstrated several decades ago.[6]  If so, Christians need to be careful to distinguish their understandings of virtues and vices by the same name from what is meant by the culture’s definitions.  To do so, they need to understand both their formative and foundational Biblical narratives and the relationship of these to their understanding of virtues and vices.  The language of class struggle and violent overthrow in Marxist ideology is fundamentally opposed to the Christian narrative of the cross.  Any narrative that fails to identify the universality of sin and that does not offer forgiveness will be oppressive and violent.  Its concept of justice, lacking mercy, will be distorted.  Christian protest is better made through the radical existence of the Church, an alternative society or ‘third race’, as early Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries would say.

Tribalism forms alliances to strengthen its hegemony and counter opposing forces.  An example is how certain companies voice support for this or that identity, which shuts out any dissension from within the company and hardens the alliance around ideological views.  For example, Yorkshire Tea and PG Tips have recently stated their support of Black Lives Matter.[7]  This connection between economic resources or the marketplace and politically correct views is described in Revelation 13.26-28.  They do not want any disagreeing with them to purchase their product.  These are just the latest examples in a long list of ‘politically correct’ (or, as the new term is, ‘woke’) companies.  The power of the marketplace is being used to enforce compliance—typical of tribal politics.  Today, Western culture is controlled through some new or altered, compelling narratives.  One is the narrative of ‘toxic masculinity’.  Another is the narrative of ‘racism’.  This narrative is somewhat different today in that it is told not in reference to the progress of the United States as freedom and equality were increasingly extended to different groups (religious freedom of pilgrims to America, American colonies from England, emancipation of slaves, women’s suffrage, the sexual revolution, civil rights, and then other applications of the narrative to abortion rights, homosexuality, and transgenderism).  Now, the narrative is told in tribal terms, as in the Balkans.  Everyone remains—is kept—in their identities, with old hatreds stoked by the memory of unpardonable sins in generations long past.

Because tribalism works from the goal of identity politics backwards to any interaction with facts, it regularly manipulates the facts.  Facts must not be allowed to undermine identity politics.  The myth supports the movement and must be maintained against any facts.  When Cornell University Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic, William A. Jacobson, challenged the facts of the case of a particular case in June, 2020, he was immediately denounced. He may or may not have been correct—that is not the point.  What is relevant is that Eduardo PeƱalver, Dean of Cornell Law School, pilloried Jacobson with no reference to the facts of the matter but with affective language focused on outcomes: he spoke of ‘broad and categorical aspersions’, ‘the values’ of the University (including ‘diversity and inclusion’, support for ‘racial justice’, and the perceived conflicting values of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘job security’), and ‘offensive’ views that were ‘poorly reasoned’.[8]  Facts do not need to be assessed when all that matters is the politically correct conclusion.  Aspersions suffice—in academia.  (I have no view on the matter and am just observing how the argument was presented.)  This is the nature of a Postmodern dialogue.  If truth is local and constructed, the facts are not the focus.  For Christians, facts do matter.  History matters.  Science matters.  Truth matters.

Tribalism has in common with other authoritarian systems the need to tell its own version of history.  Where history challenges the tribe’s narrative, it needs to be ‘cancelled’.  Enter Western tribalism’s ‘cancel culture’.  Undesirable statues and monuments have to be torn down or defaced, not unlike the Taliban destroying ancient relics of bygone eras.  Unacceptable movies must no longer be shown.  Cultural artifacts are deemed either good or bad—there is no mixture and no middle ground.  George Washington cannot be the ‘father’ of the United States of America and a slaveholder, even if he treated them well in a slave culture and freed them in his will.  Today’s standard will judge all of history.  Not only is the past destroyed, but the present, street-judges of culture offer themselves as the embodiment of virtue casting the first stone.  This utopianism, familiar to any understanding Marxism, offers itself as a false Kingdom to the Kingdom of God.

Tribalism cannot allow free speech.  As indicated in the example from Cornell University, academic freedom of professors is a conflicting value for tribalism.  It is a holdover from a previous era.  It seems to be maintained out of a value for keeping promises (the promise in contracts made to senior faculty) more than the value of free speech, which was not mentioned.  Yet there are many examples of an out-and-out attack on free speech.  Indeed, freedom is not a value of tribalism, which is more comfortable with authoritarian control of everything, including speech.  This is one of the major changes in American values.  Free speech, and freedom, in the West was largely formed from Christian values because faith was not something that could be forced on people.  People had to be converted—come to faith.  Genuine faith was a choice.  Western tribalism shares with radical Islam the need to make others submit.  A tinge of this perspective has reached Evangelical churches in the West, where ministers place on their congregations the culture’s narrative of racism and white privilege requiring submission in guilt and self-castigation.  This constructed narrative needs to be challenged, however, and if it does apply to anyone in the congregation, it needs to be handled pastorally, not through politically correct, group identity.

Indeed, in tribal society, the individual’s identity is subsumed under the tribe’s identity.  This works against Western notions of individualism, freedom, and equality.  The tribe expects conformity, and not just passively.  Individuals need to demonstrate their enthusiasm for the community and, especially, for the leaders’ decisions in the community.  Instead of calls for the freedom of conscience, there is a notion that ‘silence is violence’ (slogans are also highly valued).  This is different from believing that not saying something when there is injustice is complicity with injustice.  The latter is like God’s statement in Habakkuk: ‘You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?’ (1.13).  The difference with tribalism is in the external control: people are told that the agenda of the tribe is just, and their involvement is expected more from a political than a moral standpoint: ‘If you are not for us, you are against us.’  When exiles and slaves took over the Capitol and citadel in Rome in 460 BC, those unwilling to participate in the conspiracy were put to the sword (Livy, History of Rome 3.15-16; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 10.14-17).  The radical group’s cause is self-righteous and justifies violent, destructive activities.  On the other hand, Isaiah, in his experience of God’s holiness, could only respond, ‘Woe is me!  For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!’ (Isaiah 6.5).  The Postmodern tribalist condemns others in light of the tribe’s self-righteousness.  Pictures of the revolutionaries during the French Revolution, in Marxist revolutions, in Cambodia, in Rwanda, and now in the violent destruction in America could not contrast more with Isaiah’s experience.

Tribalism may start out passively, but it soon becomes coercive, aggressive, and disciplinary.  It is not enough to have safe spaces designated for people to get away from the perceived violent speech of others—which is what we heard just a few years ago on college campuses.  Now, these others, with their perceived ‘hate speech’, need to be silenced.  Violence may be used for the good cause, as the waves of the French Revolution insisted.

All speech is political in tribal thinking.  If we think that there is such a thing as truth, one can value free speech.  This is partly because things can get sorted out, the truth will come out eventually, and free speech in public debate (the free exchange of ideas) helps people move along to the truth.  If, however, there is no objective truth but only political speech, then speech is not about truth but about power and control.  Opponents must not simply be silenced but also denied, denounced, and removed.  University professors who do not toll the line are either silenced or dismissed.  History, for that matter, must be rewritten.

A tribal take-over of another group involves totally remaking the other society.  If the others are not put to death or enslaved, they must be made to conform.  The coerciveness of tribalism was famously described in George Orwell’s 1984.  The winning tribe will define speech and rename things, just as masters in ancient Greece would rename individuals they purchased as slaves.  In more contemporary times, cities and streets and airports must be renamed.  Statues are torn down.  Whether one might be happy to see some such changes or not, the key characteristic of ‘revision’ is in the air, and the group decides what to denounce.  In the French Revolution, the days of the week were even renamed.

Tribalism is not, of course, democratic.  The powerful exert their power over others.  In Western tribalism, the mob is currently the power—it has anarchist and anti-authoritarian characteristics that may well be exchanged for totalitarianism in short order.  Either way, there is no voting on whether this or that statue should be removed: those assuming power and allowed to roam the streets with immunity simply seize the power.  This denies individuals the freedom to be moral (or immoral) themselves: they are given no choice.  There is no concern, as Immanuel Kant said that there should be, for the willing of good actions if they are to be moral.  Intentions are unnecessary; the tribe tells you what is to be done.  Christians, on the contrary, recognize that the problem of sin is not just actions but the heart—the entire Bible is the story of the need for God to change the hearts of sinful men and women.  Trying to make bad people do good things, as the social justice movement (e.g., Walter Rauschenbusch) in the early 20th century intended to do, is a recipe for more evil.  When the need is for changed hearts, coercion cannot make bad people good but will only make people in charge worse.

While Western tribalism shares so much in common with other forms of tribalism, it is notably different in its combination of power with victimhood.  Victimhood has become a source of power in the West.  This would not work in other societies, where those with power make others the victims.  The difference might have something to do with a history of entitlement.  The logic runs, ‘If my group was previously not in power and felt abused or actually was abused, we were victims of others.  Therefore, those in power must be removed and the victims given power.’  One additional piece is needed for this perspective: it is not just a matter of politics but also of ethics.  If in Africa there might be an old adage, ‘It’s now my turn to eat’ when a previous regime is overturned, in the West the concept of justice has become, ‘The marginalized are the just.’  Look, however, at the corrupt regimes that have replaced past colonial powers: wicked people simply exchange chairs and reap the benefits.  Righteous opposition to colonial powers has never translated into righteous rule by post-colonial powers.

What is so amazing is the difference between early Postmodernity, with its values of diversity and inclusivity, and late Postmodernity, with its tribalism.  If this trajectory progresses, the next stage is a tyranny of an oligarchy or of a tyrant.  It need not be an atheistic, Western form of tyranny.  In some parts of Europe, it may well be Islamic.  Currently, however, the Western, post-Christian utopia is forming along anti-Christian lines from an atheistic worldview.



[1] This is not part of my argument, however.  I leave it to others to make this point, as they have so well—persons such as Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, and Victor Davis Hanson.  People may need to repent of racism—if they are guilty of this, it would be good to confess and repent.  The claim of widespread or institutional racism, however, would need to be argued over against such scholars, not by dismissing them.

[2] Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, White Moral Responsibility, and Social Justice Pedagogy (Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2011).

[3] Readers who are not aware of this might benefit from a quick overview by Albert Mohler, Jr., ‘Black Lives Matter: Affirm the Sentence, Not the Movement,’ Public Discourse (June 18, 2020); online at: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65132/.

[5] Richard West, Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia (London: Bloomsbury House, 1996).  See chapter 1.

[6] Cf. Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theology, 3rd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2007; 1st ed., 1981) and Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1988); Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1983).  Both authors have written much on the subject, but these are some of the key works for someone beginning to explore their arguments about narrative and virtue.

[8] The language is from Dean by Eduardo PeƱalver on Cornell University’s website: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/spotlights/Statement-on-Prof-William-Jacobson-and-Academic-Freedom.cfm; accessed 6/12/2020.


The Second Week of Advent: Preparing for the peace of God

[An Advent Homily] The second Sunday in Advent carries the theme, ‘preparation for the peace of God’.   That peace comes with the birth of C...

Popular Posts