Racism: a belief or doctrine that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Ethnocentrism: is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture.

From 1740 to 1863 it was considered the Christianized era of slavery. During this period there was progress concerning the anthropological make-up of black slaves and religious underpinnings that reinforced the idea in the minds of white Americans. It was common belief that blacks possessed a body and soul. But, only the soul was created in the image of God, while the body was cursed. White clergy assured slave owners that religion helped the slaves to become more efficient in their work . They also justified racism due to the passage where Noah cursed one of his three son's, "Canaan"-The Father of Africans (Genesis 9:20-27).

The only hope a Black Christian could have was the assurance of freedom in the next life. If they rebelled against their masters Jesus would dam them to hell. During this Christianizing period black slaves began to learn and proclaim privately and publicly that Christianity and slavery were incompatible. Theologically blacks new of another Jesus then mainline American Christianity. They believed that God will have retribution upon the whites in the next life as they become slaves and blacks become reigning masters with Christ. Blacks believed intuitively (without much exposure to biblical learning)  that Jesus had not willed for them to become slaves.

Today racism is more covert. People frown upon a "Black Theology" that speaks for the causes of an oppressed people, because it seems culturally exclusive. I can tell you after 3 years of Fuller Theological Seminary all “theology” is culturally exclusive. Essentially the main thrust of Fuller Seminary, like most Californian Christian Seminaries, Colleges, and Mainline Churches is what I would call “European American Theology”. May God bless Fuller Seminary for their efforts to be more diverse. They at least give a small Hispanic and Black department a cultural\missional voice, a small percentage of monies and admit some of their past failures as evangelicals.

But, of course they will never go past that and actually share power on an executive level or pour a large percentage of monies into these programs (Can you imagine some of the schools having a Latino or Black president or an executive staff that really represents the cultures they are trying to reach?). These schools like most mainline Christian institutions don’t even acknowledge the "Hip Hop" cultural reality yet. But again why should a school with a band of “European-American Theologians” care about issues that are not relevant for THEM and economically expedient (European American students help tuition driven schools meet their financial demands, bottom line)?

In Acts 6:1-7 we see a perfect example of cultural bias, ethnocentrism or possible racism present in the church in it's infant stage. The "Hebraic Jewish" food distributors had overlooked the needs of the "Grecian Jewish" widows, until some people exposed the problem and the noble Apostles responded by choosing seven men who were Grecian Jews to distribute food and make sure the needs of the "Grecian Widows" were represented. They chose leadership that would by affinity cater to the needs of their most vulnerable and marginalized within the church. Also, the evangelism of the "Gentile Hellenistic Culture" was originally carried forth by Hellenistic Jews who lived outside of Israel-the motherland (Acts 11:19-30). These Jews had become socialized by Hellenistic culture and had lived as neighbors amongst the Gentiles, therefore were more sensitive to their need for Christ and were able to overcome the cross-racial obstacles more easily. They weren't threatened by the "other person". The Hebraic Jews did not originally want to preach to these people despite Jesus' command to "witness" to all nations by words and deeds of power (Acts 1:4-8). The first "Church Council" in Jerusalem was centered around a theological question that had more to do with race, culture, salvation and justice then mere theoretical debate over abstract meanings. True theologizing should benefit the church in it's practical transformation and witness in the world!

Without more powerful Black, Latino and Hip Hop representation in European American Christian institutions we will continue to act like we care about diversity, but in reality never put racial justice and cultural sensitivity into praxis. Churches are made up of dominant cultures so by affinity they naturally overlook the needs of other cultural groups. Especially if they are not challenged by culturally\missionally sensitive leaders like Paul the Apostle! Evangelicals can write good published books about cross-cultural missions and justice, yet do nothing intentional in their own institutions to help clean up the mess (James H. Cone)! The real evidence of them wanting to change will be to hire a more diverse (gender, race,age) staff and faculty and put equal or more amounts of money into their minority programs.

If your reading this as a European-American Christian you may not want to admit or see these realities, but other minorities know this to be true. Don’t get it twisted or misunderstand my premise: Armenian-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-American, Mexican-Americans and Hip Hoppers are all equally ethnocentric too and see Christianity through their own cultural lenses and biases. Some are even out-right RACIST, because racism is a human problem and not a WHITE problem! If other minority cultures had positions of power for the last 200 years they probably would have done or be doing the same thing whites have done through out American history ("all humans are sinners & deserve punishment" - (Romans 3:22).

As Juan Luis Segundo argues, all hermeneutics follows what he coined a “hermeneutic circle”. We always start interpreting scripture from the societal-cultural context, or influences we find ourselves in as Christians. Then as we journey outside of those circles we realize that the kingdom of God is bigger then our denominational circles, and narrow interpretations. Hopefully this process of growth helps us interpret the Bible differently and more holistically as it applies to our lives and the wider societies. This doesn’t mean we let go of the main and plain tenants of the orthodox historic faith. It means we see new meaning and emphasis as it relates to salvation, sanctification, and serviceto the poor and oppressed of society. Those whom we once classified into categories and refused to "incaranate" ourselves into their lives as Jesus did with us. The "Word" became "Flesh" and dwelt amongst "Humans" (John 1). Profound Christological Thought!

Our ultimate loyalty should be to the international Christ of missions, love and justice, and not our own cultural forms of Christianity and the governing state (unless it practices Christian values). We should respect culture (s) and admit that all of our theologies and world-views are formed within cultural experiences. Stop lying to yourself! Your are either a White Theologian, Black Theologian, Armenian Theologian, ___________(Fill in the blank) Theologian or MIXED Theologian that doesn’t want to side with any cultural interpretations (these make good cross-cultural missionaries and pastors in mixed urban settings).

So what are you: A White, Black, Armenian, Latin, Asian,  or Mixed Theologian?

How are you putting your theology into practice, especially as it relates to the poor. The poor of course are those who cannot repay for the good you do for them (widows, orphans,youth, single mothers, blacks, latinos, armenians, ghetto minded folks, immigrants, prisoners, blue collar workers,drug addicts, etc)?

Jesus released people spiritually, theologically (intellectually), and practically (fed people, became a friend of social outcast, cast out demons).The cross is not the only example He set. Look at his three year ministry and ask yourself are we as the church engaged in the controversy of liberating those who cannot liberate themselves without Christ and His Body. I believe our churches and academic centers are paying more attention to the powerful (rich) who can help our institutions economically, organizationally and politically? You know the successful anointed Christians who bring prestige to our institutional “name”. The ones you quote in you church or school newsletter to validate your influence!

What ever happened to seek first the Kingdom (Sermon on the Mount ethics of Matthew 5-7) and His righteousness and He will take care of our financial needs (Matt 6:33)? There is no mention of our financial greed's-big buildings, expensive jets, high salaried employees and costly media exposure.

So, in the final analysis some Christians are "racist", while others are unconsciously "ethnocentric".

They make divisions of human beings based on gender, race, age, economic class, or sub-cultures. After making these divisions they either look down upon the "other" or think that by Christianizing them they should help them become as they are "culturally".  Confusing the Gospel with their own cultural uniqueness they export a type of imperialistic Christianity that does great harm to the existing so called "pagan" society and creates unnecessary resentment among the indigenous community (Romans 14-15). This is one of the great reasons an unconvinced world remains unpersuaded by our Christianity. Our history is tainted with abuses of power and our methodologies are non-contextual and dis-respective of other international Christians and their religious\cultural expressions, moral emphasis and textual interpretations. We have a "McDonald's" franchised idea of missions and Christian living. On the ground level it works for a short time and on a limited scope. Because some foreigners and immigrants really do believe that European American leadership and strategies are more superior. But, after experiencing the non-liberating leadership of Western Missionaries, Politicians and Corporate Executives many non-westerners and marginalized within America are feeling fet up and ready to start their own revolutionary Christian movements. There is a sense that "white does not always equal right". But, a RAINBOW, or diversity of colors are needed to make something beautiful and exciting, so "I" as the "other" will play my part and voice my perspective in the forum of "global" ideas unashamedly.

When you walk into your church this Sunday look around deeply and spiritually. Ask yourself is there anything really compelling about your church as it exist in your city? If your church were to stop existing next week would anyone care outside of your church members? Would they even know you were there and now you are gone? Does your church take seriously Jesus' mandate to be a "witness" to the nations. (In Greek the word nations is "ethnes", meaning ethnicities) by engaging their salvific and holistic human needs with love (Acts 1:4-8)?

If the answers to these questions are negative (please be honest and stop lying to yourself) you and some of your church friends and Christian college buddies need to re-examine the Jesus movement of Luke's Gospel and how that continued in Acts up unto the 3rd century before the church became nationalized (that is a topic for another discussion). Christians transformed the entire social structure of the Greco-Roman world in those first 3 centuries. They cared for slaves, they rescued babies, they fed the poor, they established orphanages, hospitals and the preached cross-culturally the, "Gospel of Jesus Christ" and not there racial religious peculiarities. They encouraged people to establish church and forms of worship that they could relate to. Why? Because they cared enough to be intentional!

What are your thoughts? Keep it real.