The Theological & Social Concerns Committee of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church presented an extensive report at the Synod, which met June 7-9, 2016, on the issue race relations and the ARP. In addition, the following motion was also approved overwhelmingly: “We, the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, do confess the sinful failings of our church in the past in regard to slavery and racism. We reaffirm that all people are made in the image of God. We also reaffirm our historic stance that the Gospel should be offered freely to all sinners regardless of race or ethnicity through the preaching and teaching of God’s holy, inerrant, and infallible Word.”
Report On Race Relations and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Theological and Social Concerns Committee
History of Interpretation
Exegetical Considerations
Theological Reflections
Pastoral Application
Introduction
At its 211th stated meeting, the Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church directed the Committee on Theological and Social Concerns to “study our denomination’s history in race relations, examine how we might faithfully apply the gospel in our relationship to racial minorities in the future, and present this report to the 2016 meeting of Synod.” To fulfill this responsibility, the committee investigated the issue from four perspectives: historical, exegetical, theological and pastoral.
The historical section of the paper engages in a substantial survey of our denomination’s past regarding societal discrimination and race relations, unearthing patterns that both elucidate shortcomings and offer encouragement to our Synod. The paper then turns to Holy Scripture, so that the inerrant, infallible Word of God may shape our attitudes and practices regarding relations among the races. A systematic-theological exploration of several critically relevant doctrines follows the exegetical portion of the report. Rounding out the these three sections, the concluding portion of the paper offers practical suggestions toward deeper engagement with racial minorities in the context of our union with Christ.
It is our prayer that this paper will be read and inwardly digested, and its suggestions implemented, by the churches of the ARPC. Ours is a world shattered by sin and therefore utterly incapable of forging true harmony and love among humans of every nation, kindred, people and tongue. By God’s grace in Christ may it come to pass that, even in our midst, the blessed heavenly vision of Rev 7:9-12 will be realized in some measure—to the glory of the only Savior of sinners, the great King and Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.
Part I – Historical Section
Introduction
The purpose of this brief historical overview is to survey the history of race relations within the ARPC as well as to identify influences upon and actions of the ARP Synod, including historical developments within the denomination and its associated congregations in relationship to past and current social concerns as they bear upon racism within the Church. Seven key time frames illuminate the ARPC’s social responses, statements and involvement with discrimination and with racial issues.
Scottish Experience
The first issue related to discrimination surfaced during the seminal years of the Associate Presbyterians (Seceders) in Scotland. Under the tyranny of King Charles II of Great Britain, Presbyterians were executed or enslaved if caught leading their families in worship at home. Some of these men were sold into slavery to work on American plantations.[1] From the beginning of the ARPC’s formation slavery became a part of their religious persecution experience. Although this was not technically a form of racism (Europeans were enslaving Europeans, not another race) it was a form of extreme discrimination and oppression of inalienable rights against those who rejected the religious-dictatorial Roman Catholic influences of King Charles.
This was known as the “Killing Time” and was used in an attempt to banish Reformed family worship.[2] If the husband were put to death or enslaved and his property confiscated, it would reduce his dependent family to a state of beggary. Such persecution of Presbyterians and Puritans was one of the reasons they fled England for areas in Europe and the newly discovered America.
Antebellum Experience
The second instance of discrimination in the ARPC came before the Civil War. Many Presbyterians were large land owners (plantations). The economy was based upon African slave labor for agricultural production. Presbyterians owned slaves. Some Christian slave owners supported race-based slavery to varying degrees while some Presbyterians (nearly the entire body of Covenanters) were so opposed to slavery that they migrated to the Northern states where slavery already had disappeared.[3] Most ARPC gentry who owned slaves were concerned for the educational and social needs of their slaves, but this concern did not extend to giving them freedom.
Blacks and whites in the South worshiped together even though seating in churches was segregated. Whites sat in assigned booths while blacks were permitted in the balcony. It was not uncommon for blacks to follow their masters’ religion and become Presbyterians. Presbyterians taught blacks how to read, provided Bible lessons, and apprenticed them into a commercial trade. Slaves were offered membership in the church and allowed to take communion with their masters. Some ARPC congregations were more than half “negro” slaves.[4]
The early nineteenth century was an era of institution building, which included unification of like-minded churches. After the Revolutionary War, the AP and RPs united on November 1, 1782 in Philadelphia, becoming the Associate Reformed Synod. In 1803 at the Old Brick Church the Synod of the Carolinas was organized, uniting churches in North and South Carolina and Georgia. In 1826 the issue of slavery surfaced in the AR Church for the first time. Of the 2,000 members of the First Presbytery of Ohio, 75 percent were slave owners yet held anti-slavery sentiments.[5] The Synods of the West and South also addressed this question. Discussions on slavery within the AR Synods were mild compared to debates in other denominations.
In 1828 South Carolina politicians thought keeping slaves ignorant would perpetuate slavery. The ARPC opposed this idea as immoral and opposed the making of any laws that kept black slaves uneducated.[6] The Synod unanimously adopted the following memorial:
“Where as, it is understood that petitions will be presented to the honorable Legislature of South Carolina, at its approaching meeting, praying the enactment of a law to prohibit the instruction of slaves to read; Therefore, Resolve 1. That in the judgment of this Synod, such a law would be a serious infringement of their rights of conscience. 2. That the members of this Synod use active exertions to forward memorials to the honorable Legislature remonstrating respectfully, yet firmly, against the passage of any such law.“[7]
As caring as this statement was, and in light of the social moderation of Presbyterians toward black slaves, the Synod of the South never made a statement, either in favor of or in opposition to the institution of African slavery. Synod merely addressed the spiritual nurture of slaves and the slave owner’s moral responsibility toward his slaves.
The Covenanters (RPs) were so opposed to racial slavery in the South they eventually moved to the free states of the West so as not to support black slavery. By 1831 the absorbing question in the country both politically and ecclesiastically was slavery. In May of 1831 the Associate Synod of North America, meeting in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, passed a resolution that all the members of the ARPC who owned slaves manumit (free) them immediately.[8] In previous years the Associate Synod adopted anti-slavery resolutions and was decidedly opposed to slavery. Of the nine existing Presbyteries the Presbytery of the Carolinas was implicated in this resolution, as few slave owners lived in the jurisdiction of the other eight Presbyteries.
Carolina protested—but to no avail. They did not protest manumitting slaves, but that they “were required to free them forthwith.”[9] Some ministers were unable to enforce the Act of Synod and left their congregations to pastor Northern congregations. The ultimatum drove the Presbytery of the Carolinas to secede. It was not manumitting that offended the Presbyterians as much as it was Synod interfering in civil matters and forcing the immediate release of slaves.
The ARPC was and has always been largely and strongly opposed to slavery. The common opinion among ARPC church members was that they did not advocate but rather discouraged the practice of slavery. They believed it was an evil inflicted upon them by the British government and perpetuated by circumstances beyond their control. Several pastors (McElwee, Heron, Anderson, and Kethin, all having more black than white members in their congregations) claimed slavery was “clearly condemned by the law of God.”[10] While this view was held, more than half of the members in some congregations remained slave holders. Their collective interest was not so much to immediately abolish the institution of slavery, but to protect black slaves against social injustices and cruelty. It was regarded as impossible under the present social circumstances to immediately free slaves and fulfill one’s Christian civic duties.
An example of the general acceptance of ARPC ministers to African Americans is seen in a story of Rev. Dr. John M. Mason, the pastor of an ARPC church in New York City (1770-1829).[11] Reverend Mason had met the elderly Katherine Ferguson, a “colored” woman who became a member of Dr. Mason’s ARP Church some forty years earlier. She kept a confectioner’s shop, making enough money to feed, clothe, and educate destitute “colored” children. She was warmly attached to the ARPC:
After Dr. Mason commenced preaching in Murray Street, some ‘gay ladies’ from Pearl Street said to him: “Doctor, it will not do for those colored people (Katherine and a male relative of hers who had made a profession of religion) to sit at the same table with the white communicants.—They should be at a Table by themselves at the last.” The Dr. simply replied, that he would think of it. When the day for the communion came round, and the people were about to take their seats at the Lord’s table, the Doctor came down from the pulpit, and taking the two colored persons by the hands, he said, “This is my brother, this is my sister. He that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister and mother. In Christ Jesus, there is neither Greek, nor Jew,—Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free,” and then led them forward to the table and set them down ‘first of all.’
The ARPC was not the only Christian denomination struggling with the issue of slavery. Baptists experienced conflicts within their ranks over the issue as well. They divided into Baptists (pro-slavery) and American Baptists (abolitionists) in 1845. The Methodist Episcopal Church prohibited blacks to pray in the presence of whites. Blacks left St George’s MEC in 1894 to form Bethel AME Church. They later affiliated with a Wesleyan denomination and are now known as the AME Church.
Civil War Experience
The “War” broke out in 1861 and devastated many ARP churches. The Synod took the position that it was an “Unholy war.”They unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the cause of the Confederacy as a struggle for independence (a war of aggression between the Northern and Southern states).[12] There remains a debate as to whether the war was about the independence of the states or about the elimination of the institution of slavery. Both issues had strong economic overtones. Slavery was certainly a more popular social issue upon which to justify war than economic considerations or political union.
America’s Civil War left the ARPC void of young male leadership. The churches were mainly left with gray-haired men, widows, and orphaned children as the bulk of their membership. The Southern economy was decimated, and many plantations and estates had been ransacked by Sherman’s army and/or burned to the ground by federal troops. This left a large portion of the population homeless and economically destitute. Many ARP churches were unable to hire full-time ministers or to serve the needs of their communities. The war decimated church attendance, causing some churches to disappear from Presbytery roles; doors closed, theological students scattered (Erskine College’s endowment dwindled from $75,000 to $13,000), and the ARPC was left for dead. This was certainly the case with the once-thriving “Old Brick Church” in Fairfield County, South Carolina.[13]
Blacks especially suffered. With the destruction of their masters’ homes and livelihood, they were forced into poverty. There was little viable functioning commerce to employ a “freedman.” Without any accumulated wealth or source to generate revenue, it became extremely difficult for an emancipated slave to care for his family. With emancipation came a new type of slavery: forced poverty.
The war freed the slaves but it took the Thirteenth Amendment to formally abolish the institution of slavery in America. However, the institution of slavery was replaced with segregation (the “Jim Crow Laws”). The Supreme Court in an 1896 decision (in Plessy v. Ferguson) regarding black and white races said they were to be “separate but equal.” Some prominent theologians (e.g., Robert Dabney) defended slavery and opposed educating blacks (although ARPC congregations generally supported the education of blacks). Other Evangelicals like 18th century English theologian Matthew Henry in his commentary on Exodus 21 expressed misgivings with slavery but never explicitly condemned it.
Emancipation Experience
The end of the war marked a fourth grouping of race-related activity. Black ARPC members had gained a new status. On January 1, 1863 President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, making them “Freedmen.” That same year Synod requested of ministers to labor among “colored people.” They were to teach that the marriage relationship was sacred and to establish Sabbath Schools for their black congregations. A considerable amount of attention was given to the religious culture of the freedmen. Pastor J. Knox Montgomery claimed he was preaching to more “Negroes” in the ARPC than when he preached in Northern UP churches. In 1867 there was a second Synod call for more assistance for the “freedmen.” Three recommendations followed:
“1) That all congregations set up schools where colored children could receive a common education.
2) That Sabbath Schools be established for old and young freedmen.
3) That the gospel be preached to the colored in separate congregations; but preachers of their own color be discouraged to preach until they were able to instruct and edify their hearers.”[14]
An idea circulated among a few Presbyterians that the “Negro” was a son of the cursed Ham and that the Bible prophesied that his descendants (Africans) would always exist in a lower position than the Caucasian. Unsigned articles were published in the AR church paper claiming opposition to social equality. In these articles the “Negro” was considered a “brute.” D. G. Phillips of Georgia published an article claiming the “Negro” was an inferior race doomed to perpetual slavery and that he could only be saved by man as a slave.[15] There is no record of such discussions reaching the floor of the ARP General Synod or of other ARPC ministers endorsing Phillips’ view. ARPs rejected such theology, calling his position “fanciful, illogical, and utterly unscriptural.”[16] Nonetheless, ARP advocates for social equality were, for the most part, mute. It should be noted at this point that in some of the historical literature it appears unclear if Presbyterians in general or the ARPs in particular are being mentioned when views on slavery are debated.
Two examples of the ARP attempting to integrate its churches include the Bethany Church in Mississippi and the Due West Church in South Carolina. In 1866 the Bethany Church held separate communion services for whites and blacks. It was said of Bethany, “There is an antipathy between the races and the whites crowd them out of the church and the negroes prefer having their preaching to themselves.”[17] Some whites objected to having blacks as members. Pastor Agnew of Bethany opposed such thoughts, saying it was “not pleasing to God”–all the while affirming a segregationist position. In 1871 he wrote, “No decent white or black man desires social equality. Those who come among them, eat with them, sleep with them, kiss them and marry them are a disgrace to humanity.”[18]
In 1872 the African American members of Bethany financially supported the building of a new sanctuary, but by the end of the year racial hostility had increased. Fear grew that blacks would push whites out of the church. This racial tension led most blacks to eventually leave that church. By 1873 Pastor Agnew claimed the “Negroes” were more trouble than they were worth, as he dealt with five cases of black members involved in adultery and fornication. In 1889 the last black member was removed from the church’s membership rolls.
Before the Civil War the Due West church was quite successful in attracting black slaves as members. During the war it added 50 black members. In 1865, after the war, black members outnumbered whites (140 to 90). Churches used segregated seating arrangements, as was the case in most institutions. However, when the Due West ARP church built a new sanctuary, there was no “slave balcony.” Nancy Nelson, a black woman, was now permitted to sit on the main floor, but her chair was placed inside the door of the pastor’s study as she worshipped on Sunday.
C. Young, a young black man, prepared for the ministry under Pastor Hemphill’s (the Due West pastor and his ex-master) encouragement and discipleship. In 1870 Second Presbytery ordained Young as its first ARPC black minister. One week later the black members of Due West organized their own congregation under the name “Mount Zion.” Young was Synod’s only black minister and Mount Zion its only African American congregation. In 1882 the church transferred to the Northern Presbyterian Church, a denomination able to supply them with African American pastors.
There were no new African American congregations in the ARPC until 1887. Pastor Peter Bryon organized a “colored” church at Mount Hebron in Tipton County, Tennessee. For thirty years it remained the only African American church in the ARPC. Upon Bryon’s death in 1914 the church closed. In 1892 only twenty-four “colored members” were registered among nine ARP churches. The last statistical records identifying members by race in the ARPC was in 1894. The ARPC attitude toward African American individuals and congregations generally was one of detachment.
During the early twentieth century (1904) the Synod of the South entertained joining the United Presbyterians of the North. During these discussions, questions arose regarding “work among colored people.” The Presbyterians did not want “colored” congregations incorporated into their presbyteries (sectionalism). The ARPC held similar beliefs.[19] The ARPC acknowledged they were not meeting their moral or social duty toward the “Negro,” yet they wanted to preserve racial separation (homogeneity).
An ARPC standing committee on reform was also established in 1904 to deal with racism—specifically segregation–in the denomination. The committee noted in its report to Synod that mission works in Tennessee and Alabama were always to white and not to “Negro” churches within their Presbytery. The general response to the report was that both groups of people could not be reached successfully. The ARPC concluded that it was called to a white mission.[20] ARPC Missionary to Mexico J. S. A. Hunter lamented the “strong antipathy which we have against the colored race.” He further stated, “The souls of colored people shall never sparkle in our crowns.”[21] His rebuke of Presbytery received no rebuttal.
The ARPC lagged in evangelistic work among African Americans for two chief reasons:
“1) There was a reluctance of blacks to follow white leadership in religion in the same manner they would not follow white political leaders.
2) The United Presbyterians’ theologically liberal tendencies and social views bothered the ARPC even though they considered the UP more courageous in their persistence in reaching blacks.”[22]
In 1907 a standing committee was created by Synod to make plans using the Tampico, Mexico “Negro” congregation as a model to reach African Americans (under Pastor N. Pressly). Unfortunately, no plans ever materialized. Once again, race relations among ARPs (and Presbyterians generally) was avoided.
Industrial Revolution Experience
During the Industrial Revolution another class of people developed—and experienced racism. Textile workers rose as a poor minority in need of spiritual care. In Greenville, South Carolina, of the 48 persons in jail, 24 were black and 23 were mill workers. This was an indication of where missionary work was most needed. ARPs were involved yet reluctant to engage this group, just as they had been unenthusiastic about reaching African Americans with the Gospel. On the one hand, the work was difficult for ARPs. Textile workers were a transient population, not willing to accept ARPC disciplines, and whereas ARPs were nearly all middle class and white collar, they found it difficult to identify with and to reach a population unlike themselves.[23] On the other hand, Baptists and Methodists set up “mill churches” to meet the mill workers’ spiritual needs. The concern to bring the Gospel to American Indians and later to Hispanic/Latino populations is also rarely if ever mentioned in evangelistic ARPC endeavors, except for overseas missionary work.
Civil Rights Experience
The fifth issue of racially motivated activity occurred during the 1960s civil rights movement in America. In the 1930’s and 1940’s the Great Depression and two world wars pricked the social conscience of many Presbyterians. Liberal Northern Presbyterians were engaged in a social activist form of the Gospel that many, more conservative, Presbyterians (such as the ARPC) rejected. Presbyterians, including the ARPC, valued maintaining peace within their communities and sought not to radically or quickly change (integrate) societal structures such as schools, churches, and public social locations (restaurants, public transportation, and bathrooms). The churches felt growth and recovery would take place more quickly if the races remained segregated (homogeneous).[24]
During the civil unrest of the 1960s, outspoken evangelicals such as Billy Graham as well as the Congress on Evangelism supported the civil-rights movement. They were more demonstrative and confrontational regarding the Church’s involvement in social change. For example, Dr. Graham saw racism as a barrier to the proclamation of the Gospel.
In 1965 the Voting and Civil Rights Amendments to the U. S. Constitution were passed, certifying that African Americans had the right to vote and making institutional discrimination illegal. In 1967 it became unconstitutional to restrict interracial marriages. Yet these laws did not heal racial wounds. Interracial marriage and bi-racial children unfortunately remain a concern for many Presbyterians and conservative churches.
During this period, the issues of integration and desegregation threatened to divide the ARP Church. The 1963 General Synod appointed a “Committee of Nine” to study the issues and to make recommendations to the next year’s synod. A majority report of five members of the committee recommended that ARP churches and denominational institutions should be open for admission without regard to race. But the minority report from the other four members recommended that it was unwise for the General Synod to endorse or to approve integration of the churches and institutions. The minority report was adopted by a vote of 121 to 75.
The issue of integration was especially heated in regards to Erskine College and Seminary. Following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by the United States Congress, the 1965 General Synod voted 102 to 80 to urge the board of trustees to reconsider its decision not to sign the statement of compliance with the Civil Rights Act. The board of trustees voted to sign the statement at its July meeting by a vote of 24 to 10 .[25]
Stories are not difficult to find where ARPC members have held strong views against interracial marriages and bi-racial children. One story that surfaced during this research was about a pastoral couple who adopted a bi-racial child. His congregation had such strong views against interracial families the pastor felt he had to leave the church. And yet, Erskine College has attracted a significant African American and various minority populations while maintaining no social restrictions upon students developing interracial relationships.
Current Experience
This seventh and final encounter the ARPC is having with racial relationships has yet to conclude. A number of denominations recently have responded to their past and present racial-relationship concerns with theological papers, statements condemning racism and confessions of past racial sins. Conservative groups like the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (1964), the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (1966), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1972), the Southern Baptist Convention (1995) and most recently the Presbyterian Church in America (2015) all have published and/or considered national memorials condemning racism, correcting their racial actions of the past, setting forth biblical principles that condemn racism, affirming equality among all races, confessing the sins that allowed institutional racism, and calling for future equitable and free advances of the Gospel by their churches to minority populations.
In 1957 Synod appointed a Committee to “Improve the Lot of the Negro in Our Midst.” The committee’s formation was also a recognition of continuing racial tensions in society and the Church. The concern to support church outreaches to develop the morals and character of the African American Christian, as was already being done among Caucasian Christians, was the committee’s main responsibility. The committee confessed that the “Negro” was not always treated with respect and consideration due a member of the “Human family.” He was not always treated “justly, honestly, or given the rightful share … of his labor.”[26] Civic acts intended to “create fear in Negroes” were condemned. Improvements in the African American’s lot would come about by mutual respect and partnerships rather than through legislation. The Church’s part in this concern was not to legislate but to proclaim a message of righteousness, kindness, and love toward their fellow African American Christians. A dichotomy had arisen among the ARPC separating political (legislative) involvement from the spiritual aspects of life.
Starting in 1958 Synod minutes included reports from the Standing Committee on “Morals and Public Welfare.” This committee recognized and deplored organizations that fostered antagonism among classes and races. In 1965 the committee again lamented racial strife throughout the world and exhorted Synod to pray. In 1966 it was reported race relations remanded a serious problem. In 1968 the committee stated that the goal of the ARPC was to “be fully reconciled to God and to one another.” Finally, it was mentioned that interracial legislation must be considered to help resolve interracial divisiveness.[27] The committee regularly stated social and racial concerns, but no actions regarding their concerns were taken by Synod.
In 1969 a Korean Presbyterian group, another minority, requested fraternal relations with the ARPC. Their request was forwarded to the Committee on Ecumenical Relations. The committee recommended that formal relationships with the Korean church group not be established at that time. In 1970 the Committee on Morals and Public Welfare concluded that poverty was connected to racial discrimination, citing a study that claimed one in seven whites lived in poverty while one in two “Negroes” lived in poverty.[28] It was also mentioned the ARPC was out of touch with poverty, as its churches were not located in impoverished areas. Both the Korean Presbyterian interest in the ARPC and the ARPC’s concern for African Americans living in poverty indicate the ARPC is still wrestling with racial issues, yet little national attention has led to few effective results.
In 1963 Synod once again appointed a committee of nine to study the race issue. In 1964 the majority report included the following statements. Regarding the preaching of the Gospel, Synod affirmed “that all men of every race and nation, through Him might be saved.” It also lamented “with all the fervor at its command the racial strife in our nation.” Synod deplored both extremes on the issue, “and pleads for moderation and reason.” The report also stated that admission to public worship and to communicant membership were not to be conditioned upon race; that the ARPC accepted all believers in Christ, of whatever race, as brothers; and that race shall not be used as a criterion to bar any person otherwise qualified from full participation in the activities of any institution of our Synod.[29]
However, the minority report included additional concerns that the government was compelling integration of “Negroes” and whites, which was disrupting the normal development of cordial relations between the races. It also mentioned and deplored the invasion of unwarranted pressures from both extremes and pleaded for moderation and reason. Yet it affirmed racial differences were natural and not caused by racial conflict. Therefore it encouraged Synod not to take any action that would encourage intermarriage of the races or to endorse or approve the integration of races in churches or institutions “at this time.”[30] No reason was given for opposing interracial marriages, nor was institutional racism addressed as a problem. The minority report with its affirmation of racial differences and its negative view of interracial marriage was adopted by a vote of 121 to 75.
Conclusion
By the grace of God the ARP Church today confesses the same faith which it confessed at its inception in 1782. We therefore receive the Scriptures to be the very words of God:
“The position of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church on Scripture is that the Bible alone, being God breathed, is the word of God written, infallible in all that it teaches, and inerrant in the original manuscripts.”[31]
Accordingly, we confess that the whole human race has descended from our first parents, Adam and Eve.[32] We confess that the only hope for fallen sinners is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.[33] Those who believe in Christ are thus united to Christ by faith, and united also to one another.[34] Consequently in Christ, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28).
This has been our confession, but we must confess to our shame it has not always been our practice.
Our churches and institutions have not always been open to all who profess faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet by the grace of God we have turned away from many of these failings. Our current moderator has joyfully reported to this committee that in his visits to ARP churches he is seeing increasing diversity among our people.
From the inception of the ARPC several social guiding principles constantly have emerged, dictating their responses to racial issues. The first was temperance. The ARPC has moved slowly and cautiously through social issues, including race relations, throughout its history. Restraint from the extreme has been one of its stabilizing pillars, even as society reacts in extreme ways to rectify social problems. However, moderation has, on occasion, caused the ARPC to miss timely opportunities to address issues of race relations, such as injustice and inequality.
Second, the ARPC has had a long-standing commitment to preaching the Gospel to all the nations. The early Seceders of the Associate Presbytery eagerly sought for ways to evangelize the New World and to plant churches there. Once planted in America, it sought to take the Gospel to distant lands, especially Pakistan. With this evangelistic focus, the ARPC has professed the importance of the biblical imperatives to treat everyone with love and mercy—but has acted imperfectly on this principle. The denomination has professed, and in many cases demonstrated, an emphasis on the personal care, nurture, education, and respect for minorities. Yet there has been an “us/them” mentality within the ARPC, which in turn has supported homogeneous societies, which historically have fostered apathy toward reaching minorities. The evangelistic zeal that we have shown toward reaching the nations needs to be expressed in our local ministries as well.
Third, when controversies arise, the desire for “keeping the peace” can squelch vigorous response to racial injustices. This practice has been a blessing and a curse. The peace and purity of the Church are taken seriously within the ARPC. The negative side of this principle appears when substantive issues of race relations surface. The ARPC has had a mixed response of complacency or complicity to social and racial injustices, not wanting the peace of the Church disrupted.
Fourth, the ARPC throughout its history has reacted strongly and negatively against being forced into any action, social or theological. Its birth emerged from Seceders, who refused to have forced upon them ministers they had no voice in electing and who rejected liberal views of biblical authority. From congregational rebellion against patronage to the forced release of Southern slaves, the ARPC continues to resist ultimatums that force it to act against its conscience. This principle has served the ARPC well, insofar as it is one of the few mainline confessional denominations that remains theologically conservative and biblical. As with the previous socially guiding principles, this strength also manifests a weakness in the ARPC. Resoluteness also has contributed to unnecessarily delayed actions toward supporting racial minorities when social issues related to justice and equity arise.
The ARPC has understood racism as synergistic: it is a complex, intertwined political, economic, and social problem. It consistently has stated the primary, underlying problem between the races is spiritual failure. The solution is to be found in prayer for humility and through sound biblical preaching. Individual piety is needed to bring about true racial healing, as is the case in all relationship issues. Further, forced integration of the races has not solved racial issues. Individual church sessions must be allowed to make local decisions as to how their individual congregations should respond to racism. Such decisions could be supported by a national reaffirmation of the ARPC position on race relations and racial social issues.
In closing, a public confession of institutional and personal apathy or complicity towards injustices to minority groups on the local, state, and national levels may be appropriate.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1964 Statement on Biblical Principles on Racial Discrimination by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church [1961-1965]. From the minutes of the 28th General Synod of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, 43-44.
Cleveland, Christina. (2013). Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces that Keep Us Apart. Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
DeYoung, Curtis; Emerson, M., Yancy, G. Kim, C. (2003). United by Faith: The Multiracial Congregation As an Answer to the Problem of Race. New York: Oxford University Press.
DeYmaz, Mark. (2007). Building a Healthy Multi-Ethnic church: Mandate, Commitments, and Practices of a Diverse Congregation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Documents of Synod: Study Papers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (1965-1982). Minutes of the 144th General Synod, Committee on Racial Questions. PCA Historical Center, 12330 Conway Road, St. Louis, MO: 2007. May 4, 1966, 385-387.
Emerson, Michael; Smith, Christian. (2000). Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilbreath, Edward. (2006). Reconciliation Blues. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Ham, Ken; Wave, A. Charles. One Race One Blood. (2013). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Lathan, Robert. (1982). History of the Associate Reformed Synod of the South. Charlotte, NC: Washburn Press. Vols. 1,2,3.
Lucas, Sean M. Duncan J. Ligon II. Personal Resolution of Civil Rights Remembrance. Personal resolution made before the PCA General Assembly on June 10th, 2015.
Mason, Dr. John M. (2012). “Associate Reformed Anecdote.” Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church: The Evangelical Guardian, Vol. 4 (6). (November 1864). 285.
McIntosh, Gary; McMahon, Ian. (2012). Being the Church in a Multi-Ethnic Community: Why it Matters and How it Works. Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House.
Minutes of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Greenville, SC: 1960 to 1990.
Newbell, Trillia. (2014). United: Captured by God’s Vision for Diversity. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishing.
“Our Nation Is Moving Toward Two Societies, One Black, One White-Separate and Unequal.” Excerpts from the 1968 Kerner Commission Report. United States, Kerner Commission Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, 1968.
PCA Position Papers: Racial Reconciliation. A position paper presented to the 30th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, 2002. 30-53, (3), Item 14-16, 262-270.
Philips, Rick. Internet blog post. (http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/01three-proposals-for-racial-rec.php#sthash.Mo2nZtaS.dpuf). January 22, 2016.
Piper, John. (2011). Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian. Crossway: Wheaton, IL.
“Racism and the Sins of the Fathers.” Greenville Theological Seminary Newsletter #2. (2015).
Report of the Committee on Problems of Race (OPC). An Orthodox Presbyterian Church committee report for the thirty-ninth General Assembly. 1972.
Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Baptist Convention. Atlanta, GA. 1995.
Rab, Lisa. “The Bridge: Why a black Presbyterian minister feels called to serve in a white church.” Charlotte Magazine, September 2015. 45-50.
Rah, Soong Chan. (2009). The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
Smith, Efrem. (2012). The Post-Black and Post-White Church: Becoming the Beloved Community in a Multi-Ethnic World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, Kenneth. “The Spirituality of the Church. Segregation, The Presbyterian Journal, and the Origins of the Presbyterian Church in America, 1942-1973.” Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Vol. 9, (34), August 19-25. 2007.
Ware, A. Charles. (2001). Prejudice and the People of God: How Revelation and Redemption Lead to Reconciliation. Grand Rapids, IL: Kregel Publishing.
Yancy, George. (2006). Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility. Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
Part II – Exegetical Section
Introduction
In approaching the matter of how the church might apply the Gospel faithfully in our relationship to racial minorities, we begin with a brief consideration of Genesis 1:26-27, as that foundational passage establishes man as God’s image bearer.[35] By virtue of bearing the image of God, all mankind possesses an inherent worth and equality that supersedes every man-made distinction. More to our point, though, this text also reveals that all human beings have our origin in one human being: the first man, Adam, the father of the human race. Although sin has marred the image of God in man, such that since the Fall we are conceived in sin (Ps 51: 5; Eph 2:1-3) and engage in such unrighteousness as harboring and promoting racism, this was not man’s original state. Because we have been created by God and are descended from one man, there is an underlying unity and equality among all human beings. It is our original sin, inherited from Adam, that has led Adam’s descendants to commit the actual sin of of denying this equality through racist beliefs, attitudes, words and actions.[36]
As the redeemed of Christ, however, we are hopeful humans. The Gospel gives us reason for hope in the work of the Last Adam, Jesus Christ (cf. – Rom. 5:12-21). And so we have chosen to examine in detail Gal. 3:26-29, as this brief text keenly and summarily addresses the impact of the Gospel – the saving work of Jesus Christ, appropriated by the elect through God-given faith in the Savior – upon famous “division markers” between humans. It is faith in Jesus Christ and not physical traits or effort, Paul writes, that justifies a person before God and marks him or her as a true child of Abraham. If one indeed belongs to Jesus Christ by faith, then he or she enjoys equal access with all other Christians to the benefits of the Savior regardless of ethnic background, sex or social status. To be sure, believers’ unity in Christ does not eradicate all points of distinction between us; but our equal need for and enjoyment of the mercies of God in Christ means that the “-isms” (e.g. – racism and sexism) that have fueled such hatred and conflict between peoples have no place among the company of the redeemed. Rather, our life together and our life of evangelistic witness to this fractious world must reflect the unity and diversity found only in the Trinity.
Context And Summary Of The Passage
The church in Paul’s day, no less than today, grappled with the ever-present temptation to hope in one’s own effort instead of the completed work of Jesus Christ for salvation. False teachers evidently had sought to lure the Galatian believers away from faith alone in Christ alone into a form of works-righteousness that rested in “the flesh” (3:3). Those false teachers had attempted to undermine Paul’s apostolic calling and authority (1:1, 11-23), while encouraging the Galatians to confide in their own ability to do the “works of the law” (3:2, 5). They demanded that the Galatians be circumcised for salvation (6:12), doubtlessly appealing to Abraham as their normative example.[37] In the face of such threats to the health of the church, Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians.
In chapter 3, however, the apostle turns the false teachers’ argument on its head. Far from having earned his standing before God, Paul contends, Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (3:6). Those who are blessed by God are those who, with believing Abraham, are “of faith.” One receives the promised Spirit of God and the blessings of God not through physical descent or through efforts to keep God’s law but only through faith in Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham. Against this backdrop, the apostle teaches that the true children of Abraham are those who, like Abraham, rest by faith in Jesus Christ. And if one believes on Christ for salvation, he enjoys equal access to “all the privileges of the sons of God” (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 34) with all other believers—regardless of background, sex or status. Christians’ equal enjoyment of salvation in the Lord Jesus thus sets the temporal differences between us in proper perspective under the overarching Lordship of Christ and, we would contend, enables fallen humans to live together in genuine respect, appreciation and harmony.
Detailed Exegesis
26: Paul here makes a monumental assertion about those who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior: all who trust in Christ are the sons of God; there are no second-class citizens in God’s Kingdom. “For (you) all are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus”: the word for indicates that what follows will explain what precedes. Paul has just said in vv 24-25 that, in the scope of redemptive history, the OT law was a “custodian”[38] that pointed the way to Jesus Christ both salvation-historically and in terms of one’s personal salvation. The law was a “custodian” in two senses: first, it pointed men typologically to the person and work of the Savior; and second, it pointed men to their fallenness and native inability to keep its demands. Now that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and kept the law on behalf of his people, suffering the penalty for their law-breaking (see earlier in the chapter at v 13), the law has served its pedagogical purpose (in the first sense) in redemptive history. The law also exposed the sinfulness of fallen humanity—namely, in that era, the sinfulness of the Jews, to whom the Lord gave the law (cf. – Ps. 147:19-20; Rom. 7:7); this function of the law continues today. “Sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ”: To be a “son of God” requires faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ: this is true for the Jew as well as for the Greek. “(You) all”: As πάντες occurs at the beginning of the verse, it assumes an emphatic role in the sentence and, we would contend, in the paragraph.[39] In terms of one’s stake in Jesus Christ and in his benefits, all who believe in him share equally in his salvation regardless of background, ethnicity, sex or social standing.[40] “Are sons of God”: “are” is in the present tense, indicating a continuous situation. There is no possibility that a truly regenerate person can lose his salvation in Christ and thus forfeit his status as an adopted child of God (cf. John 10:28-29; Phil 1:6). This reality, moreover, ought to have an abiding and continual resonance in the lives of all Christians. Despite temporal changes in this world (loss of income; a spike in racism in one’s locality), the believer’s dignified status as a child of God in Christ remains unaltered and unalterable. “Through faith in Christ Jesus”: Scripture refers to different people (or groups of people) as “God’s son”: OT Israel (Hos 11:1), Adam (Luke 3:38), Jesus (e.g. – Matt. 3:17), and believers (Gal. 4:7; Rom. 8:14-17). For the purposes of this paper, observe that Jesus is the “only-begotten Son” (e.g., John 1:14, 18), and through faith in him, all believers are adopted as sons (and daughters) of God. The necessity and absolute importance of faith in Jesus Christ[41]–as opposed to relying on one’s own efforts to keep the law – for sonship in God’s family is underscored by the definite article preceding “faith.” Paul is saying, “You all are children of God through faith—your faith.”[42] And all who possess this (God-given) faith in Jesus Christ are fully and irrevocably numbered among the sons of God, equal in their interest in Jesus Christ with all other believers.
27: Those who have been “baptized into” Christ—who have entered into union with the Savior by faith in him—have “changed their garments,” spiritually, so as to be identified fully as belonging to Jesus Christ. “For as many”: the connective gar (“for”) indicates that what follows will further explain what precedes it. Believers now are the “sons of God” because they have “clothed themselves with Christ,” the Son of God, by faith. “As many as”: the word ὅσοι serves a perhaps-underappreciated role in the verse. Although the apostle could have written, “Those who have been baptized into Christ” (or some similar construction), he uses a word for which the English rendering “as many as” conveys the sense of a collected group of persons who have something in common that constitutes them a united whole. Not one believer is omitted from the group, regardless of his or her background.[43] “Baptized into Christ”: It seems most likely that Paul was referring here to water baptism; but given his emphasis in the letter on the ineffectiveness of sacramental signs (such as circumcision in the OT) to save a person ex opere operato (by virtue of the act itself), this phrase is best understood as referring to the outward rite of baptism as sign and seal of the inward, gracious work of the Holy Spirit in the believer to unite him or her by faith to Jesus Christ. Calvin’s understanding of such language in Scripture as reflecting the “sacramental union” between the sign and the thing signified assists the reader both to understand and to appreciate the apostle’s use of such terminology.[44] “Put on Christ”: become united to Jesus Christ by faith. The imagery of “putting on” likely is drawn from Hebrew tradition, in which a person changed his clothing to symbolize an inner, spiritual transformation.[45] This union does not vitiate or annul one’s personhood – to the contrary, it brings one’s personhood to true fruition (cf. Col. 3:10). In a judicial sense before God, the believer now and forevermore is viewed in the clothing of Christ’s perfect, sinless obedience to the Father. But both objectively, and with subjective implications, the Christian has been purchased by Christ at the cost of “his own blood” (Acts 20:28) and belongs personally to the Redeemer. His fundamental identity is not grounded in his racial or ethnic background or in any other aspect of his creatureliness but, rather, in his belonging to Jesus Christ. So, for example, Paul in Eph. 3:1 and in Philemon 1 refers to himself as the “prisoner of Jesus Christ” and in Rom. 1:1 introduces himself as a “servant of Christ Jesus.”
28: By dismantling three common walls of separation between human beings, the apostle exposes one consequence of Christians’ having “put on Christ”: we are united in the Redeemer. “For all of you are one in Christ Jesus”: although situated at the end of the verse, this phrase informs the rest of v 28 (the effect of Paul’s placing gar [“for”] near the beginning of the clause)–thus we examine it first.[46] “All of you”: all of those who have been “baptized into Christ” are in view. Paul’s use of “you” highlights the personal, applicatory impact of his teaching for the readers. Moreover, “all” of his readers who have believed on Jesus Christ are in view. (In fact, the word “all” begins the phrase in Gk., underscoring its significance). “Are”: the verb is in the present tense, which indicates that believers’ essential unity in Jesus Christ is an abiding reality. “One in Christ Jesus”: all Christians are united in the one and only Redeemer of God’s elect (cf. WSC 21) and enjoy the blessings of his mercy and mediation without qualification due to race, sex or status in life.[47] “There is not”: the construction with the negative conveys the sense, “It is not possible.”[48] Paul employs the present tense to highlight this ongoing aspect of believers’ being “in Christ.” Of course, he is not suggesting that there are no such groups as “Jew” and “Greek,” “slave” and “free,” or “male” and “female;” such an assertion would be absurd. Instead, he is teaching that such markers of identification (and, frequently, division) are overwhelmed by all believers’ essential identity in and with Jesus Christ. “Jew nor Greek”: “Greek” is a synecdoche for the Gentile world. Here, Paul begins to dismantle the first dividing wall: that between the Jews and Gentiles. Under the Old Covenant, the church generally was “confined to one nation” (Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2); under the New, as Paul asserts in Gal 3:7-8, all who believe in Jesus Christ—including Gentiles—comprise the people of God. This is a major redemptive-historical shift that transforms the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and sets them on equal footing before the Savior (cf. Eph. 2:11-22). “Slave nor free”: the exegete must not read the 19th-century institution of slavery into Paul’s use of the term “slave” in this passage. Although we do not have space to compare and contrast ancient and modern forms of slavery, the key point for our exegesis is that in the Roman world, the main legal distinction between people was that of slave verses free.[49] Observe also that in Eph. 6:5-9, Paul instructs Christian slaves and masters regarding how they are to conduct themselves in their positions. He is not there endorsing the institution of slavery; neither is he pretending that slavery has ceased to exist. The apostle manifests in that passage an expectation that the institution would continue, but here in v 28, he asserts all believers’ overriding and equal status in union with Jesus Christ—whether master or slave. Those who have been united to the Savior by faith are redeemed, sanctified and glorified equally in Christ regardless of legal or of social standing. “Male nor female”: the Gk. terms ἄρσεν (male) and θῆλυ (female), found in the LXX of Gen. 1:27, signify God’s creation order, which was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). That original creation, however, was warped by man’s sin and subjected to God’s righteous curse. In Jesus Christ, men and women are redeemed and being renewed after the divine image to live—increasingly in this world and perfectly in the next—as God originally intended in the pre-lapsarian period. The apostle does not teach that Jesus Christ eradicates the distinctions between the two sexes; as noted above, Paul suggests quite the opposite: the Savior redeems and refashions men and women according to the Lord’s original design. Moreover, gender distinctions and differences in authority in the home and in the church are not the products of sin; they are part of God’s order. The very nature of the Trinity, considered from the ontological and from the economic perspectives, in fact reveals the inherent goodness of such distinctions and roles for man and woman as imago Dei (in the image of God).[50] Certainly other NT passages teach an economic, functional distinction between men and women in the home and in the church (cf., e.g., Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim. 2:8-15; 1 Peter 3:1-7), and the inspired apostle cannot contradict himself in these Scriptures. Paul’s point is not that gender distinctions are irrelevant in Christ. He instead asserts the essential equality of man and woman in union with Christ the Savior, as both also enjoy the gift of the Spirit. It seems possible that he is suggesting, with the use of “creational” terms from Genesis 1 LXX, that Jesus Christ also enables regenerate men and women to live increasingly according to the Creator’s design.[51] Oppression, bigotry and factionalism find no support either in the pre- or post-lapsarian order of God.
29: Returning to a larger redemptive-historical theme in the epistle, Paul summarizes the pericope by asserting that those who are united to Christ by faith are, therefore, the seed of Abraham and—as his spiritual descendants—heirs according to God’s covenantal promise. “If you are of Christ”: the construction of the protasis is a genitive of possession, meaning “belonging to Christ.” The apostle’s words are directed to those who truly believe on Jesus Christ—those whom he has purchased “at the cost of his own blood” (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20). Interestingly, whereas people tend to demarcate themselves as belonging to one group or another, Christians’ primary “belonging” is to Jesus Christ. “Then you are Abraham’s seed”: the apodosis draws the conclusion that those who belong to Jesus Christ are truly the offspring of Abraham, albeit in a spiritual sense. Yet the whole of the chapter leads to this point: the promised “seed” of Abraham was Jesus Christ (3:16), and Abraham’s genuine seed are those who, like the patriarch, embraced the covenant promises of God by faith in the coming Seed. In the last analysis, writes Paul, Abrahamic descent is spiritual rather than biological or social.[52] “Heirs according to the promise”: heirs not of a physical territory on earth but of all the gracious blessings in Jesus Christ the Savior, including his promised Holy Spirit and the New Heavens and Earth to come.
Summary
Exegetically, how does the Gospel inform relations between the races? In Gal 3:26-29, we discover that believers’ identity in Jesus Christ supersedes all other forms of identification. What is more, we find that the Savior alone tears down walls of division and brings people together who otherwise would be hopelessly at odds. In the final analysis, any human-generated “solutions” cannot overcome the sin inherent in the post-fall human heart. It is the Lord Jesus who redeems his people and convicts us that whether male or female, black or white, rich or poor, or whatever might be the temporal distinction in view, we are equally rich and blessed in our one and only Savior. What matters is not one’s physical descent, social status or outward characteristics but rather one’s standing before the Lord Jesus Christ. The life of the church, therefore, ought to bear testimony to this glorious reality.
This does not mean that Jesus Christ does away with all distinctions among believers, or that we should pretend such distinctions are unreal or inherently evil. Is not the magnificent diversity of nations and tongues and voices an essential, and blessed, component of the church’s Heavenly worship of God (Rev 7:9-12)? Should this Heavenly exaltation of God not inform the church’s earthly witness and worship? As the inter-Trinitarian economy moreover reveals, differences between persons are not in themselves bad and, properly understood, can be good (Mark 10:18) and edifying to the whole body (e.g., 1 Cor 12:12-25). Yet this diversity must ever be held in tension with the unity of the body, as with the triune God. Diversity and unity go hand-in-hand in the life of the Trinity and, therefore, in the life of the church. And it is the Lord Jesus Christ who saves and renews us as his body to bear this multifaceted and blessed life before a world ravaged by racism, sexism and oppression. Perhaps John Stott best captures the “new situation” that is to characterize the people of God on earth:
Christians are not literally ‘colour-blind’, so that they do not notice whether a person’s skin is black, brown, yellow or white. Nor are they unaware of the cultural and educational background from which people come. Nor do they ignore a person’s sex, treating a woman as if she were a man or a man as if he were a woman. Of course every person belongs to a certain race and nation, has been nurtured in a particular culture, and is either male or female. When we say that Christ has abolished these distinctions, we mean not that they do not exist, but that they do not matter. They are still there, but they no longer create any barriers to fellowship. We recognize each other as equals, brothers and sisters in Christ. By the grace of God we would resist the temptation to despise one another or patronize one another, for we know ourselves to be ‘all one person in Christ Jesus’ (NEB).[53]
Part III – Theological Section
In the co