Finding a “racialized” friend in Jesus
By Jojo Ruba
Is your church truly anti-racist? That is the title of an article written by Ambrose University sociology professor Monetta Bailey and sent to me by a friend of our ministry. In light of what Prof. Bailey had written, my friend wanted to know what we thought about the ongoing debate on race and society.
As a Christian worldview and apologetics ministry, FBB has worked hard to address these issues. I recently did a podcast with our Quebec associate, Ricardo Fortune, who shared about his own experience with racism (and helped edit this blog). Two of our guest writers have also blogged about racism (see here and here), and we have plans to do more. Though we may not always agree as a team about how to navigate through every aspect of race relations, we all agree the church must confront the sin of racism.
Reading Prof. Bailey’s piece reminds me that Christians must always start with a Biblical worldview, because nothing in her article seems to indicate that she would agree. Her advice on how the church can be “truly-anti-racist” never once references scripture.
One passage she could have referenced is a strange but instructive conversation Jesus had with a Gentile woman in the gospel of Mark. This Syrophoenician woman, as she is called, wanted Him to heal her demon-possessed daughter. The conversation is weird to modern eyes because the story seems to show Jesus making a racial comment against her. The gospel of Mark records the interaction:
Then Jesus left Galilee and went north to the region of Tyre. He didn’t want anyone to know which house he was staying in, but he couldn’t keep it a secret. Right away a woman who had heard about him came and fell at his feet. Her little girl was possessed by an evil spirit, and she begged him to cast out the demon from her daughter. Since she was a Gentile, born in Syrian Phoenicia, Jesus told her, “First I should feed the children—my own family, the Jews. It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.”
She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even the dogs under the table are allowed to eat the scraps from the children’s plates.” “Good answer!” he said. “Now go home, for the demon has left your daughter.” And when she arrived home, she found her little girl lying quietly in bed, and the demon was gone (Mark 7:24-30 NLT).
This passage primarily teaches a lesson on the importance of persistence, but we should not ignore its racial component. Here was a male Jewish healer and rabbi whose culture taught that even being with a Gentile could make Him unclean. It would have been normal to hear Jewish rabbis refer to Gentiles as “dogs” in a derogatory way. Scholars even point out that Jewish people of the day viewed dogs as one of the most unclean animals. But we expect more of Jesus. Why would He use such racially polarizing and potentially hurtful language? I think this conversation teaches several things that Prof. Bailey’s article overlooks.
““I have to say that I think [Prof. Bailey] is missing something very important, namely that differing races and cultures are gifts to the world from God.”
First, Prof. Bailey writes that churches must be explicit in their condemnation of racism—which I agree with, but then her article makes it seem that church policies should prioritize racial equality above all else.
“All institutions, including churches, need to be explicit about their anti-racist message. It is not enough to say you are supportive of racial diversity or that you don’t see race. Colourblindness as a practice maintains the status quo of racial domination. Search your policies, your doctrine, your preaching. How explicitly anti-racist are they?”
Of course, we need to be sympathetic to the fact that some people, including many Christians in the Black community, do feel the sting of racism more than others. And right now, people like our professor feel very much under attack because of their race. But I have to say that I think she is missing something very important, namely that differing races and cultures are gifts to the world from God. For example, my Filipino culture is very important to me and more importantly, to God. I think God gives the world a variety of cultural practices and racial heritages as a way to show His good design.
Everything good comes from God, and things like family heritage or cultural traditions are often ways to learn how God’s created order works. This includes things like the way some cultures honour their elders while other cultures work to create sustainable environments. Another example is how leaders in the African American community are helping the western church understand the need for racial reconciliation by communicating to us the experience and pain of black Americans.
But is the solution to only see church policies through the lens of race? Why not look at other factors such as gender, age, or geography? And just because a church does not explicitly encourage ethnic diversity, does that make its policies racist? I’m Filipino and I attend an explicitly Filipino church. Is Prof. Bailey saying that in the name of diversity we should cease being a Filipino community? We welcome everyone who comes to worship, of course, but as first and second-generation immigrants we still feel the need to hear our heart language in worship and eat our food as we fellowship together at our local church. This does not mean we should not grow to appreciate others beyond our cultural enclave, but I don’t think our lack of “diversity” makes us racist. In fact, the fastest growing churches in Canada are still churches like mine which attract people from a single ethnic community.
“[Jesus] was himself a victim of Roman racism. To the Romans, Jews were seen as inferior, which means Jesus knew the pain of being de-humanized through racism, and He also knew the temptation to de-humanize others through racial pride.”
Second, we should note that even though Jesus lived in a time in which racial prejudice prevailed, He did not shy away from racial discussions. Thus, His life more than any other provides a template for the racial discussions we need—something Prof. Bailey does not mention. In the Mark passage, Jesus did not ignore the racism and injustice around him. Not only was His culture racist against Gentiles, He was himself a victim of Roman racism. To the Romans, Jews were seen as inferior, which means Jesus knew the pain of being de-humanized through racism, and He also knew the temptation to de-humanize others through racial pride.
Jesus confronted the racial tension of His day head on. His phrase about dogs would have been well-known to this Gentile woman who lived around Jews. As she sought for a Jewish rabbi to heal her daughter, she had likely heard it used to describe herself. So, when Jesus used the phrase while speaking to her it was likely for the purpose of getting her to explain why she would search for help from someone outside her race. Until Jesus used a “racist” term He had no idea what attitude she was bringing to the discussion. His question, then, helped her acknowledge their shared human nature. He gave her a way to agree that at bottom all of us need one another.
The outcome of the story shows that Jesus was not endorsing any kind of prejudice. The very fact He was willing to converse with her shows His compassion for her situation. But Jesus did not make the conversation just about race. He also made the conversation about something more important—her faith. What she believed about Him was much more important than her race or ethnicity.
Interestingly, Prof. Bailey never once mentions that the church should first teach the necessity of personal transformation (the new birth), through a living faith in Christ. Of course, we should speak out against racial prejudice, but we do so primarily for the sake of helping others find Christ. By not mentioning faith at all the professor risks portraying a relationship with Christ as secondary to a change in external behaviour. In fact, by insisting that Christians risk being racist, even if they don’t “intend to be,” she appears to deny the importance of being pure in heart:
“Definitions of racism no longer focus on the intention of the actor but rather the impact of the action. Yes, this means that you can be racist without meaning to, and yes without knowing it. Any act, committed by a person who is afforded racial dominance by a society, which then contributes to the further domination of one race over another, is racist. Many people don’t like this because we like to think that our intentions are all that matter”
Ironically, this new definition of racism removes any moral component from individual behaviour, thus preventing racism from being treated as a sin. From Prof. Bailey’s point of view, racism becomes a mere behavior that has bad consequences on ethnic minorities. It can no longer be seen as a hateful disposition of the heart. According to her new definition, a person could love his black neighbor as himself and still be labeled racist. Yet in the passage that immediately precedes the story of His encounter with the Syrophoenician woman Jesus clearly teaches that sin starts in the heart (Mark 7:20-23). In fact, the Bible teaches that from God’s point of view intentions are the only things that matter. This is what Jesus meant when he elevated lust in the heart to the moral level of committing adultery (Mat. 5:27-30). Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount were revolutionary. For the first time sinful human beings were confronted with the realization that their thoughts and intentions, not just their actions, were sinful.
Can people do thoughtless and even harmful things around racial issues? Absolutely. But should we label people who intentionally perpetuate racial injustice by the same title as those who inadvertently make racially insensitive comments? When Jesus told the woman that He was there to take care of “His family—the Jews” He sounded like He was preferring one race over another. He could have added that Gentiles, like the Syrophoenician woman, were “afforded racial dominance” over Jews, and thus He had no requirement to encourage “further domination.”
But instead of making such general statements about race and then applying it to the person in front of Him Jesus listened to her persistent plea for her daughter. He listened to her need despite being a member of a different group. Are there broad racial issues that need to be dealt with? Of course, but Jesus shows that those issues have to be discussed in everyday conversations with the real people living around us. Moreover, race relations have to be lived out in practical interactions with individuals, not broad generalizations aimed at the “other” group.
Once when I was staying at a white friend’s house I got into a conversation with his mother. She was perfectly kind and generous, but she kept saying I was black. My friend explained to her that I was Asian and that Asians and blacks are not the same, but this didn’t seem to help as she kept talking this way. Her comments were ignorant, but as someone who had fed me and let me stay in her home I knew she wasn’t racist. As she got to know me, she did eventually stop calling me black. But in order to have her look beyond her racial stereotypes and see me as an individual, I needed to avoid labelling her as racist when she wasn’t.
Finally, Prof. Bailey demands that “racialized” people take the lead in conversations about race and urges her audience to make “racialized friends.” Of course, “Caucasian” is a race, so I’m assuming that by “racialized” she means people who have been racially stereotyped but who are not white. Ironically, by speaking this way she assumes that only white people will read her article and only white people need help to combat racism by making “racialized friends.”
Her advice makes sense if you only see the world through the eyes of race. But in Mark’s story, Jesus sees the situation differently. Why? Because He is looking through the eyes of grace. When the Syrophoenician woman accosted Him, He was tired, looking for a way to escape the Jews who were pleading for miracles of their own. This is why He and His disciples were travelling through Gentile areas, something Jews normally didn’t do. In light of this, He could have easily justified dismissing a pestering Gentile woman, and many of His disciples probably applauded (at least in their hearts) when He compared her to a dog.
But when the woman responded that even dogs eat the scraps off their masters’ tables, she indicated that she had faith that the Jewish Messiah could rescue her daughter. She accepted that her real need was Christ. Jesus commended her faith by healing her daughter and revealing that He was Lord, not just of the Jews, but also the Gentiles. Dr. R.C. Sproul writes in his commentary on this passage that, “…though we should be satisfied with crumbs, He is not satisfied with giving us crumbs. He has lavished His grace on us.”
As I have already stated, it makes me sad to realize that Prof. Bailey could write an entire article against racism and never once mention Jesus. She writes about needing to find “racialized” friends but never once mentions the need to bring Christ into race relations. Jesus felt the sting of racial prejudice as a member of an oppressed people, but He also knew what it meant to belong to a people who oppressed others. He never ignored racial issues. Instead, He established His body, the church, that has united all races under a new identity in Him.
“When people from different ethnic groups started following Christ and forming a separate community, the Antiochians derogatorily labelled them “Christians.” In other words, the church started as a place for true racial reconciliation in the body of Christ.”
It is interesting to note that the word “Christian” was first used in the ghettoized city of Antioch (Acts 11:19-21, 26; 13:1). When people from different ethnic groups started following Christ and forming a separate community, the Antiochians derogatorily labelled them “Christians.” In other words, the church started as a place for true racial reconciliation in the body of Christ.
None of this is meant to be dismissive of concerns about race and the church. We have real problems to deal with. But these issues cannot be solved if we think the solution begins with what we have done against each other and what we must then do for each other. Rather, the church must begin this conversation with what Jesus gave to that Gentile woman: hope that the solution for our racial problems, as well as all our problems, can be entrusted to the One who is the Messiah for every nation, tribe, and tongue.
Join us in our interactive online classroom. We will be running the condensed version of the Identity Project in our next Apologetics @ Home sessions. The Identity Project is designed to be a safe space to talk about topics such as sexuality, gender and pornography. The curriculum is designed to appeal to all ages, from pre-teens to seniors. The theme of the individual’s identity in Christ is foundational to the Christian faith. You will be glad you took the time.