There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.
Proverbs 14:12

When Christianity is used to promote the social desires of its adherents, it may be used to hold down the underprivileged. Christianity in the pure “love your neighbor” form will completely alter the institutions that would denigrate others. In its past, the Christian church has done both. It was instrumental in addressing the evils of slavery and in bringing women the vote. The church has also served to justify systems of white supremacy and oppression of women. Understanding the justifications for racial equality that are found in Christianity will enable us to use our faith to guarantee racial justice.

I am often surrounded by well-meaning and well-educated individuals who believe that a secular philosophy of humanism is the best way to find such justice. I have honestly struggled with the possibility that they may be right, but I have come to the conclusion that they are not. This chapter is a result of my struggle. I hope that it may provide some intellectual fuel for Christians who, like me, have to deal with supporters of humanism on a regular basis.

Worldview of Racism

We need to make an honest assessment of the compatibility of the worldview of Christianity and the worldview of racism. What is a racist view of the world? It is that the worth of an individual is based on the physical and racial characteristics of that individual. We assign different values to different animal species according to physical differences. A dog is seen as more valuable than an ant, and a man is more valuable than either. Because of physical differences different animal species are capable of different tasks and different levels of reasoning.

It is obvious that there are differences between blacks, whites, Indians, and Hispanics. Who is to say that skin difference is not representative of different levels of abilities in each? The stereotype of blacks is that they are physically superior but mentally inferior to whites. If the racist who holds this view is right, then blacks can excel only in the physical dimension of society. Blacks, therefore, should not be given opportunities to achieve in the social, intellectual, and emotional arenas where othem excel because blacks are not as capable of handling those dimensions. The argument continues that diverting resources from the majority of intelligent white citizens to give minorities a chance is inefficient. Minority groups will ultimately benefit when resources are kept in the white community because then whites will be free to apply their superior talents to make society a better place.

This viewpoint used to sound absurd—until books like The Bell Curve revealed that the adoption of such a viewpoint is not impossible, even in our “enlightened” society.1 The authors of this book justify allocating fewer resources to minorities since, on average, their scores on IQ tests are lower than those of whites. One should realize that this racial-difference theory is impossible to scientifically refute. Many have tried by pointing out that institutional barriers—such as inferior educational facilities—have prevented minorities from succeeding. Others have proposed the “culture of poverty” theory. It says that since minorities are more likely to be born into a poor subculture, they are more likely to be taught fatalism and other personal characteristics that tend to discourage them from trying to succeed and escape the poverty that they were born into.

Analysis that tries to take into account these and other factors that contribute to poverty is incomplete. First of all, subjective attitudes such as fatalism are impossible to adequately measure. We may not know if minorities are truly more fatalistic than whites, and if they are to what degree they are fatalistic. Also, the cultural measurements that have been used have failed to completely explain the income differential between the races. It is the nature of a statistical test to leave unexplained some proportion of the differences that are found between two groups. Because we cannot infer a completely cultural explanation, the possibility of a physical or racial dimension remains.

Worldview of Christianity

The argument for white superiority can be refuted if we change the way we assign value to human beings. Ifwe assign value to human beings simply on the basis of their being human and not because of any innate abilities, then all human beings are of equal value and the racist point of view is refuted. Keith Roberts asserts that Christianity does this. He notes that it is not an accident that the official stand of all major Christian denominations in the United States condemns racism.2

How does Christianity evaluate individuals? All are evaluated according to the spiritual relationship that they have with God. In Christianity such a relationship is available to anyone, so there is no partiality. Everyone, from the dullest imbecile to the most creative genius, is able to gain this relationship through Christ’s sacrifice. Therefore, a true Christian should never look down on any other human being, because each person is one for whom the Lord died.

The amazing thing about Christianity is that it protects equality every step of the way. First, the Bible says that everyone has sinned (Rom. 3:23). What does that mean? In the Old Testament, one of the words that is used to define sin means “to missy’ (see 1 Samuel 19:4 and 1 Kings 22:52). Thus to sin means to miss the mark that God has set for us. God has a mark for our lives that he wants us to make. But we all choose our own path. We want to be free from the laws of God to decide our own destiny and the ability to determine the morality of others. It is not only that I do not want to steal, I also do not want others to have the right to steal. Thus I desire to set the standard and the mark for everyone. I want to be God. To the degree that anyone erases God’s mark, strives for self-determination, and decides his own morality to replace God’s morality, that person has sinned. The Bible says that I have sinned and you have sinned. All have sinned. We have equality.

Second, the Bible assures us that everyone needs to be redeemed from sm (Rom. 3:10). As long as we keep a sin nature we will continue to rebel against God. We need this nature changed if we are to stop rebelling against God and to work with him so that we may find the mark that he has set for us. We cannot find this mark on our own for it is against our very nature to seek it. We need the outside help that only a pure and loving Lord can give. I need help and you need help. We all need help. We have equality.

The provision the Lord has given so that we will have the help we need is a provision given to all of us (John 1:12). It was a single historical event: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is nothing that anyone ever did to deserve God’s sending his Son to come down and die for us. None of us are good enough to demand that. The idea of God sacrificing his Son for humans is similar to a man sacrificing his son to save an anthill. The only major difference is that our worth cannot even be compared to that of Jesus. He is much farther above us than we are above ants. One of the major ways that we determine the worth of an object is by assessing the price for which that item would be bought. God bought our salvation with the life of his Son. That is how much each of us is worth to him. As incredible as it may seem, my value is worth the life of the Son of my Creator. God sacrificed his Son for each of us, so the value of each of us is the same. We have equality.

To be a Christian is to assign infinite worth to each individual. When you do that, you can see that the value distinctions of race, ethnicity, and gender are cheap and shallow. It is intellectually impossible to adopt a racist worldview and a Christian worldview at the same time. To adopt the former is to seek ways to value one group above another on the basis of race. To adopt the latter is to realize that all have infinite worth and potential. Adopting the latter means that any physical difference between us is meaningless. Thus to see the world through the eyes of God renders justification for racial prejudice meaningless.

Ethical Relativism

Because reconciliation is a spiritual concept and not a political one, secular philosophies, such as humanism, have only a limited ability to make it a reality. Martin Luther King believed that liberal secular organizations were beneficial to the cause of civil rights but they were not sufficient, to bring about reconciliation. Such organizations rely on reason and humanity to justify the stances that they take on subjects such as racism. These motivations, King asserted, are not sufficient because they do not take it consideration the evil and selfishness that reside within our hearts.3

The real problem lies in the philosophies that drive these groups. The general philosophy of organizations such as the American Civil Lib Union (ACLU) is one of ethical relativism. One does not have to be an atheist or an agnostic to buy into this philosophy (although that is extremely helpful). One does have to believe, however, that if there is a God, his effect on our lives is so remote that it is up to us humans to look out for ourselves. God’s influence in the real world, then, is not very important compared to the influence of our own decisions and actions.

Ethical relativism asserts that we humans are intellectual beings who must set our own standards. No one else should decide what we need in our lives. If we can gain all of the relevant facts about a subject, then as intelligent and rational beings we will be able to make the proper decision for our lives. The only restriction that should be placed on our actions is when those actions interfere with the possible happiness of others. These restrictions become societal laws. In a democratic and just society, they are determined by general consensus. Thus a society picks laws that best suit the needs for that particular society. Morality on an individual and a societal level will be relative to the needs of that individual and of society.

For the proper morality of a society to be developed, all individuals in society must be free to choose their direction in life. Racism inhibits the options available to members of the minority classes. Therefore racism is immoral in a humanistic society because it is detrimental to the ability of individuals to choose their own path in life. All individuals must be free to fully participate in whatever activities their personal morality will allow.

There are, however, contradictions within this argument that allow for the legitimization of racism. One problem is the very notion that morality can be relative. Once morality is relative, then anything is possible. We lose the ability to determine that something is morally wrong. Thus the racist is able to state to the ethical relativist: “Advocating racial justice is fine for you, but I as a rational human being have chosen to have none of it in my life.” We all know hateful individuals who are rational people. They are not mentally disturbed but they harbor deep hatred for certain groups or individuals. If these people are racists, ethical relativism justifies that racism because they have chosen their own system of morality.

This brings up the dilemma of rational thought. Rationality is a myth. No one can be completely objective. All of us have allowed emotions and biases to interfere with decision making. We expect that people will often make important decisions because of a feeling in the gut. Intelligent rationality has nothing, or at least very little, to do with it. Therefore the relativist argument that we can develop some sort of rational morality depends on an ability to be completely rational, and we are not capable of that.

The relativist will answer that relativism sets moral limits. Those limits come into play when the morality of certain individuals affects the lives of other individuals. Therefore, while a person may be free to hold racist attitudes, to act out of those attitudes is immoral since it would negatively affect the lives of other human beings. There are two problems with this position.

The first problem is that external actions are regulated while leaving the internal man untouched. It assumes that internal, personal philosophy can be kept from affecting external acts. This has not proven to be true. We tend to seek opportunities to act out externally what we believe internally. Thus if the racial hatred of the inner person is not dealt with, the potential for racial violence always remains. To assert that you can believe whatever you want as long as no one is hurt is likely to lead to someone being hurt. Relativism fails to deal with the inner demons that drive us because of its general assertion that we create our own personal truth. To deal with the garbage that we often create, we need a standard of truth that does not waver and that can hold us accountable for hateful thoughts.

A second problem with the relativistic stance is that once relativism leaves the realm of personal philosophy or truth, it must control either none or all of our actions. Most, if not all, of our actions affect other humans. The relativist may argue, for example, that sexual relations outside of marriage are not wrong as long as they are between two consenting adults. But is this still true in the age of AIDS and failing marriages? Even if the adults are not married to others and do not have AIDS, does not the ease with which they enter into sexual relations contribute to a general promiscuous attitude within this nation? Does not such an attitude contribute to the very problems of AIDS, teenage pregnancy, and broken marriages? If pregnancy occurs, decisions must be made that will affect the well-being of another life. What started out as a decision between consenting adults now has ramifications that touch other lives.

If relativism regulates any action that affects others, then it must regulate all actions, since just about every action affects others. The only solution, then, for the relativist is to regulate none of our actions. Thus we are back to square one where to make morality relative is to make any individual action, including racist actions, acceptable.

From a relativistic viewpoint we could not have told South Africa that apartheid was wrong. It was the system that their society had chosen. Economically, blacks under that system did not seem to be any worse off than other blacks in Africa. We cannot tell the Klan that its attitude is wrong. They have a right to look after the interests of their own people. Is this not rational? We cannot condemn racial violence in many neighborhoods today. Is not the protection of one’s neighborhood an admirable goal? Is it not rational to stay with one’s own kind? What about the actions of violent minority street gangs? Their violence is a natural response to the racism they have had to endure throughout their lives. Ethical relativism suggests a rationality that cannot criticize this type of solution to problems. Because it refuses to recognize any moral absolutes, this system of morality fails to allow us the opportunity to bring true justice and harmony to our culture.

Holy Absolutes

Our belief in God is a necessary component of combating racism. After all, if we don’t believe in God, what does it really matter if a bunch of white cosmic accidents are abusing a bunch of black cosmic accidents? There is absolutely no significance in protesting such a situation. If humans truly have no real worth, then one can justify’ using others as tools or chattel to achieve one’s own goals. True justice needs the holy absolutes that are available to us through our Christian faith. I can now say that racism is wrong! To the South African who claims that it is not wrong to oppress his black neighbors as long as they enjoy a minimum living standard, I say racism is wrong. God did not send his Son to die for someone who is less than human. You do not have the right to treat anyone as less than human.

To the black man who seethes with hatred for whites and constantly looks for ways to express that hatred, I say racism is wrong. Yes, we have been oppressed throughout history, but hatred does not justify’ hatred. Our Lord dealt with hatred by giving love. Those you hate, even those who deserve your hate, were also created by a loving Lord. Fight racial injustice but do not succumb to hatred or you will become like the one you have hated.

To the young tough who feels that he must defend his turf against an unwelcome intrusion of minorities, I say racism is wrong. You may be acting on some legitimate social problems, but the solution to those problems does not lie in your fist. The solution lies in your heart. God desires that all of us learn to live in harmony with one another.

The humanist, who does not believe in God, can do many fine works, but those works must come strictly out of the goodness of his or her heart. The humanist has no external standard on which to base a belief in racial justice. Thus whether an individual with a humanistic mindset chooses to help or hurt individuals of other races is an arbitrary, rational decision. However, when we are faithful to our religion and to our beliefs as Christians, we have consistent philosophical support in our fight against racism.