Race

Let me preface this article by expressing my sorrow at the unjust death in custody of George Floyd and my solidarity with opposition to racism. Also, let me say that I realise my own need to read more about the history of phenomena such as the slave trade, racism and imperialism (which I am not equating).

Now, I want to share some thoughts on the issue of 'race'.

Firstly, when people pre-17th century spoke of race, they were not talking about skin colour. Race meant 'language and culture'. That is what was meant in Roman times and what Winston Churchill meant when he entitled his history of the British Isles, 'Island Race'. We need to recognise that the diversity of humanity is not only, or even primarily, biological. Differences in language and culture may be far more significant.

Secondly, it is popular today to say, "There is only one race: the human race." That makes a lot of sense to me. Interestingly for me as a Christian, the very basis for this assertion, namely the monogenesis of the human race from a single couple, i.e. Eve and her husband, Adam (see Acts 17:26), long maligned and ridiculed, is being taken for granted in public discourse. Historically, it was, among other things, the multi-genesis theories of human origins which facilitated racial discrimination.

So what is a good way to describe the obvious differences between groups of humans? 

At this point maybe you are thinking, "Why bother?" Why not, indeed, ignore these differences, finding reasons to question them altogether? To me this seems crazy, a total over-reaction to racism. The richness and diversity of the human race should be acknowledged and celebrated, not shamefully ignored. And there are all sorts of situations where recognising such difference can be helpful, not least in respect to outcomes in the recent Covid-19 epidemic.

Here are some ways we could talk about 'races':

- Phenotypes. Basically this boils down to shared biological characteristics. I remember when my Chinese friend, who used the name Anatoly in Russia, pointed out to me that my eyes were set back in deep eye sockets, unlike his which were on the surface of his face. It's obvious when you think about it. Again, interestingly for evolutionary theory, in many cases biological similarities cannot be attributed to shared ancestry.

- Clades. Another term for this would be "ancestrally differentiated populations"; a clade is the set of all those people descended from a common ancestor. Templeton (1998) gives the following, interesting qualification, "Human population groups are not monophyletic, as there appears to always have been considerable gene flow between human populations." Interestingly, Walsh and Yun observe, "Genetic studies using very few chromosomal loci find that genetic polymorphisms divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy and that they correspond to the traditional anthropological categories." Those categories would be the 3-5 traditional 'races': Negroid (Black) race.and Capoid (Bushmen/Hottentots) races; Mongoloid (Oriental/Amerindian) and Australoid (Australian Aborigine and Papuan) races; and the Caucasoid (White) race. In traditional Christian thought, these were associated with the three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem and Japheth.   

- Geography/proximity, i.e. "a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time". This is really fascinating. Basically, this recognises that organisms (in our case humans) who share the same environment at a particular time are more likely to be similar to one another, even if they have divergent genetic origins. Ossorio and Duster (2005): "Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans' physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated."

Let me finish by reiterating that this is not 'racism by the backdoor'. I want to draw on knowledge to find ways to acknowledge and celebrate the biological diversity of the human race.

"Y de una sangre ha hecho todo el linaje de los hombres, para que habiten sobre toda la faz de la tierra." (Hechos 17:26)

Guard the good deposit (tradition)

In my line of work I often encounter young Christians zealous to understand the Bible and live it out in their everyday lives. It is always refreshing to interact with those who have recently come to faith. Just like we all go weak at the knees when we see a newborn baby. This is the future!

Something else which often comes up is tradition. Perhaps not surprisingly, young Christians, that is to say Christians who are starting out in their Christian walk and still "learning the ropes" often have no time for what they see to be 'dead tradition'. For them is all about the Bible. When presented with particular truths or practices, a common response is, "I can't see that in the Bible." One is reminded of Admiral Nelson, looking through the telescope with his blind eye: "I see no ships."

It struck me once again, that we do our newborns a disservice, when, besides rejoicing in their conversion, we give them the impression that novelty and unbridled radicalism ('convert's zeal') is everything. While child-like faith is commended by the Lord, and rightly so, the Apostles are constantly exhorting newborns to crave spiritual milk, strive towards maturity - and follow the pattern (typos) given by those more mature in the faith.

A lot of it comes down to a misplaced rejection of tradition. Of course, human traditions are condemned by the Lord in respect of the Pharisees, and, under the Old Testament, by Isaiah and others. But, in so doing, the Lord and prophets were not berating a misplaced faithfulness to the past or insistence on Ancient Truth, but rather an innovation that had become fossilised. The answer to such bad tradition is not the rejection of tradition, but the rediscovery of what tradition really is.

So, what do I mean by tradition? I certainly don't mean ways of doing things that no-one can explain and everyone must adhere to, and certainly not doing things for their own sake without appreciating the meaning. By tradition I mean what the Apostle Paul refers to when he says the following:

"What I received from the Lord, I also handed on [paradokeo, "traditioned"] to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23)

"What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you did not?" (1 Corinthians 4:7)


"So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thesssalonians 2:15)

"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you - guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us." (2 Timothy 1:13-14)

"And the things you heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others." (2 Timothy 2:2)

Tradition is not about extra-Biblical content beyond Scripture; it is about how we receive Scripture - and we do so by someone handing it on to us, i.e. in the context of a father-son (mother-daughter) discipleship relationship in the communion of the church. And this line of tradition not only about handing on the truth, but about living it out with road-tested Christian experience. (see 2 Timothy 1:13,14)

These same truths are taught by the Apostles Peter, John, James and Jude - and by the Lord Jesus himself.

So tradition is about 'receiving' and 'handing on'. And it is about guarding the deposit of the truth with faith and love by the Holy Spirit. We have because we have received, and we receive in order to hand on. That is the way each one of us came to faith. Someone told us the gospel and we believed. Unless you are in the category of the Apostle Paul, arrested on the way to Damascus by the Lord himself, it can be said of you "how can they hear unless someone preaches" (Romans 10). That is tradition. Likewise, as we grew as Christians we did so as we were taught and discipled by those mature in the faith. That is tradition. And as we continue to live as Christians we do so in the fellowship of Christ's church, submitting to those ordained to the ministry of the Word, and learning from those older (and younger) than us. That is tradition. It is the lifeline of the church. This is how the Holy Spirit has worked and continues to work.

What is the alternative to tradition? You might think it is pure Bible, uncompromised radical living and tradition-free life. But, actually, it is being limited by your own personal opinion, engaging in untested experiments in Christian living and the wallowing in the chaos of a church without a past or a structure. Not the body of Christ but more like an amoeba. I have been a Christian for about 30 years and in my experience these churches do not last very long. And, when they do peter out, those left behind may well go looking for answers in the oddest of places - or sometimes abandon the faith altogether.

So, when it comes to tradition, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches."