The Biblical Offense of Racism?

Doug Jones pretends to give a biblical answer to “racism” here, called The Biblical Offense of Racism. He states his major premise that although “non-Christians may condemn racism, they have no justifiable ethical basis on which to do so” and that “the word of God not only specifies our obligation to be color-blind, but it prescribes how this obligation applies to society.” As a kinist, I agree with Jones that nonbelievers have no basis to condemn anyone of racism. This is because the non-Christian worldview is inadequate to explain human existence and experience, and has no basis for morality. Correctly Jones looks to the word of God to answer moral questions that pertain to our society. Where Jones and I (as well as other kinists) diverge is when he asserts that Christians are obligated to be “color blind.” Jones claims that Christians should not discriminate on the basis of race under any circumstances, and that this has ramifications for the family, church, and state. I would also point out that Jones openly admits that "Neither collectivists nor traditionalists will be pleased." This means that Jones believes that the traditionalist view (the way America has operated for 350 years) is wrong and unbiblical. Let’s examine Jones’ argument as well as how he applies this to these institutions.

Before we actually look at what Jones says about “racism” I would criticize Jones for not defining racism. What exactly does racism mean? If Jones hasn’t defined exactly what he’s condemning does that mean that he lumps everyone who might be considered “racist” today into a single category? Are neo-Nazis or World War II era Japanese imperialists really indistinguishable from 19th century American Confederates? This question looms large throughout Jones’ exposition as he fails to account for divergent viewpoints. There are several complex viewpoints on race, many of which are unbiblical, however it seems as though Jones would have us believe that there are really only two viewpoints, racism and so-called colorblindness.

Jones begins by outlining several non-Christian arguments against racism. I’m not particularly interested in these arguments since we can simply agree that any non-Christian worldview from which they stem is inadequate. What is really important is a Christian perspective on race, kinship, and people and its application to our current situation here in America. Jones attempts to explain his biblical case against racism.

Jones is correct in stating that Christ redeems his Church out of “every tribe, tongue, and nation” (Rev. 5:9) and that God “rules over the nations” (Ps. 22:28). However I would dispute his claim that “The gospel makes race insignificant.” I believe that race or kinship is important in everyone’s life and is the primary way to define ourselves in terms of culture and heritage. Jones continues by stating his case for why the Bible makes race irrelevant by telling us that “ethical imperatives of scripture would prohibit racist practices and attitudes.”

Jones addresses the sixth commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as the first biblical argument against racism. It is true that the sixth commandment does not condemn only murder to also murderous attitudes and behaviors. It is Jones’ belief that racism falls into this category. He cites the Westminster Larger Catechism to explain further his reasoning. Question 136 explaining the sixth commandment says that this condemns “sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge...provoking words, oppression...striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.” I would qualify this by saying that the WLC is actually condemning is unrighteous anger and hatred, not anger and hatred indiscriminately. For more information on righteous anger and hatred, I would counsel readers to consult Rev. John Weaver’s sermon: The Biblical Doctrine of Hatred. Moreover the catechism exhorts us to “charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent” (Q. 135). It is certainly true that people can have attitudes that are genuinely hateful to others in an unbiblical manner, and that these attitudes can be leveled against an entire race of people. However I think that Jones’ appeal to the sixth commandment is misapplied in the situations he discusses as the article moves on. The sixth commandment condemns unbiblical, ungodly hatred, period. The attitudes that Jones defines as racist simply do not qualify, in spite of Jones’ boisterous claim “To be a racist is to be a killer.”

Next Jones makes his second case against racism from the Bible. He claims that racism is wrong because God made “of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26, cf. Gen. 3:20). Furthermore because everyone descends from Adam and Eve that means that everyone is created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26). Kinists do not dispute this and agree that everyone is fully human regardless of their race. But what has Jones really proved? After all, atheistic Darwinists believe in a monogenic descent for all humanity too. Atheists today believe that everybody is related to everybody, thus this is not a distinguishing facet of the Christian worldview. What sets humans apart from animals is that we are made in the image of God. This is why it is wrong to murder or to treat someone spitefully as stated in the sixth commandment.
Finally Jones claims that racism contradicts Paul when he says “let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). This is really just encouraging Christians not to be selfish or avaricious, we ought to put others above ourselves. Philippians chapter 2 is not addessing the question of race at all. Paul is simply encouraging Christians to be courteous and humble. Surely one can maintain a kind and Christian disposition toward other races without having to acknowledge universal equality.

In examining Doug Jones' proof texts it is clear that he has no basis for condemning what he calls "racism" on so little evidence. What motivates Jones anyway? The answer is obvious. Today one must give lip service to the notion of "colorblindness" in order to maintain credibility with the public at large. If one advocates that interracial marriage and transracial adoption are inadvisable and that America should be a white country, then this is grounds for becoming ostrocized as a terrible bigot. What a shame to see that the church is simply changing with the times on this issue rather than standing up for what is right.