The discussion continues over the first post, but this comment from Lawrence prompts further thoughts:

We are splitting hairs.

My point is that continually berating our society for something we aren’t doing anymore if foolish.

Every society on earth had benefited in some way from slavery. And slavery continues to exist.

Trying to make this into a hate American argument just fuels the segregation debate.

And if I am not being clear.

You, sir, are just as much a race baiter and segregation enabler as anyone else with this nonsensical argument about slavery issues that no longer exists.

Let me begin with the last claim, that “slavery issues” no longer exist. I think only someone who hasn’t been on the receiving end of deeply embedded prejudice can think that the “issues” are “over.”

Things have improved dramatically. The upward social and economic mobility of black Americans has never been greater. The opportunities have never been more plentiful, but if you ask a black person if the “issues” are gone, you’ll probably get a funny look.

For the purposes of this blog, however, I’m less interested in the general social question as I am interested in how the visible, institutional church deals with this complex of issues. To be sure, the issues are not hermetically sealed. What happens in the culture affects the way we think about issues in the church and the influence of the culture doesn’t suddenly drop off when we walk into the narthex. Suspicions we hold about people who are different from us cling to us as we hear the call to worship.

Black leadership in the civil kingdom is more or less commonplace now, but as I was reminded recently by This American Life, it was only 20 years ago that white democrats actively opposed Harold Washington’s run for mayor in Chicago despite the fact that he was part of the “machine.” More to the point, however, is the fact that there is very little black leadership in confessional Reformed churches.

All things being equal, would a predominantly white congregation call a black man to be their minister? That’s a tough question. I’d like to think that I would support the candidacy of a black man for our pulpit. OURC may not be the best test case. It’s a coastal congregation with a lot of surfers. If he surfed, really I think race would be less an issue. After church the men sometimes talk surfing and they might as well be speaking in tongues!

Still, it’s a real question. Could a predominantly white, middle-class congregation overcome their fears to call an African-American minister if he was the best qualified candidate? It’s a hard test because, as has been noted here before, there aren’t very many African-American confessionally Reformed pastors (because there aren’t many black seminarians at WSC and the other confessionally Reformed seminaries) and changing that fact will probably take a long time. The confessional Reformed (NAPARC) movement is still so tiny and culturally cut off from the black community that it’s probably easier to send missionaries overseas than it is to bridge that gap, so that’s what we do.

The rest of the post is bizarre. I wouldn’t comment on it except that I think it illustrates where a lot of folks are in our churches. I have listened to Rush and the other conservative talk shows (Laura, Medved et al) — though lately, since I’ve discovered how to listen to podcasts I’ve been listening to a sports-talk show from Omaha–so I think I understand why this fellow says what he does. I don’t “hate” America. This isn’t about “blaming” America. I think the post confuses the two kingdoms. I’m not proposing any great “social” change to the civil kingdom. I’m talking about the visible, institutional church that represents the kingdom of God and I’m talking about what needs to happen within the visible church for it to begin to fulfill part of the mission to proclaim the gospel to every part of the earth. I’m not proposing any “social gospel.” If, however, we were going to reach an unreached people group (as the missiologists say it) we would study that group, its history, circumstances, language etc. Further, if the church seeking to reach that people group had a history with them and was regarded with suspicion by the people group, that would also have to be part of the accounting.

That’s all I’m talking about here: making an honest accounting of the issues that a mostly white, mostly-suburban movement (NAPARC) faces in reaching black Americans with the Reformed faith. This hardly constitutes “race” baiting. This isn’t about white folks feeling guilty. This isn’t about manipulation of feelings at all. Repentance isn’t really about feelings at all. It’s about a change of attitude, stance, and a change of action. It is a dying to self and a living to Christ.

Those groups (of whatever ethnic background) who have not heard the Reformed faith do not need us to “feel” anything. They need for us to do something. We need to train Latino and African-American pastors who can plant churches in those communities and they need for us to examine our own hearts to see if we’re ready to receive them when they do come into our churches. Will we look at them and wonder what they’re doing “here” or will we receive them as we receive everyone else. Further, we need to break down, in our own congregations, the remaining racial tensions and barriers just as we need to overcome our idolatry and covetousness and other sins. I’ve been in groups of Reformed Christians (ministers) where racist jokes have been made. I’ve made them.

As to benefitting from “slavery,” the claim begs the question. It assumes that what British and North Americans did was morally, economically, and socially identical to other forms of slavery. As far as I know, it wasn’t. That’s why it was called the “peculiar institution.” It was man-stealing and Reformed Christians were complicit in it. The more we try to justify our complicity in it the less credibility we have with those we’re trying to reach.

Exodus 21 clearly sanctions certain forms of slavery. Exodus 21:16 also just as clearly prohibits man-stealing. It’s a violation of the law of God to do what we did. 18th and 19th century-Brits and Yanks were in receipt of stolen people! It’s not just an “Old Testament” thing. 1 Tim 1:10 lists “slavers” (man-stealers) in a list of gross sins: “sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine… ESV).”

A few blog posts aren’t going to change anything, but I hope it’s helpful to think, pray, and talk through some of the issues.

Post authored by:

• R. Scott Clark

  

  R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

  More by R. Scott Clark ›