I read a fascinating article in The Atlantic that explains that the collapse of every civilization often can be linked to two main drivers of instability: broad economic stagnation, and too many elites. Oxford researcher Peter Turchin explains:
“All human societies experience recurrent waves of political crisis, such as the one we face today. My research team built a database of hundreds of societies across 10,000 yearsto try to find out what causes them. We examined dozens of variables, including population numbers, measures of well-being, forms of governance, and the frequency with which rulers are overthrown. We found that the precise mix of events that leads to crisis varies, but two drivers of instability loom large. The first is popular immiseration—when the economic fortunes of broad swaths of a population decline. The second, and more significant, is elite overproduction—when a society produces too many superrich and ultra-educated people, and not enough elite positions to satisfy their ambitions. [emphasis added]”
In our current day, we know that many working class Americans have been left behind, but Turchin explains that even college-educated Americans aren’t doing well across the board anymore, because too many people have college degrees in comparison to the positions available to them (even in STEM fields). He writes: “Competition is healthy for society, in moderation. But the competition we are witnessing among America’s elites has been anything but moderate. It has created very few winners and masses of resentful losers. It has brought out the dark side of meritocracy, encouraging rule-breaking instead of hard work. All of this has left us with a large and growing class of frustrated elite aspirants, and a large and growing class of workers who can’t make better lives for themselves.”
Turchin goes on to explain using historical examples that the most likely ways that this tension will be resolved is either through a violent revolution that has the effect of wealth and status redistribution, or if elites are willing to “sacrifice their near-term self-interest for our long-term collective interests.”
And this is where InterVarsity comes in.
You see, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is a campus ministry that helps to disciple tens of thousands of college students at 700+ colleges and universities across America—representing the next batch of Turchin’s (potential) elites, entering an incredible competitive environment. Through Bible studies, worship, and discipleship, we work to help college students encounter the living Jesus and follow him in every area of their lives. But the thing about following Jesus, is that Jesus calls people repeatedly to love their neighbors, to forgo self-interest, to be willing to sell all their possessions and give to the poor, to love their enemies, to deign worldly status….in short, to be willing to give up all the trappings of being an “elite” and to instead identify with the meek, humble, and lowly. In InterVarsity we regularly study stories of the early church pooling their possessions and eliminating poverty; we reflect deeply on the dangers of the selfish pursuit of wealth and power. We hear how different Jesus’ Kingdom is compared to the kingdoms of this world. We encourage students to take practical steps to go outside of their elite college bubbles to serve the poor, to sacrifice for the sake of others, to work for justice for the oppressed. In short, InterVarsity is an institution uniquely poised to help potential elites to be willing to sacrifice their near-term self-interest for long term collective interests.
[I am describing InterVarsity because it is the organization I work for and know best. But any faithful Christian institution that follows Jesus’ teachings will hopefully guide its adherents to similar conclusions.]
Not everyone appreciates this aspect of following Jesus. In fact, it is this anti-elitist tendency within Christianity that the atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche especially despised. He labeled it as “slave morality” — a morality created by the weak, oppressed, and humiliated people of the world to feel better about themselves. He thinks this slave morality is an obstacle to true human flourishing, which he believed requires people with strong wills to dominate others and disregard any ethical limits. Nietzsche argued we need elite “Ubermen” to dominate and lead, lest the world collapse into mediocrity. (And of course, there are many who call themselves Christian who would agree with Nietzsche’s prescription for more strongmen). I obviously disagree with Nietzsche’s desire for more strongmen. But in terms of his diagnosis of Christian theology, I think Nietzsche is correct— the New Testament does indeed promote a version of “slave morality,” and passages like the Beatitudes or Philippians 2 illustrate that perfectly. In Philippians, Paul says we are to take on the mind of Christ, who made himself a slave. And if the Son of God took on the form a slave in order to suffer and die for others, then how much more so should we his followers be willing to forsake our own elite power, status, and possessions!
That said, if we assume Turchin’s analysis is correct, organizations such as InterVarsity are playing a small but key role in keeping America from a collapse into violent revolution. College graduates that are following Jesus might choose to exit the elite rat race and pursue less-glamorous alternative callings, thus filling gaps in the lower rungs of society and simultaneously making the elite economy less competitive. Others may remain elites but do so in alternative ways, such as by giving generously or leading their companies and institutions to pursue goals that benefit the world long-term (even if they are less profitable in the short-term). Politics can look different when the voters and candidates choose to love their enemies and seek the “shalom” of their cities rather than pursuing a strategy of divide and conquer. Even the most elite Christians can do a lot to serve the least of these: it was Bono who advocated for Jubilee debt forgiveness of African nations, and helped get the PEPFAR anti-AIDS program passed during the Bush administration which has already saved 25 million African lives.
None of this is to say that America’s trajectory can be corrected by a few thousand college graduates desperately trying to follow Jesus. Yet, just as a small bit of yeast can leaven a large batch of dough, it’s possible that the lives of a handful of faithful people refusing to live like the other elites might just be enough to turn the tide. Stranger things have happened.
For Christians, it is a core belief that God came in human flesh as Jesus and made himself known in a specific time and place — 1st Century C.E. Palestine. While Christians have long held that our beliefs can be translated into every language and culture (unlike other religions such as Islam, which holds the Q’aran is only the perfect word of Allah when it’s written in Arabic), it is nevertheless the case that one’s understanding of Jesus and his teachings will be enhanced if we bear in mind the contexts and cultures he was speaking to. There are two immediate ways that this must be applied. First, I strongly believe Christians need to increase their understanding of ancient Jewish laws, customs, and culture. Without that, Jesus’ references to things like Jubilee, Sabbath, and even his death on the cross during Passover lose much of their significance. I strongly believe that much of what makes Christianity unique and special is lost when we ignore the Jewish underpinnings of the New Testament.
However, the second cultural context that we must keep in mind is that of the Roman Empire, which by the time of Jesus had displaced the Greek empire and established control of the entire Mediterranean region. While in our time it has become fashionable in elite circles to jettison learning about the “Classics” in favor of non-Western perspectives, Christians of all backgrounds will always derive benefits from learning about ancient Greek and Roman culture because it is in that context that the New Testament was written. When Paul, Luke, Mark, and others write to their readers, they include many words, phrases, and concepts that are loaded with meaning that would have been commonly understood by those who lived in this Greco-Roman context, but that are harder for us modern readers to grasp. Thus while the Good News of Jesus is simple enough that even a child can understand it, modern adults can benefit from a more thorough understanding of Roman history and culture. Jesus could have come at another time in history (say, during the Babylonian or Persian empires), but he was born right at the dawn of the Roman Empire—which has significance for how we understand his teachings and ministry.
Here are three specific insights that have been on my mind recently.
1. Adopted by God
While Julius Caesar was the man who effectively ended the Roman Republic by crossing the Rubicon with his army and assuming emergency powers in 49 BCE, it was his adopted son Octavian (known now as Caesar Augustus) who really ushered in the age of Roman Empire. It is this same Caesar Augustsus who is named in the beginning of Luke, and every person in the Roman Empire would be well familiar with his story. After Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE, his will stated that Octavian, who was biologically only a great nephew, was to be considered as his adopted son. As historian Adrian Goldsworthy writes in Augustus: First Emperor of Rome, “Adoption was taken very seriously by the Romans, and an adopted son became to all intents and purposes the same as a true son…a young man who received Julius Caesar’s wealth and name inevitably also took on the political expectations of continuing the family’s success.” Interestingly, Julius Caesar was soon to be consecrated as a god, and Augustus therefore became known as “the son of god.” This Augustus, the son of a god, would go on to defeat all his enemies, both domestic and foreign, conquer the entire known world, and establish a long era of “peace” through overwhelming military might. Moreover, he would also be installed as “pontifex maximus”, or “high priest,” therefore solidifying his status as both ruler of the physical world and interceding for his people to the gods in the spiritual realm.
[As one example of how this was understood by the people of this time, in 9 BCE an inscription in western Turkey described Augustus this way: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good news/gospel/evangelion [εὐαγγέλιον] for the world that came by reason of him.” Notice how much of this language about Caesar would later be appropriated by early Christians to refer to Jesus! To call Jesus as savior and lord was to say that Caesar was not—a very controversial and dangerous claim.]
Augustus would die in about 14 CE, when Jesus was a teenager, dying at about the ninth hour of the day (the same hour Jesus would later die on the cross). Augustus’ face was the most recognized in the entire ancient world, having been copied onto millions of coins. It is very likely that the coin that Jesus held in the Temple when questioned about the matter of taxation had Caesar Augustus’ face on it.
Caesar August, son of the “Divine Julius” –aka the “son of god”
With all this in mind, it is incredibly interesting to me that in Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians, he explicitly uses the imagery of “adoption” to describe our relationship to God. In Romans 8 he writes, “The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship….Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his suffering in order that we may also share in his glory.” These Roman Christians would be well aware of Augustus’ adoption as a son of god, and now, Paul was using similar imagery to describe the status of Christians in relation to God! Paul was stating that in the same way that Augustus inherited his adopted father’s kingdom, with all of the rights and responsibilities, so we as Christians now inherit our adopted Father’s Kingdom! And unlike Augustus, who died and left his kingdom to others, as Christians we believe that Jesus rose again and continues to reign, as our brother and co-heir to the Kingdom of God. However unlike the peace that Rome brings, which comes through violence and domination, the peace of Christ comes through love, servanthood and suffering. Thus Romans 8 —a powerful passage even without these insights— becomes even more potent and interesting once we know the cultural and historical context.
2. Crowned as King
In the Roman Empire, emperors were seen as quasi-gods, worthy of worship and elaborate ceremonies establishing their status and right to rule. Interestingly, the coronation ceremony for a Roman Emperor is directly adapted in the Gospel of Mark in reference to the crucifixion of Jesus. Compare the following description of a Roman emperor’s inauguration to how Mark describes Good Friday (taken from Shane Claiborne’s Jesus For President):
A Roman Coronation
The Praetorian Guard (six thousand soldiers) gathered in the Praetorium. The would-be Caesar was brought into the middle of the gathering.
Guards went to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, got a purple robe, and placed it on the candidate. The candidate was also given an olive-leaf wreath made of gold and a scepter for the authority of Rome.
Caesar was loudly acclaimed as triumphant by the Praetorian Guard.
A procession began through the streets of Rome, led by soldiers. In the middle was Caesura. Wlalking behind him was a sacrificial bull, whose death and blood would mark Caesar’s entrance into the divine pantheon. Walking next to the bulls as a slave, who carried an axe to kill the bull.
The procession moved to the highest hill in Rome, the Capitolene hill (“head hill.”) On this hill is the Capitoleum temple.
The candidate stood before the temple altar and was offered, by the slave, a bowl of wine mixed with myrrh. He took as if to accept, and then gave it back. The slave also refused, and then the wine was poured out either onto the altar or onto the bull. Right after the wine was poured, the bull was killed.
The Caesar-to-be gathered his second in command on his right hand and his third in command on his left. Then they ascended to the throne of the Capitoleum.
The crowd acclaimed the inaugurated emperor. And for the divine seal of approval, the gods would send signs such as a flock of doves or a solar eclipse.
VERSUS
Jesus’ Coronation in Mark
Jesus was brought to the Praetorium in Jerusalem. The whole company of soldiers (200+) was gathered there.
Soldiers brought Jesus a wreath (of thorns), a scepter (an old stick), and a purple robe.
Sarcastically, the soldiers acclaimed, mocked, and paid homage to Jesus.
The procession began. But instead of a bull, the would-be king and god became the sacrifice, the bull. But he could not carry the instrument of death and be the sacrifice, so they stopped Simon of Cyrene and gave him the cross to carry.
Jesus was led up to Golgotha, which means “head hill.”
Jesus was offered wine, and he refused. Right after, it is written, “and they crucified him.”
Next came the account of those being crucified on his right and his left. The word for them —lestes—can mean terrorist or insurrectionist.
Jesus was again acclaimed (mocked) and a divine sign confirmed God’s presence. The temple curtain ripped in two, the sky darkened, and an earthquake hit. Finally, the Roman centurion (who had undoubtedly pledged allegiance to Caesar, the other ‘son of god”), converted and sincerely acclaimed this man as the ‘son of God.”
Once we notice these parallels, which are so similar that they have to be intentional by Mark, it gives us more insight into the significance of Jesus’ death on the cross. Some Christians only view his death as comparable to that of a sacrificial lamb, taking on sins like that of a Jewish sin offering. While that is certainly part of the metaphor, we see here that Jesus’ death on the cross is also connected to his enthronement as the son of God and ruler of the kingdom. But in contrast to the enthronement and deification of a Caesar, which was all about praising Caesar’s strength and giving honor to him, Jesus’ enthronement comes through suffering, dishonor, and weakness. Jesus’ upside-down Kingdom stands in market contrast to the Kingdom of Caesar. And similarly, if Jesus tells his followers to take up our crosses and follow him, then we must understand that our path to glory will similarly involve suffering and weakness, rather than worldly strength and domination.
3. Jesus as the Ultimate “Trophy”
I wrote in a previous blog post how Jesus’ death on the cross seems incredibly similar to the ancient Greek practice of erecting “trophies”, which involve placing the empty armor of one’s defeated and disarmed enemy on a tall wooden post to display to everyone. What I recently learned was how this practice was adopted by the Romans and even explicitly put in place in Jerusalem, very near to where Jesus would be crucified! Adrian Goldsworthy writes that around 20 BCE, King Herod (operating under Rome’s authority) built a massive hippodrome (amphitheater) in Jerusalem in honor of Augustus Caesar. This hippodrome was decorated with “mounted trophies commemorating his victories and listing them by name. The trophies were to the traditional Roman design, representing a post and crossbeams bearing shields and topped by a helmet, all supposedly taken from the enemy. A crowd of [Jewish] Jerusalemites mistook the shapes for crude figures of men and immediately broke into an uproar,” since it seemed to be a violation of the commandment against graven images. King Herod, eager to calm the mob, had the helmet and shields removed, showing that it was not a figure of a man at all but merely a post and crossbeam. At this the crowd was relieved and able to move on.
The “Roman Trophy of Augustus,” built in 6 BCE near Provence, France
BUT— think about the significance of this imagery, that just a few football fields from where Jesus would be crucified, stood a massive Roman hippodrome decorated with wooden…crosses! The connection may be lost to us, but would have been very clear to the early Christians—Jesus death on the cross would have been seen as a victory for Rome and Jesus’ opponents; his beaten and bloody body nailed on a cross a visual trophy of who really had power—Caesar. But for the early Christians, it was this very death on the cross that was actually the emblem of Jesus’ power and victory, because it was there that he exhausted and overcame all the power of sin and evil, triumphing over them through his resurrection on the third day. Thus we see Christians appropriating the very symbol of Roman power and authority—the cross—and using it as an illustration of the way that Jesus conquers his enemies. But unlike Rome, which uses the cross to dominate and humiliate the opponents of Caesar, Jesus is the one who willingly chooses to be killed and humiliated—and it’s in this way that he shows his true power. Christ crucified is a “stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23), but for Christians, Jesus on the cross is the ultimate trophy of the great victory he accomplished there. While a Roman trophy is showing that the victim has been disarmed, at the cross it was Jesus who “having disarmed the powers and authorities, made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15). Do you see how much more potent and interesting these Bible verses become when better understand the historical context?
There are many more examples that we could go into, of obscure Roman customs and traditions that give greater insight into the New Testament. But hopefully for now these three serve to whet your appetite, illustrating just how vital it is that Christians study history and culture—otherwise we are only scratching the surface of what the authors of the New Testament wanted us to know about Jesus.
[The essay below is adapted from an email I originally wrote to David French, a prominent American evangelical who is also a notable Never-Trumper, NYT columnist, and co-leader of “The AfterParty,” a new movement designed to help American evangelicals engage in politics in a more healthy manner. Mr. French has not yet replied to my email, but if he does I will ask for permission to share his response here.]
Hi David,
I hope you are doing well. My name is Andrew Berg, and I work for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship as an Area Director in Central Pennsylvania. I’ve been a fan of yours for a while, and recently started listening to the Good Faith podcast, including your recent AfterParty live event. There you invited listeners to email you with any thoughts or questions we may have, so I’m taking you up on that. (I’ve also been inspired to create a 12-week Bible study guide on the theme of politics, and hope to try it out later this year!)
One piece of context for you to know is that I am now a member of an Anabaptist denomination, the Brethren in Christ (BIC), after growing up in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Among other Anabaptist commitments like adult baptism, in the BIC we value nonviolence and oppose war. That leads to the following question to you as I consider how to help American evangelicals engage in politics in a more Christ-like manner.
My question is: Do you think that American evangelicals would disproportionately benefit from a thorough exposition of the biblical foundations of nonviolence and pacifism?
I know you yourself are an advocate for Just War Theory, and I listened to you share on the Good Faith podcast about that topic a couple months ago. I certainly don’t expect to argue you out of your view, which is very well thought-out and articulated. However, unlike yourself, I don’t think most evangelicals have ever considered the biblical reasons someone might choose not to pick up arms. Having access to deadly weapons feels as American as apple pie, and most evangelicals don’t feel any tension whatsoever with that. But I wonder if maybe they should, at least a little.
There’s a few ways I could see this being uniquely beneficial to American evangelicals as we think about helping them engage in civic life in a more healthy manner:
First, we have seen many Americans be quick to use weapons to defend themselves when it is absolutely unnecessary. Just this week there have been two incidents where a teenager accidentally knocked on the wrong door, and was answered by gunfire. And there have been other incidents where a gun owner’s child was sneaking back in the house after seeing friends late at night, and was shot dead for fear of a burglar. To be fair, I don’t want anyone to break into my house either, but there’s not a single possession I own that is worth killing another human being made in God’s image. Or take the case in Texas where Gov. Abbott seeks to pardon the man convicted of killing a BLM protester: when violent self-defense is assumed as a core right, it means that people may be tempted to seek out situations where they will be able to kill others in the name of “self-defense”. In contrast, Jesus says that whoever wants to save their life will lose it, and that we must take up our crosses and follow him—the exact opposite of self-defense. (I don’t think this means a total avoidance of “force”; I used to teach middle school students and forcefully broke up 22 fights in just two years of teaching. But I did so without the use of a gun, or even any physical “violence.” If Costa Rica can remain the most peaceful nation in Central America without a standing army, and if UK police officers can maintain the peace without carrying weapons beyond a stun gun, I think in 99.9% of cases Americans could also find a path to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence–and I think evangelicals would particularly benefit from more thinking in how to do that well.)
Secondly, I think American evangelicals would benefit from hearing more about passages like Romans 12-13 about submitting to authorities in its full context. Writing to a persecuted community living under the Emperor Nero, Paul tells them to not resist the authorities, to love their enemies, and to bless their persecutors! To me this is more in line with an ethic of nonviolence than it is to the standard American evangelical perspective, which assumes a right to resist and overthrow any government that they don’t like. (And that’s not even getting into the more strongly worded principles of nonviolence espoused by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.) My point is that perhaps evangelicals would feel less free to join armed antigovernment militia movements like The Three Percenters, Boogaloo Bois, Patriot Front, etc. if they understood Scripture’s clear calls to eschew violence—even at the cost of our own lives, if necessary.
And that gets to my third and final point: I think that as long as American evangelicals think that armed violence against one’s opponents can easily be justified biblically, it will inevitably lead to more division and animosity than if they remain committed to nonviolence. After all, why bother negotiating with someone that you are physically, emotionally, and spiritually prepared to kill? Nonviolence is a far harder path than violence, which is why so few choose it, but ultimately I would argue it’s more successful in the long run. You only have to look at MLK’s leadership in the Civil Rights movement, and the firm discipline of nonviolence he required of his followers. MLK did not shrink back from harsh words for his opponents, but his commitment to nonviolence means that he always held out hope for them. In contrast, to pick up arms (whether in reality or metaphorically) means that one has given up hope for change, and instead are counting on the overwhelming use of power and force to achieve one’s aims. That is certainly how the kingdoms of this world work, but it is not what Christians are called to. I suspect that as long as there are least some situations where evangelicals think violence is biblically justified, there will exist a slippery slope wherein more and more situations feel justified, until we have shootings at nightclubs, libraries, and pizza parlors because they’re “grooming children” or some other ridiculous reasons.
Or maybe I will put it another way: Is it better for a Christian to go to war and kill non-Christians, or to go to war and kill Christians? To kill a non-Christian (potentially) dooms him or her to an eternity in hell, whereas to kill a Christian is to kill a brother or sister in Christ. Either option feels unacceptable to me. But I worry that far too many evangelicals are not only fine with the idea of killing others, but excited about it! I don’t imagine that a better understanding of the Bible or a theology of nonviolence would stop every mass shooter or disrupt every Christian militia movement, but if it helps to lower our political temperature even a little bit, it feels worth it.
Granted, there will always be hard cases where violence feels necessary, like defense of the innocent, or resistance to evil regimes like Nazi Germany or Putin’s Russia. Yet as I think about 1930s Germany and 2020s Russia—in each of those countries, a majority of the population proclaimed themselves Christian. What if all of the Christians there —or even a substantial minority—had practiced nonviolence? I don’t think Hitler ever could have invaded Poland, nor Putin invaded Ukraine, if Christians in Germany and Russia had risen up and declared violence an unacceptable choice for serious followers of Jesus Christ.
What do you think? Do you think a more prominent theology and biblical understanding about nonviolence would help more American evangelicals pursue politics in a more healthy way? Or would that be a fruitless errand compared to other levers of change?
I’m curious about your thoughts—thanks and God bless!
One of my favorite parts in the Bible is Acts 17:16-34. In this passage, Paul is in Athens and exploring the city. He is distressed to see all the idols, and begins to preach about Jesus around the city to both Jews and Gentiles. Soon Paul is invited to share the Gospel with the Greek philosophers in the Aeropagus, the center of Greek intellectual thought as well as the center of their pagan religion. In his sermon, he lauds the Athenians for their religiosity—despite their worship of idols— and quotes pagan philosophers instead of the Bible. Paul uses pagan theology and philosophy to preach the Gospel, and while some scoff at him, many others are interested, and some even convert and become followers of Jesus! I love this passage because it shows that Paul is not threatened by a non-Christian ideology, and in fact he uses it to preach the Gospel. What would it look like to preach like Paul today?
In present-day America, there are no Stoic or Epicurean philosophers, but there are many other non-Christian philosophies, theologies, and worldviews. One secular worldview that many conservative Christians seem especially frightened of is “Critical Race Theory,” a concept that has been so twisted and misused that it is almost impossible to clearly define. (I learned the basics of “CRT” eighteen years ago when I was a high school debater, and find it darkly humorous how such an esoteric academic theory has only now gone mainstream on Fox News and on Baby Boomers’ Facebook feeds.) Some Republicans are even trying to ban all references to this philosophy from media, colleges, and government!
Like any ideology, there are parts of CRT where I would disagree in part or in whole. Yet to me it is so obvious that there are also elements of CRT that clearly point to Jesus, and if one is willing to be wise and clever, one could use CRT in order to preach the Gospel just like Paul did with Greek paganism. So that’s exactly what I’m going to attempt to do below.
CRT Main Point #1: Racism influences all Americans. It is not a matter of personal choice, but instead is present in everyone to some degree.
Whether it’s in ways big or small, supporters of CRT argue that racism is present in each individual in America, even if it’s unconscious. Most advocates of CRT would argue that it’s not just white people, but even ethnic minorities who can internalize white supremacy, leading to self-hatred, colorism, or other forms of in-group biases. As one small example, as a teacher in Baltimore City I observed a few African-American students make fun of a darker-skinned African immigrant. Or I remember a study that showed that children of all races preferred to play with white baby dolls instead of black baby dolls. CRT advocates would say that racism is “America’s original sin,” and is present in pretty much everyone*.
If I were Paul, how would I use this point of CRT to preach the Gospel? I would generally agree with this tenet and argue that yes, every individual is broken in a host of ways, whether conscious or unconscious, and for most Americans that includes that sin of racism. “For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God.” Because of Adam and Eve’s original sin in the Garden of Eden, all humans are born with a propensity to sin. Jesus tells us that even having a single lustful thought makes us guilty of adultery, so by the same logic having a single racist thought makes us guilty of racism. I myself would identify as a “recovering racist”: just like a recovering alcoholic still struggles with brokenness regarding alcohol, I also still struggle with racist thoughts, inclinations, and desires. I have to pray for God’s grace and forgiveness for that sin—among other sins—quite frequently. But instead of just beating myself up, or being terrified of being cancelled, or gritting my teeth and trying to be perfect on my own effort, the Gospel gives me an answer in Jesus: “Oh what a wretched man am I! Who will save me from this life of sin? Thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” The Holy Spirit can empower me and others to live forgiven lives of repentance, with a mind that is being transformed day by day. I won’t ever be perfect, but I can try to seek to live more and more like Jesus every day.
(*Is it possible that there’s someone out there who doesn’t struggle with the sin of racism whatsoever? Sure, perhaps he or she exists, just like there are probably people out there who have never once struggled with one or more of the seven deadly sins. But everyone struggles with at least one sin or another, and by and large I think most Americans, if they’re being honest, has had at least one teensy tiny racist thought at one time or another. Additionally, even if it’s not intentional, we are all participants in a system that often has racist outcomes, perpetrated by the government we pay taxes to and the corporations we buy stuff from.)
CRT Main Point #2: We should not be colorblind, but instead should pay attention to inequities between the races.
Advocates of CRT point out that ignoring the problems that happen at the racial group level mean that we are not going to be able to adequately solve them. We cannot use a “race-blind” approach to every solution and expect that everyone is equally able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Instead, we should look at their group circumstances and see if there are group needs that should be addressed in a special manner. For example, we may discover that Black neighborhoods have fewer trees than white neighborhoods due to a history of redlining and underinvestment by city planners, and so going forward we can try to plant more trees there to improve air quality and reduce rates of asthma.
If I were Paul, how would I use this point of CRT to preach the Gospel? I would affirm that Scripture does indeed pay attention to group dynamics. Paul’s own ministry illustrates how the Gentiles needed special welcome and special outreach at the group level in order to bring them into the Kingdom. He points out that he is sent as an evangelist to focus on the Greeks, while Peter was sent to the Jews. And in Acts 6, we also see a beautiful passage where the early Church leaders discovered that the Hellenistic Jews were being overlooked in the daily food distribution, implying that the apostles paid attention to what was happening at the racial/cultural group level. Similarly, Jesus makes special appeals and missionary trips to diverse racial groups such as the Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the Decapolis. If both Jesus and the apostles paid attention to these group differences, then so should we. We ought not to assume that there is a single “colorblind” version of the Gospel. Instead, we should seek to make sure that every people group can meet Jesus in their heart language, just like what happened at Pentecost, or like Paul does with the Athenians by quoting the pagan poets of their ethnic group. The Bible clearly illustrates we ought not be colorblind, but instead pay attention to racial group differences in order to better serve and reach these groups.
CRT Main Point #3: Racism doesn’t just happen at an individual level, but at a group level.
Advocates of CRT point out that racism isn’t just a matter of our individual thoughts or actions, but is something that happens at a group level, especially through laws, policies, and culture. We can’t understand our present if we don’t understand the effects of systemic laws like Jim Crow, red-lining, urban renewal, the 1994 Crime Bill, gentrification, etc. Once we understand these issues, we may need to seek solutions that specifically assist marginalized groups.
If I were Paul, how would I use this point of CRT to preach the Gospel?I would have two approaches. First, I would emphasize all the ways that Scripture also calls for systemic overhauls in order to see justice happen. Sin is not just something that is done by individuals, but also something that happens in society too, and the Bible has specific commands to encourage social justice. The year of Jubilee calls for the systemic cancellation of all debts in society and the liberation of all slaves. The prophets call for the destruction of unjust scales (economic exploitation) and the end of the societal oppression of widows, orphans, and children. The prophets also proclaim judgement against entire nations (like the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians) that have been oppressing other ethnic groups. In the New Testament, Jesus’ first sermon in his hometown says that he is coming to bring freedom for the captives and liberation for the prisoners—especially outsiders–and he routinely calls out privileged groups of people like the Pharisees who make a show of personal holiness without practicing social justice and mercy to marginalized groups of people such as widows and orphans.
But secondly, I would remind my hearers that following Jesus is not either-or, it is both–and. We need to both obey him at the individual level and to seek to do so at the group level. If we make it only about individual effort (like some conservatives advocate for), or only about big-picture changes (like some liberals advocate for), we miss out on the full promise of what God has for us. We need to follow Jesus in every way. To take one example, Zaccheaus follows Jesus individually and hosts him for dinner, but he also pays financial reparations to the entire group of people that he has wronged! Obedience is about whole-life discipleship.
There are other parts I could probably adapt from CRT in order to preach the Gospel, but these are my top three. The main overall point I want to make is that there is no secular philosophy that is so wrong and so broken that it does not have a grain of truth that can be used to preach the Gospel. If Paul can take the words of literal idol-worshipers and, without quoting Scripture a SINGLE time, can convert multiple hard-core pagans to Christianity, then I think every intelligent Christian should be able to take elements of CRT to point people to Jesus!
PS: “CRT?!? Really Andrew???” Responding to some common objections
Objection #1: America was founded as a Christian nation, and that is especially true of the Founding Fathers! We should never criticize them for anything they ever did, because they were perfect in every way and the Constitution was ordained by God.
Abraham was also a “Founding Father” of a nation. But that doesn’t mean he was perfect in everything he did, and the Bible shows him sinning in big ways. We should look up to heroes like Abraham for the good things they did, while also criticizing them for the bad things they did. To pretend that the Founding Fathers of the United States or the Constitution were completely perfect is a form of moral relativism at best, and idolatry at worst. The preamble to the Constitution says that the Founders were trying to forge a “more perfect union”, which implies that even if one thinks it was founded somewhat perfectly, more perfection is always possible.
Objection #2: Teaching how bad white supremacy is will make white children have low self-esteem!
First off, lots of children already have low self-esteem for lots of other reasons. I think cell phones are a much bigger problem than CRT; should we therefore also ban cell phones? [Hmm…maybe]. But secondly, this is like saying that preaching that all people all sinners will make people have low self-esteem. Deep down, everyone already knows they have sinned in one way or another. To deny that truth is silly, and moreover, for Christians there is a solution—Jesus! Jesus frees us from guilt and shame to live new holy lives where we seek to reject all sinful actions, including racism. Thirdly, if children are uncomfortable learning about all the bad things that have happened in history, then we wouldn’t be allowed to teach about the Holocaust, the Reformation, or the reason the Pilgrims fled to America. I think instead we should teach all of history, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so that our children can deal with present day issues when they grow up and can avoid making similar mistakes that our forefathers made.
Objection #3: The Bible says there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” so we should not be focusing on the differences between races.
Those same passages in the Bible also say there is “neither male nor female”, but does that mean that sex and gender differences do not exist? Of course not. What these passages are saying is that for the purposes of inclusion in God’s Kingdom, these walls have now disappeared in Christ Jesus, who brings unity in the midst of former divisions. But it does not mean there are no differences between men and women, or between Jews and Greeks. In fact, we need to pay attention to these different parts of the Body of Christ and give special treatment and honor to certain parts of the body if needed (Romans 12). While there may arise a problem if we focus too much on differences between races, or between the sexes, there is also a problem if we pretend those differences don’t exist at all.
