Racism, Dealing with It

Dear Nathan,

Thanks you for your comments. I would distinguish between vocational responsibility toward our closest neighbors in our family kin (home) and spiritual family (church), and the notion of a natural inclination (arguably based on natural law) towards people with whom we share commonality or sameness (particularly, if this means racial/ethnic homogeneity). The former falls under God’s command to love the neighbor, which is fulfilled in our specific vocations, and often includes neighbors who are different from us depending on one’s sphere of influence, social location, etc. The latter appears to be an observable reality (as some philosophers would argue), but it is not–I would further argue–a racially or ethnically homogeneous reality or, more important, binding as the commandment is. On the first point, family kin itself often includes people of many races and ethnicities, and the coming together of these through marriage, intergenerational history, and so on. Family kin is not as homogeneous a racial reality as we are used to thinking. Of course, the same observation applies to the Christian church, which is definitely made up people of all races and ethnicities. My point: Vocational priority towards family (and church neighbors), and the idea of natural attraction towards those who are like us (specifically, due to racial/ethnic bonds) do not have a necessary affinity with one another. If anything, at some point in our lives, and especially in an increasingly globalized world, commitments towards church families will necessarily take us outside of our own race, ethnicity, and geographical boundaries. That’s just because the church is a multiethnic reality.

Second, attraction towards the same is not commanded by God or binding on Christians. This for at least two reasons, a negative one and a positive one. Of course, not all natural attraction towards those with whom we share things in common is bad. However, due to the corruption of human nature, natural inclination towards the same should give us pause and is actually suspect. And in the context of the lure of supremacy, this is an outright dangerous notion, leading to sinful thoughts, words, and deeds. More important, in Christ, the wall of separation between ethnic groups is broken down. The new creation in Christ has ushered in, and we are called to walk the path less traveled. To love enemies, strangers, etc. Moreover, the church is sent out to make disciples of all nations, ethnicities, languages. In this church catholic, people of different races and ethnicities–to paraphrase theologian Nanko-Fernandez–are not really the church’s “diversity,” they are actually the church. Christians live today in light of that beautiful vision of Rev. 7, which is our actual reality as God sees it. This catholic vision, I’d argue, shapes our attitude towards those who are different today. Here the Spirit has a role in bending our natural inclination, whether sinful or not, towards God’s purposes in Christ. Which often means looking outside ourselves. In his Heidelberg Disputation, Luther called this evangelistic path less traveled the love of the cross, and he does so, interestingly enough, in opposition to some Aristotelian concept of natural attraction. Here is what he had to say, from his thesis 28, which I quote in its entirety for our common reflection and edification:

The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.
The second part is clear and is accepted by all philosophers and theologians, for the object of love is its cause, assuming, according to Aristotle, that all power of the soul is passive and material and active only in receiving something. Thus it is also demonstrated that Aristotle’s philosophy is contrary to theology since in all things it seeks those things which are its own and receives rather than gives something good. The first part is clear because the love of God which lives in man loves sinners, evil persons, fools, and weaklings in order to make them righteous, good, wise, and strong. Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God flows forth and bestows good. Therefore sinners are »attractive« because they are loved; they are not loved because they are «attractive»: For this reason the love of man avoids sinners and evil persons.
Thus Christ says: «For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners« (Matt. 9:13). This is the love of the cross, born of the cross, which turns in the direction where it does not find good which it may enjoy, but where it may confer good upon the bad and needy person.» It is more blessed to give than to receive» (Acts 20:35), says the Apostle. Hence Ps. 41:1 states, «Blessed is he who considers the poor,» for the intellect cannot by nature comprehend an object which does not exist, that is the poor and needy person, but only a thing which does exist, that is the true and good. Therefore it judges according to appearances, is a respecter of persons, and judges according to that which can be seen, etc.

Blessings in Christ,
Leo Sánchez

Dear George,

Thanks for your comments. The common response to a wholesale criticism (historical, theological, or otherwise) of a church body in its entirety is to find ways to defend its founders and so on. I could, of course, find ways to understand Walther in his context both historically and theologically. The same can be said, for instance, of Luther’s mix bag of comments on the Jews of his day. However, I will not do so.

Instead, in the spirit of my post, I will go the more painful route. Every Christian tradition has skeletons in its closet. From an institutional perspective, the whole Christian church (including the Lutheran church), is a disaster and a scandal. As a blessed saint once said, “the church is a harlot, but it is still my mother” (paraphrasing Augustine). The church is a family, and at least in my family nobody is perfect. We are saints and sinners. We do not always like each other, but we are patient with and love one another anyway. It should not surprise us, therefore, that Christian founders and leaders of all stripes have often sinned by commission and by omission in the face of the evils of racism and ethnocentrism. Those who have great power, of course, have the capacity to influence others by their words, actions, or lack thereof. This reminds me that in the Christian church only Jesus is Lord, and therefore, we need to hold each other accountable under the light of God’s Word in order to discern where we have sinned and how to move forward in our dealings with others.

My post suggests a way forward, beginning with repentance (individual and corporate). Your comments seem to hint at the corporate consequences: What might change not only personally, but perhaps institutionally as a result of dealing with racism through repentance, vigilance, sacrifice, hospitality, and devotion? In other words, as a colleague of mine used to say, what does the church look like that believes this stuff? And that, I think, is not only a fair question but a work in progress.

Blessings in Christ,
Leo Sánchez

Thanks for your comments, Justin.

I am not quite sure how to reply, since your observations are not addressed to me personally. As to your comments to Nathan and about George, I will leave it up to them to reply if they see fit.

As to your comments about me or my work, I agree with your acknowledgment that a significant (though not exclusive) aspect of my vocational identity is to work among and with Hispanic/Latino (mostly Lutheran) neighbors and at some level the communities they serve. I disagree with you, however, that this vocational aspect of my work necessarily has to place some neighbor over another. I would argue instead that adequate, fair, just, or reasonable immigration law in the left-hand realm should include a number of factors such as family unification, economic/labor issues, national security, etc. Having said that, I have also stated in my writings that Christians might have different ideas as to how this should play out in the left-hand realm and even have polite disagreements about it. Here I actually agree with you that the church is not to be equated with a social cause, since we can disagree on left-hand causes/issues and still celebrate the Lord’s Supper together and proclaim the Gospel in the right-hand realm. In general, I agree with the notion of vocational priority, yet I add that such priority is defined not merely by national identity but a whole bunch of other factors (e.g., family, work, church, etc.). And again, vocational priority does not necessarily have to mean neglect of other neighbors.

Where I think you go wrong, however, is in the implication that my God-given vocation to which I am bound by God’s command should be likened to a disease or illness–a symptom of which is my advocacy on behalf of immigrants. If so, then, you seem to be putting into question one of my divine vocations and my work among an important set of neighbors whom God has put in my path to serve. Come on, brother, it’s not like I had a choice! Vocation is God’s business.

Blessings in Christ,
Leo

Thanks for your comments, Salem.

You make a fair point. All churches need to look critically at their history past and present. That means asking tough questions when needed to discern if we have missed the mark, erred, and/or sinned. There is much to be learned from a good look in the mirror in light of God’s Word. But we do not stop there. At the same time, churches look at that history constructively and rediscover those aspects of their rich theological traditions that are firmly rooted in God’s Word–and in His commands and promises–and can thus move us forward towards repentance, reconciliation, faithful teaching and witness, and renewed vocation.

Blessings in Christ.
Leo Sanchez

Dear Nathan,

So many interesting questions. Theologically, I think some of your questions might benefit from a framework such as Luther’s explanation to the First Commandment where he argues that everyone has trust in some god. The question is not whether one is a believer, but rather what kind of god one believes in. He then begins to speak of common gods that we put our trust in such as possessions or good works. Notice how these things in and of themselves are not bad but are gifts from God. And yet they can also become idols, objects of misguided sinful trust. Perhaps the idea of attraction to those with whom we have common bonds can be placed in this framework. They are a gift from God. At the same time, if and when the gift is used in such a way that it replaces God and his command or promises in some way, then, it has become an idol. Racial supremacy would be an example of idolatry for reasons I have already stated in my post. Yet there are other kinds of bonds, not limited to race but inclusive of it, that do not have to be seen as sinful. Here we simply need to discern the abuse from the use, the gift from the idolatry, in light of God’s Word.

I would add that attraction itself is a richer reality that may include racial, ethnic, cultural likeness, but is also so much more. Would you agree that when we fall in love, for example, we fall in love with the person in the concrete, and not with the race or ethnicity in the abstract? It’s the whole package. Isn’t it. A person is not reduced to his or her race, though this is also a gift from God. And then there is the attraction of a common faith in Jesus, and so on. So this is something we might want to throw in the analysis simply as a way to think about the idea of attraction more broadly.

But when speaking of attraction in the more narrow sense of ethnocultural and racial identity, it seems to me again that the diversity of God’s human creation and the catholicity of God’s church moves us in the direction of considering as normal (not as odd) cross-cultural and intercultural forms of life in world and church. These forms of engagement are not limited to marriage, of course, but include friendships, working relations, and other interactions with neighbors our vocations take us to.

The U.S. is rather diverse racially and ethnically, and we certainly see more miscegenation here than even twenty years ago. In other countries, miscegenation has been the rule rather than the exception, such as countries in Latin America where mestizaje and mulatez has been the reality since Spanish Colonization. Racial discrimination has also been a problem in the history of Latin America, and yet one cannot escape the intersectionality and mixing of races, ethnicities, and cultures that make the region what it is historically. The Hispanic church in the U.S. reflects this diversity and has also accommodated to including other types of ethnic diversity in its identity over time. Notwithstanding the complex history of racism in the Americas, since Hispanic is not a race, it does not de facto see mixing or mestizaje as something odd in the same way that some in the U.S. might. Case in point: At our home, we are the Sanchez Von Behren family. This kind of life together is more common in some parts of the U.S. than others, but it is becoming less and less the “minority report.” So perhaps we do not have to go that far to see salutary examples of inter/cross cultural, interracial, multilingual, attraction (and in our case, also catholic attraction, since we came from Christian churches in different parts of the world!). There are also bad examples of violent encounter between cultures, and the history of colonizing powers gives us many examples of that. But as you say, there are things we cannot undo. We can only try to move forward with God’s help.

Thanks again for your questions and engagement.

For further conversation, you are welcome to contact me via e-mail at the Sem.

Blessings in Christ,
Leo