Discussions about ethnicity, immigration and nationality can feel like they belong at the macro level and have little to do with the local church. Whilst I do engage with those macro questions, my own primary concern remains for the local church. So, I want to talk a little about why our theology around ethnicity and nationality matters in that context, through the perspective of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
You may recall that Paul writes to the church in Galatia because he hears that the people are moving away from the Gospel, they are accepting a different Gospel. In the heart of the letter, he will get to the doctrine of Justification. However, before then, he takes what may seem like an odd move, it feels like he heads off at a tangent by discussion table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. He goes back to a previous incident when he had disagreed with Cephas (Peter) who had stopped eating with Gentiles. Paul had rebuked him. There is a strong suggestion from the way this is introduced that a similar challenge has emerged in Galatia.
Now, whilst the issue involved intra-ethnic relationships between Jews and Gentiles, I would be cautious about rushing to immediately and directly applying this to ethnic relationships today. There are two reasons for this. First, the Jew-Gentile relationship was specific and central eschatologically in that contemporary ethnic relationships are not. Secondly, there was an overt and obvious Gospel link. The basis for the Judaizer’s actions was explicitly that the Gentiles were not circumcised, so a condition on top of faith was being added.
However, I believe that there are some implications we can draw out for our context, not least because whilst the Judaizers had their agenda, Peter’s withdrawal seems to be more out of fear than out of a specific alignment with their theology which he clearly refutes at the Jerusalem Council. Further, whilst circumcision has been introduced as a condition, I believe the consensus understanding is that it wasn’t so much about a binary in/out of salvation. Rather, by introducing an additional step, the Judaizers introduced distinctions and hierarchy within the church. “You are recognised as believers but you cannot fully belong.”
This brings us to contemporary issues. The current debate here in the UK is to do with two things. First of all there is the question of Christian identity and the extent to which it is localised. Is my Christian identity universal as part of God’s people everywhere or am I always a “British/English Christian” if the state/nation becomes the primary purpose of God’s work and if the church is commissioned to disciple nations rather than people from the nations.
Secondly, there is the question of ethnic and national identity. Can an immigrant to the UK or even their children, born here be considered as truly English or is Englishness defined at least in part by their heritage, by their DNA? If so, then what implications does that have for the church? I want to suggest that they are significant. If I believe that the church is called to disciple the nation and if I consider people from different ethnic backgrounds at best guests and at worst, a danger, an invasion (especially where that is the starting presumption), then what messages do I send out to them and to the local church. There is a real risk that whatever we say, we start to think in terms of them as guests in the church, they do not belong. Further, we can find ourselves putting up barriers, obstacles to their full inclusion, additional requirements that they must achieve in terms of cultural conformity. Even still, they may never truly belong. And this is not new is it? Consider the history of immigration and the evangelical church, how the Windrush generation experienced being treated as second class citizens and how they were expected to conform to the culture of the English church or start their own churches. Consider how we might find ourselves using language such as “our [ethnic identity] friends that separates people out based on the colour of their skin. Consider whether welcoming “exotic” contributions at bring and share lunches really goes the distance in encouraging other cultural expressions.
We would of course never go as far as to deny Justification by Faith would we? There again, nor I’m sure would Cephas or the Galatians. Perhaps even the Judaizers from James would not. However, if we start to place extra burdens on people or if we treat them differently, if we put up boundary markers other than belief in the Gospel then we may well be undermining justification. We need to pay attention to the implications of our own beliefs and actions.
