Race and power in the world: The sociology of prejudice

This one I found really fascinating.

In her treatment of the subject of prejudice, which encompasses (in part) the intersection of race and power struggles, Laura Jennings discusses the current debate about “new” or post-Civil Rights era versus “old” prejudice. While some argue that a decline in outward signs of prejudice show that society is in fact less prejudiced, others (including Jennings) would hold that racism has simply been driven underground by pressure to be politically correct.

Several theories exist describing the new prejudice, including

aversive prejudice (fear and discomfort towards and avoidance of out-groups);
colorblind racism (assertion that success is purely merit-based, that racism no longer exists and that to acknowledge it at all is to be racist);
and laissez-faire racism (protection of group interest and condemnation of those who fail to achieve the American Dream).

Do these sound like anyone you know? I can think of some right now.

What these have in common, according to Jennings, are “beliefs and rhetoric about the cultural inferiority of non-white groups,” and especially that the less fortunate remain that way because they both chose and continue to choose it, and, therefore, the group in power has no responsibility to help.

Helpfully, the author also summarizes current study on modifying prejudice attitudes and behaviors. She notes that some have advocated education as a cure, but focuses instead on those who suggest that the remedy “lies in increased contact between members of various groups” to alleviate ignorance. Experiments with increased contact have showed mixed results for improving prejudiced relations. The most successful instances have been those in which different groups are able to interact in positive, cooperative, non-competitive ways, and when they are of equal status in situation (one is not given authority over the other, for instance).

Since people do not change prejudices easily, proactive measures must be taken to create a favorable climate for change, including “leadership support for change and the willingness of authority figures to impose rewards and sanctions” ( which agrees with Glen Kinoshita's analysis). This hypothesis, if proven successful, would deal a fatal blow to the future success of “colorblind” approach in improving race relations.

Finally, Jennings points out the “naturalness” of prejudices, not all of which are negative, in the human experience. Sociologists have shown that even young children show preference for those of their own group, and defining one’s “in-group” as opposed to “out-groups” is a natural part of one’s formation of self-identity. This speaks to the insidiousness of negative prejudices, while reminding us that some prejudices are necessary and even helpful, and it is essential not to become overzealous and to separate the two.

Race and power in the world: Some definitions.

In his 2001 article in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology on racism, C.D. McConnell quotes Bowser in saying that racism is a broadly human and cultural assumption in which there are “no neutral forces,” and which is typically perpetuated by cultural myths and narratives. Though writing in a Christian publication, even McConnell does not attribute the plights of minorities simply to failure of personal responsibility, implying that “the common explanation of economic disparity being due to laziness” is in fact an overgeneralization and a manifestation of racism. He also assumes racism to be a sin, antagonistic toward God and contrary to His nature. Finally, he succinctly states his diagnosis of racism within evangelicalism: “Opposition to the oppression and injustice of institutional racism is a widespread claim among Christians. The presence of racism within the church and within society, however, is clearly a continuing problem for Christians.”

In the heavily socio-theological Encyclopedia of Christianity, Gerhard Sauter broadly defines reconciliation in a social-ethics context: “The making of peace between classes, races, and nations.” Within ethics, he says, reconciliation primarily concerns social relations. In a Christian realm, Sauter believes that it remains unclear as to whether human reconciliation must “always bear reference to the preceding divine reconciliation [humans to Christ].” Taking a sociological view, Sauter also writes that reconciliation can only appear when active steps are taken “to change hardened relations, something that can take place only if there is hope for change.” He calls it a “healing power” that should involve not only present-day and future measures but also somehow eliminate the historical grounds of prejudice and division, though he does not specify how.

Hm.

Race and power in the world: Introduction & MLK

If the study of special revelation can tell us how things ought to be, then the study of general revelation can show us how things work in a fallen reality. To this end, in addition to a biblical theology, I surveyed current academic literature pertaining to various facets of this complex subject.

In this survey, I studied sources discussing theoretical definitions of power and racism; the American Civil Rights Movement of the mid-twentieth century and its present-day manifestations; the modern history of both evangelical-fundamentalist and liberationist theology and politics in the public arena; and current trends in both secularist and evangelical thought about power and race in America. The relevant disciplines span the social sciences from political science to anthropology to theology. All are important if we aim for a view that is both broad and holistic, attributes not often found or even valued in many discussions about such a sensitive topic.

The first source I'm posting is sort of a seminal primary source from the heart of the Civil Rights era in twentieth-century America, written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These days, that man's name and legacy is thrown around every which way by all kinds of people to defend and attack all sorts of things. Despite the powerful clarity of expression in both spoken and written language that he left us, it's difficult for me to know where exactly Dr. King stood on theological issues without doing a ton of hard research on his doctrine, which I didn't have time for. Nevertheless, I believe I can safely and proudly get behind his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," written in April 1963, just a few months after my dad was born.

What's valuable about this open response to concerned white Alabama clergymen is the firsthand perspective it provides - not only one African-American man caught in a tumultuous time in American race relations, but of the leader of what King characterizes as the black moderate position.

King condemns both those members of his community who do nothing to change the status quo and those who wish to use violent means to gain power from their so-called “white devil.” Along with moderate methods of non-violent yet direct-action resistance, King seems to espouse a moderate philosophy as well. His aim is not to gain “power over,” but “power to,” as he emphasizes again and again. One of the main thrusts of his letter, in addition, is a desire for unity in tension with a profound disappointment with “the white moderate,” particularly the religious and Christian community, for consistently playing it safe and demanding patience rather than change.

What are perhaps his most famous penned words sum up his message well:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live within the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider.

Read the whole thing in a PDF.

Race and power: Some biblical conclusions & brief summary

Standing on the shoulders of Old Testament theology combined with the ministry of Jesus bringing the new covenant, New Testament writers, particularly Paul, compile a robust theology of reconciliation, some specifically pertaining to racial relations and others that are applicable. From this corpus of writings we find diversity in the church from the beginning, both by circumstance and by design.

At times, Paul celebrates and encourages diversity among believers, and at other times he (along with James) emphasizes unity and abolishment of external distinctions. As McConnell summarizes, “diversity must not separate or divide, or it becomes an offense to the gospel. There is an inherent tension to be preserved, a celebration of both unity and diversity, which at once acknowledges the unique contribution of people of different races and cultures while maintaining the reality that the differences are brought together by the common faith in Christ.”

We have also examined power in the context of racial reconciliation, and some of the basic tenets of liberation theology placed in a biblical context. As I mentioned before, though liberation theology can be skewed and potentially dangerous, summarily dismissing its concerns would actually be equally dangerous in my estimation.

There are no specific commandments to participate only in mixed-race churches, or to pursue diversity above all else. But based on the biblical data, the current standoffish state of ethnic relations, the rampant (both voluntary and less-than-voluntary) segregation of local churches, and the lack of communication, cooperation, and concern by churches for ethnic and socioeconomic communities other than “their own” all seem to be at least somewhat contrary to the biblical model. It appears that we ought not be perfectly content with the way things are. The question remains as to exactly what we are to do about it.

Race and power: What did James say?

Possibly the most practical and therefore challenging NT passage is in James. Often seen as Paul's antithesis, the two are not theological foes, but are stylistically different. Remember that James was heavily involved with the Jewish believers while Paul went out to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, notice the complementarity of their epistolary themes.

Though he does not specifically address race or the doctrine of reconciliation, James gives crucial imperatives about church life and practice in a diverse community of fallen people. As in Acts, James’ epistle tells us that social problems existed in the early church, precisely because the church “was the only place in the ancient world where social distinctions [were not supposed to] exist.” Clearly this church needed to be exhorted in how to manifest that reality in their conduct, namely through godly impartiality.

James 2:1-17
The concept of impartiality is central to biblical discussions of both reconciliation and power. In Scripture, impartiality is much more than cold tolerance. In James, the discussion of impartiality is inextricably linked with the proper use of power and of the “royal law” to love one’s neighbor (Jas. 2:8). Lipp believes that the “unity of power and love is a basic NT theme,” and that “the impartial turning of God’s love to us is an expression of his specifically divine power (note Mt. 20:1-15).” The Hebrew and Christian scriptures “unite in condemning that partiality of judgment and favoritism of treatment which comes of giving undue weight to a man’s social standing, wealth or worldly influence,” to which we could fairly add race, kinship and familiarity.

In addition, these themes are emphasized in an extended passage on “faith that works” for good reason. William Barclay gives historical context for James’s admonitions here: a first-century struggle between traditional Jewish piety, which emphasized practical help and active emotional involvement in the plight of others, and Greek Stoicism.

It is somewhat painful to see a bit of mainstream American Christianity’s reflection in the mirror of Barclay’s description of the Stoic: “The aim of life was serenity. … For the Stoic blessedness meant being wrapped up in his own philosophic detachment and calm.” When Christians, especially those not of minority races, hear of the ills and struggles of the black or Hispanic communities, they may indeed feel compassion. But Barclay, along with James, warns, “There is nothing more dangerous than the repeated experiencing of a fine emotion with no attempt to put it into action”; every time we do, we “become less likely ever to take action.”

Those who do possess power, and yet do not offer spiritual and physical partnership to those who do not, are the equivalent of the first-century Christian saying to his coatless brother, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled” (Jas. 2:16).

Race and power in the world: The current climate

Wilson, William Julius. "The Declining Significance of Race"

William J. Wilson’s 1978 classic reading on race in America is significant today in illustrating the perspective of those living in that crucial “bubble” era of civil rights. As one who had lived in a pre- and post-Civil Rights society, Wilson has a unique contribution to make to any discussion of power and race today. Though his title suggests that he considers race an insignificant issue by his time of writing, actually his thesis is more complex. Rather, he suggests two things: First, that whereas overt institutionalized racism held blacks back in the previous era, many social barriers have now crumbled, and there is much more flexibility for individual black people than ever before. This is a fact that cannot and ought not be overlooked.

Second, however, he holds that while discrimination has shifted from being one of mainly biological race to one of social class, it was the “history of discrimination and oppression [that] created a huge black underclass, and the technological and economic revolutions have combined to insure it a permanent status” – a troubling state indeed. His conclusion is that discrimination and racial conflicts in 1978 had not disappeared “or even been substantially reduced”; they still existed and were still racial in nature, even if no longer merely racial in origin. I wonder if the same could be said today; I'm not sure.


Bhattacharyya, Gargi, John Gabriel and Stephen Small. “Changing configurations of whiteness.”

This chapter is helpful in describing the “other side” of racial thought: exploring the context of the 'oppressor' rather than the 'oppressed', it makes important observations about the meaning of whiteness in a world of “minorities.” The idea that whiteness is not merely the default or neutral human state is important; being white carries a distinct worldview, just as being of any other race shapes one’s identity as well. At the same time, the assumption that whiteness is neutral has helped to subtly make whiteness the standard by which all other cultures and races are measured. Whiteness, like blackness, means much more than skin color; the concept embodies individualism, empowerment, idealism, and enlightened rationality.


Emerson, Michael O. & Christian Smith. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.

Divided by Faith is a thorough and crucial treatise on the influence and current state of white evangelicalism and black-white race relations in America. It confirms through case studies and anecdotal evidence that many white evangelicals do not see a problem with race today at all, except to be inconvenienced and discomforted by liberals’ and minorities’ insistence that the problems are huge and must be remedied. It also points out several ways in which white evangelicals, though well meaning and genuinely trying to follow biblical commands, have still succeeded in leaving out or even pushing out members of minority groups, even when they are fellow Christians.

Race and power: What did Paul say?

Pauline epistles
In his letters, Paul’s theological emphases on reconciliation and unity are made all the more interesting since many of the churches Paul wrote to comprised Jews and Gentiles. For instance, writing to the Romans, Paul prays for unity among them (15:6), that they will worship in harmony inwardly and outwardly for God’s glory. Schreiner notes, “God is not honored … if the believing community is fractured by divisions. He is honored when Jews and Gentiles, with all their diversity, stand shoulder to shoulder and lift their voices in praise to him.” Paul’s repeated metaphor of the body of Christ or the church (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18,24) also emphasizes the intentional diversity of the church.

In Paul’s letters, when disagreements in the church arise, the instruction is never to separate to preserve a false peace, but to reconcile (Rom. 14:3,4; 1 Cor. 3:3,8; Phil. 2:2, 4:2) and “stand shoulder to shoulder.” Schreiner also wisely points out that in Pauline theology, only God, not mere human effort, can grant unity (Rom. 15:7). Paul discloses the “mystery” that Jews and Gentiles are now “fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (3:6). This newly revealed mystery discloses something obscured in OT times but now “made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10).

Grudem explains, “God’s wisdom is shown even to angels and demons when people from different racial and cultural backgrounds are united in Christ in the church.” According to Grudem, Christians ought to be leading the abolition of racial and social barriers as “a visible manifestation of God’s amazingly wise plan to bring great unity out of great diversity and thereby to cause all creation to honor him.” Out of this same purpose Paul states that as far as divisions go “there is no Jew nor Greek” under the new creation in Christ (Col. 3:11).

Lipp further points to a lesson in the use of power exemplified in the Carmen Christi: “In the incarnation of the Son and his path to impotent suffering on the cross, we are thus to see an act of divine freedom and divine power.” This seems to mean for us that when we lay aside racial divisions, when we not only tolerate but show “affection and sympathy” and look to the interests of others (Phil. 2:2,4), we are participating in Christ’s divine “emptying” (2:7) and thus in glorification by the Father (Phil. 2:5,9).

Ephesians 2:11-23
As already seen, important New Testament ideas concerning unity are introduced throughout Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. This passage speaks of reconciliation – primarily, between God and humans, but Paul enriches this idea when he goes on to specify that Christ brought peace both to “those far off” (Gentiles) and “those who were near” (Jews). Thus the Pauline notion of reconciliation is both vertical and horizontal. Not only are believers incorporated into Christ and made one (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12,13, 15:22,45-49; Gal. 3:27,28; Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:10,11), but this same concept is also “employed to argue that divisions of race and religion [are] a thing of the past.”

Furthermore, “the peace in view at this point [v.14] is between the two old enemies [Jew and Gentile], not with God, and making peace here, as in Col 1:20, is a synonym for reconciling.” If this is the case, then Paul’s idea of the two being made into “one person” is a jarring thought. In his metaphor, the former enemies are actually so unified as to be one entity. One wonders what Paul might say concerning the racial segregation in the modern-day church; perhaps that we are a double-minded person?

This horizontal dimension to reconciliation is found elsewhere in Paul. For example, when he implores in 2 Cor. 5:20 “be reconciled to God,” he is simultaneously asking for reconciliation within the church, as well as for between the Corinthians and himself. According to White, the root idea of the Greek word for reconciliation is ‘change of attitude or relationship.’ Paul uses the term to describe Jews and Gentiles united in Christ (Eph. 2:14), as well as “the alienated, divisive elements of a fragmented universe brought ‘under one head’”, that is Christ. (Eph. 1:10, Col. 1:20).

Liberation theologians emphasize that the church’s sole goal should be to see “the Christian hope of one world” fulfilled – “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” Again, whether or not one subscribes wholesale to liberation theology, on Paul's point in Ephesians it seems we ought to all be able to agree.

Race and power at school: Interview with GK

I decided to examine how race, power, and reconciliation play out at a Christian institution in the heart of Southern California, one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the world. I thought it would be interesting to see how a Christian university tackles the issue of ethnic diversity, since on one hand, it is a group of Christians led by Christians who, I assume, seek for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. On the other hand, a college is also an earthly institution with a power structure and even politics of its own, led by fallible people. The school's heritage also stems from one particular Christian tradition – white American fundamentalism – out of many.

The following is a summary of an interview with GK, who has worked at the university for over a decade. After a few years in leadership over student activities, he and administrators recognized a growing need for a focus on multi-ethnic issues and the experiences of minority students. Interestingly, the idea did not originate with the leadership – GK called it a “true grassroots movement” of students who were passionate about Christian diversity. Today, his duties include much administrative work, but also teaching seminars and workshops, mentoring, counseling, and involvement with the Reconciliation Chapel series.

I was affirmed to hear that GK believes reconciliation to be “at the heart of what God is doing” in the world. He explained that when humankind sinned in Genesis 3, humans were not only separated from God but from one another: Adam blamed Eve, and the pair became ashamed before each other. The Old Testament is therefore a story of unceasing tension and conflict; but in the new covenant, we are given access not only to God but also to embracing one another once again. GK's spontaneous words matched almost exactly with the concepts I encountered time and again in my research for this topic. This shows me that such a theology of horizontal reconciliation is a key ingredient in people who care about racial reconciliation.

Talking with GK also brought insight into how multi-ethnic concerns play out in a Christian institution, especially the obstacles presented in the face of change. Although not a local church, a Christian university is an interesting and telling test-case for reconciliatory efforts.

One thing that is crucial to understand is that minority students here do face particular challenges in matriculating. According to GK (and university statistics), “[The university] reflects a white, middle-class, suburban reality.” Those students who do not come from such a background must undergo an orientation to this culture that those in the majority are unaware of, a process that can be stressful and disenchanting.

As a university, we often expect that all embrace the school's culture and get along. Many of us remain oblivious to the imprint of the prevailing culture on almost every aspect of student life: guest speakers, concerts and activities, residence life programming. Even alumni publications most often feature white middle-class alumni, leaving former students of color wondering where the people “who look like them” are.

For instance, one of the arenas where cultural and ethnic differences are seen most clearly is in one’s tradition of worship and spirituality. At a Christian college, this means university chapels. GK pointed out some features of the modern ‘white’ worship tradition that many of us have never stopped to think about: In chapel, as in our churches, the worship music often begins with an uptempo song, perhaps with hand-clapping, as a way to “release nervous energy.” As the set progresses, the songs become slower, more contemplative, and deeply personal in lyrical content.

In other ethnic worship settings, however, the opposite is the norm – as the Spirit takes over the worship service, the music becomes ever louder and more jubilant. Furthermore, in some African-American or Asian traditions for instance, many Christians have a far higher emphasis on the spiritual condition and history of the community, rather than the individual. The concept of “personal quiet time,” taken for granted by so many students as an integral part of spirituality, is foreign to many students of color when they first step on campus. Preaching themes also reflect different emphases; whereas university chapel speakers often bring linear three-point sermons that emphasize the cognitive, other ethnic groups are accustomed to a more cyclical, holistic, or emotional emphasis.

None of this is to say that one style is inherently better than another. In fact, GK took care to say that many things, like quiet times, are important and beneficial to introduce to those unfamiliar with the practice. On the other hand, white evangelicals can find much to learn from other ethnic traditions about the church as a community and the center of a Christian’s life. Mainly, what all of this tells me is that our differences simultaneously are much more subtle, yet also shallower, than what people seem to think. White and minority evangelical Christians share the same conservative doctrines and hold a high view of both God and scripture.

The other interesting aspect of this interview was that of current power structures as crucial to either maintaining or changing the status quo. Without my having to broach the topic, GK naturally and frequently mentioned what he saw as the key role of leadership in bringing more ethnic integration into the university. He acknowledged that racial reconciliation is “not always embraced” at the school as a whole, and that it poses a challenge for many people, perhaps even for everyone. He also admitted that interest in racial reconciliation fluctuates from year to year, because student leaders come and go. Awareness is growing, but there needs to be more implementation.

It is difficult to change the structure of an institution, and “people can’t do what they don’t know,” said GK, meaning that until administrators and those in power educate themselves and become passionate about diversity in the kingdom of God, things cannot change as much as we would like them to. Diversity on campus, according to him, must be leadership-driven. All-university chapels held in the gymnasium, for one, reflect the values of those in charge, which is why Reconciliation Chapels exist, to meet needs for “a more holistic Christianity” that are not being met otherwise. I suggested that a few years down the line, perhaps there will no longer be a need for this chapel series, because all chapels will include reconciliation efforts. GK simply advocated taking one day at a time, remarking, “We have a lot of work to do, obviously.”

Race and power: What do Jesus and the apostles say?

Jesus' ministry
It is undoubtedly true that Jesus’ earthly mission was first and foremost to the Jews over the Gentiles (Mt. 10:5-6, Mk. 7). Nevertheless, his ministry was not exclusively to Jews; we know of at least five times when he healed or ministered to Gentiles (Mt. 8; Mt. 12:10-21; Mk. 7:29; Lk. 17:16; Jn. 4), oftentimes commending their faith as greater than that of the Jews (see also Lk. 4:27). Likewise Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, his clearing of commerce from the Gentile court of the temple (Jn. 2:11ff), and other Messianic fulfillments and references to Gentile inclusion (Lk. 2:32, Jn. 2:1-10) show Jesus' intent to show love to all peoples and bring them into God’s kingdom (Mt. 12:17-21).
In exploring models of theological reconciliation, White explains one important current view (liberation theology) in which “Christ’s whole ministry,” including the incarnation itself, “is a continuous offer of reconciliation toward the sick, poor, sinful, outcasts, insane, underprivileged, Samaritans, Romans, and (by implication) other Gentiles.” Following in the Master’s footsteps, then, the church’s mission is to exist “not as a cozy fellowship of the likeminded but as an agency of unification, to go out into all the world with Christ’s reconciling message.” Ostensibly White is here thinking of the global church; yet if local congregations do not engage in this going-out, there will be nothing but many “cozy fellowships of the likeminded.”
Of course, other theologians and biblical scholars would question the unwavering emphasis of liberation theology on what they see as only one tenet of the Kingdom of God. I would count myself among these. Nevertheless, I can agree with White that

“if [liberation theology’s view of reconciliation] should ultimately prove to be an overemphasis on partial truth, to the detriment of other equally valid truths and values, it nevertheless contains insights, and a challenge, that the church must not ignore.”

Acts of the apostles
The early church was from the beginning diverse, first comprised mainly of both Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews – linguistically and culturally distinct despite a common religion – and later of both Jews and all manner of Gentiles. It appears that even early on (Acts 6) there was a dispute that, legitimately or not, was partly blamed on cultural differences when the Hellenistic Jews complained to the Hebrews about the neglect of needy Hellenistic widows. Even in these early, idyllic days, divisions existed among the small group of believers. Yet the apostles dealt swiftly with this issue, and Hellenists and Hebrews had to continue to co-exist.
In Acts 10 and 11, Peter receives a dramatic vision from God that salvation has come to the Gentiles – and since it has, every right enjoyed by Jewish Christians is afforded the Gentiles as well. Peter even eats with a Gentile convert and his household, a symbol of intimate fellowship, and defends his actions before his colleagues until they understand the radical paradigm shift of this new covenant – the Spirit is given to all equally, and thus there is no excuse for the kind of segregation practiced by Old Testament Jews. Finally, in Acts 6 and 13:1 we see that leaders of many ethnic origins were appointed over the church and labored side by side for the gospel.

Race and power: What does the OT say?

Genesis
In Genesis, common lineage of all human beings is explicitly affirmed from the beginning (3:20) in Adam and Eve. Likewise, post-flood there remains only one family from which we all descend, namely that of Noah and his sons (Gen. 6).
In the past, some commentators have concluded that Noah’s curse of Canaan in Genesis 9 is actually a curse on the future African race supposedly descended from Ham. However, Hays concludes, with a plethora of supporting evidence, that this division has “absolutely nothing to do with race.” The point of the table of nations (Gen. 10) was that all were acknowledged to have come from the same ancestor. Thabiti Anyabwile on this point exhorts Christians to speak more properly of "ethnicity" instead of "race," since race as a biological fact does not exist. We are all one in Adam, both spiritually and physically speaking.
Notably, the Abrahamic covenant provides for ‘outsiders’ from the outset. God allows and even demands all foreigners within Abraham and his offspring’s households to be circumcised and thus made part of the covenant people (Gen. 17:12), and declares that all nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham’s line (18:18).

The Law
In the Law, there are numerous generous provisions for sojourners and foreigners who find themselves in Israel’s midst (Ex. 22:21, 23:9; Lev. 19:10,33,34; Deut. 27:19). The rationale nearly always given is that the Hebrews were foreigners themselves in Egypt, where they were subject to terrible oppression. Because God delivered them, they must not in turn become the oppressors. These laws not only show God’s concern for those outside his chosen race, but his disdain for racial oppression and abuse of power. Instead, in the Exodus, he models a righteous use of power. “Already in the Hebrew Bible the power of God liberates rather than subjugates. His use of power, then, is not a contradiction but an expression of his love.” After all, the Lord not only chose a people to give them spiritual salvation, but he delivered them from real physical suffering as well – and judged their oppressors. If this is not an insignificant aspect of salvation to God, neither should the people of God treat it lightly.
Over and over again, it is made clear that God did not choose Israel because of merit or superiority (Deut 7:6-7) but intended them to make him known to all peoples (Deut. 4:6-7, Jos. 4:23-24). Hays also agrees with many scholars that the “mixed crowd” that followed Israel out of Egypt shows that from its earliest existence, Israel was a multi-ethnic people. All were given the same Law and were part of the same community.

Historical books
The book of Ruth is the story of a Moabitess voluntarily joining herself to God’s covenant community, and the kindness of an Israelite man, Boaz, in redeeming and marrying her, much to Ruth’s humble surprise (Ruth 2:10,11). This interracial marriage, far from being condemned, would be the ancestors of David and eventually of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
I Kings 8:41 and I Chronicles 16 both speak of a desire for foreigners to come to God through Israel’s witness, but we find few instances of this actually occurring in the OT. In Esther we finally see Israel’s mission to the nations being successful somewhere: “And many of the peoples of the country declared themselves Jews, for fear of the Jews had fallen on them” (8:17). For the most part, however, Israel has largely been disdainful of God’s call to bring other nations to him.

Psalms
The Psalms continually tell that God rules over all nations (47:2, 65:7, 77:14). Israel is exhorted repeatedly to tell of God’s works (9:11, 57:9, 96:3) and all nations are called to sing and shout praise to Yahweh (47:1,8-9, 66:8, 67:3). Overall, the psalms expect Israel to function as a sort of global worship leader, and demonstrate that God specifically desires diverse peoples to worship him. Even in Psalm 47, where Israel is said to rule over other nations, nations and kingdoms all worship together (47:8).
Psalm 102 also praises God as liberator, as peoples and kingdoms “gather together” to worship (102:18-22). Elsewhere, David sings of true fellowship as being with “anyone who obeys [God’s] commandments” (119:71), while Psalm 133 exults in “brothers” dwelling in harmony. This may refer to Israelite brothers, but in a New Testament context Paul (Phil. 2:22) and Jesus himself (Mk. 3:35) redefine the bonds of kinship from genetic to spiritual.

The prophets
Israel’s failure to reach the nations did not escape God’s attention. Isaiah repeatedly prophesies about a coming era not only of the Gentiles’ ascent to favored status with God (replacing Israel!) but also of unity and peace of all nations (Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:10, 25:6-9, 28:11-12, 56:3-8; 60; 61). Zechariah (8:19-23) tells of a time when “men from the nations of every tongue” will eagerly follow the Jews to their God. Daniel (7:13-14) and Micah (4:1-3) prophesy about future peace among nations and that “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve” (Dan. 7:14) the Ancient of Days.

Summary
In Genesis we are reminded that both human beings’ common ancestry and their diversity are meaningful realities. In the prophets, we also recognize the judgment that Israel faced for neglecting those realities. The Law, Psalms and the prophets all emphasize the duty of God’s people to reach out to all nations and God’s desire for a diversity of worshipers. They all also emphasize God’s role both as ruler and as liberator. This means not only that all power comes from God and is ultimately his, but that he uses his power (and therefore we must use ours) to relieve oppression, humble ourselves and reach out to all peoples. White churches especially would do well not to forget the role of God’s people as liberators of the body as well as the soul and to use their influence for these same ends, which might encourage both compassion and tangible aid toward their brothers and sisters in other ethnic communities. In the Psalms and Ruth, we see that any one of God’s followers ought to be capable of meaningful fellowship with another, regardless of race, status, or tradition.

The coming of the Spirit and the healing of the nations.

Then [the LORD] brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple.... [It became] a river that I could not pass through, for the water had risen. It was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be passed through. And he said to me, "Son of man, have you seen this?"

Then he led me back to the bank of the river. As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. And he said to me, "This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh. And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes.... And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing."
[Ezekiel the prophet, 6th c. B.C.E.]


Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.
[John the Revelator, 1st c. C.E.]