A Reconciled Episcop and Racism

Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr.

BISHOP THOMAS L. HOYT, JR. is Bishop of the Fourth Episcopal District of the CME church. He has served as Assistant Professor of New Testament at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, the School of Religion at Howard University in Washington, D.C., and Professor of New Testament and Director of the Black Ministries Certificate Program at Hartford Seminary in Hartfort, CT. his Consultation is one of the very important ones in the life of Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC). It is a test of unity in the Church and the problems involved in that unity with regard to leadership in the Church. The last time I spoke to Churches Uniting in Christ, we were preparing for a vote on whether we could or should go on together as COCU (Consultation on Church Union). My address was entitled Is You Is or Is You Aint My Baby? In describing our regular checkups along the way, I pointed out our present problem in the following manner as we sought to give birth to the baby: Churches Uniting in ChristThe historic episcopate was discussed early on; the baby was growing, but was turning in the womb in a way that was going to make gestation and birth more difficultand it has. I joined the episcops concerns with unity and racism in the following statements: Some would contend that the DNA that would cause COCU to give birth to a distorted baby is racism. Racism is the DNA of a distorted baby. Early on the parent bodies of COCU recognized that the prenatal environment of the baby must be kept from the disease of not only racism, but sexism, congregational exclusivism, and ageism. It was recognized that the so-called Alerts to

which I previously referred testify to the threats to justice that must be addressed so as to avoid the birth of a baby that symbolizes oppression rather than liberation, justice and peace. We applaud the call to commitment to fight racism that is a part of this meeting. From the beginning of COCU, there were those churches who saw that poverty, race, and sex issues divide the church as deeply as Eucharistic theology, baptismal practice or disputes about ministerial order ever did. The ecumenical vision was from the beginning, and is now, a vision that joins together theology and social reality, the unity of the church and the healing of a broken world. As one of the participants on the theology commission of COCU, it has always impressed me that we have never as an organization of concerned ecumenists taken with proper seriousness the social realities of poverty, race, and sex as cardinal ecumenical questions. We needed from the beginning, and need now, a social and ethical ecumenism. In some respects, we knew from a practical standpoint that ecumenism that refused to wed theological, social and ethical realities would lead to an impotent unity. That is why the first plan of union and consensus theology document included what was called the Alerts. We knew also from the beginning, from a practical standpoint, that we needed a wedding of theological, ethical, and social ecumenism. That is why we moved from talk

45

about organic union to covenant unity with some contractual safeguards. We knew from the beginning, if unity is to be more than a fractured vision from a theological/biblical standpoint, that ethical and social realities belong together. Acts 2:9-11 contends that the Spirit creates a new human community out of the old, divided humanity. Confession of the risen Christ creates a new cosmopolitan community. So COCU was right to fight against congregational exclusivism in the Alerts. The church is not only the congregation on the corner; it is also an international community that unites in a literal, physical body a new humanity out of the babel of nations, empires, tribes, races and religions. This is indeed an ecumenical vision in progress. The community of the Spirit of Jesus is a community of baptism and eucharist. It is also an economic community. (Acts 2:4144And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.) Here is no separation of spirit and body, theology and economics. How could those who broke bread together in their homes with glad and generous hearts not also share the necessities of life with those who had need? Eucharistic bread and bread for the world are one bread in Christ. The oikos of faith also has a nomos of common participation and mutual sharing. The Bishop, being the one who works in collegial relationships for the unity of the people of God, justice and peace, inclusiveness, worship inclusive of prayer, baptism and eucharist, must work in the context of a reconciled episcop. This can only be done in the context of collegiality. Even after we work out the equivalent of each others episcop, we cannot work for justice unless we do so in a collegial manner and do so in the context of receptivity. Collegiality and receptivity go together. For this presentation I will discuss receptivity and collegiality in the context of a reconciled episcop. Galatians 2:1-10 Paul operated on a collegial style of leadership sometimes and from an autocratic style at other

times. In seeking to cooperate with the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem, he tried to deal collegially. A bishop has various styles of leadership based on various assumed roles and various publics. Notice in Galatians 2:1-10 how Paul, Barnabas and Titus, as a team, visited Jerusalem from Antioch. Possibly this was the same famine relief visit mentioned by Luke, but we cannot be sure. Paul indicates that this was the second visit to Jerusalem following his Damascus Road experience. His first visit was after three years in which he met Peter (Galatians 1:18) Paul says, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before the men of repute) the gospel which I preach among Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. Whether he conferred with the leaders of the church fourteen years after the earlier visit or fourteen years from his conversion is a matter of conjecture. Regardless of the ambiguity of the time span, Paul wishes to disclaim any conference of authority by Jerusalem leaders whom he has gone to meet. Between his new experience with God and the writing of the letter to the Galatian church, Paul claimed authority by direct commission of the risen Christ. The two persons, Barnabas and Titus, who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem were trusted allies who had proven themselves in association with him. A bishop knows the gifts of the people and chooses different people for different roles. It was Barnabas who was described as a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith (Acts 1:24). It was he who had given encouragement to Paul in his initial encounter with the risen Christ. Barnabas was a leader of the Antioch group before Pauls conversion. Barnabas was the only one among Pauls fellow workers who labored with his hands rather than receiving regular support from the churches (1 Corinthians 9:6). Because of his fairmindedness he would have been respected by both those comfortable with traditions and those who respected the past but were open for the future. No wonder his name meant Son of Encouragement. Pauls other partner who accompanied him, Titus, was evidently a person of tact and common sense. He had been used on several occasions to carry out difficult assignments for Paul (2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:6-7, 13-115; 8:16-17, 23). The fact that he was a
46

Gentile Christian rather than a Jewish Christian is the only fault that Judaizers had of him. While Paul went up to Jerusalem by revelation to confer with the leaders there,1 he was chiefly concerned about submitting the Gospel he preached among the Gentiles. From his work among the Gentiles, Paul could witness to the fact that the Gospel was not exhausted by the work among fellow Christian Jews. A modern analysis is that the Gospel is not exhausted among any denominational or religious grouping. The full significance of Jesus Christ is something that must be grasped with all the saints (Ephesians 3:18). Pauls experience on the Damascus road had indelibly imprinted upon his heart and mind the truth for lack of which Jew and Gentile alike were perishing. There rang through his being the clarion call that his whole life must be devoted to the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel. A bishop must seek the unity of the Church with a call driven by passion for the Gospel. The reason given for submitting the Gospel preached to the Gentiles is as follows: lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. This does not mean that Paul felt that he had been preaching the wrong Gospel. He was convinced that the word he received was of Divine revelation and need not be sanctioned nor could it be revoked by human authority. Rather, he was concerned that the Gospel preached to the Gentiles be preserved while at the same time maintaining the unity of the Church. He recognized that the divided mind of the Church could not assist in the propagation of the Gospel. He did not get his commission from Jerusalem, but he knew that it could not be effectively executed except in partnership with Jerusalem. In order to establish partnership between Jews and Gentiles, Paul knew that centuries of distrust had to be overcome and Jewish and Gentile Christians must admit that they were being saved by Grace alone. Centuries of anti-Gentile feelings had been forged into the protective armor of the Jews by Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Maccabees. At the same time, anti-Jewish feelings had grown up against Jews that especially affected persons in the Diaspora. Furthermore, some were charging Paul of opening the Reign of God to those who did not go kosher. Yet Paul recognized that a break between the Gentile mission and the Jerusalem church would not por-

tend well for the cause of the Gospel; the cause of Christ would be divided. A bishop operates with certain clear theological assumptions. The question can be raised, how did Paul help in establishing unity and the truth of the Gospel? A bishop is flexible on some issues and inflexible on others in order to respect the truth of the Gospel that one preaches. In Galatians 2:3-5 he says, But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek, but because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondageto them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. A bishop is wise as a serpent and humble as a dove. Paul exercises his leadership through strategizing and working with others for the good of the whole body of Christ. Paul mentions Titus as key to his strategy and not Barnabas because he wishes to emphasize that Titus was a Gentile, and that he was not circumcised. A dispute had arisen within the internal workings of the Christian movement: Should the followers of Jesus at Antioch undergo the normal rite of incorporation into the Jewish community? Some interesting dynamics are established by the presence of Titus among the Jewish leaders. It would have been easier to acknowledge uncircumcised Gentile fellow believers in the abstract in Antioch or Phillipi, but the issue is joined by the presence of Titus.

Even after we work out the equivalent of each others episcop, we cannot work for justice unless we do so in a collegial manner and do so in the context of receptivity.
A bishop foresees the implications of ones acts before implementation of the plan. Paul knew that the presence of Titus at Jerusalem would upset those in Jerusalem. Just think what his presence must have meant. There were at least three parties present as they gathered in Jerusalem. First, there was Paul and Barnabas who stood for the policy of receiving Gentiles as Christians without the normal ritual of incorporation into the Jewish community. Implementation of a plan by a bishop entails knowledge of how per47

sons behave. Generally, people respond better to concrete examples rather than to abstract ones. The presence of Titus would have been for them exhibit number one that God was present among Gentiles as well as circumcised Jews. Paul could have told the leaders in Jerusalem about how the Holy Spirit had come upon Titus and had consecrated him for a life of service among the uncircumcised. Implementation of a plan by a bishop is sometimes dangerous because people with cherished traditions do not change easily or quickly. Paul would without a doubt have taken Titus with him when he came before the church at its public assemblies at Jerusalem, when he appeared before the select meeting of the apostles and the elders, and when he joined the apostles in the agape meal and the Eucharistic fellowship. In all these settings Paul would have been proclaiming equality of status, Christian partnership, for this Gentile Christian. Second, there were those whom Paul characterized as false brethren who contended that the Gentile Christian must be circumcised. How will they treat Titus? Will they admit him, this uncircumcised Gentile, to their communion? If they permit him to eat and drink and worship with them, does that mean conceding that he is equal with them? Arent they opening Pandoras box? Responsible bishops must ask the question: What are the limits of compromise? What are those things for which I am ready to die in order to sustain or change? Third, there were those at the Jerusalem conference who for the sake of unity urged Titus and Paul to waive their scruples and consent to the circumcision of Titus. Rather than cause us to have the embarrassment of a separate agape meal and the Lords Supper, or cause us to temporarily suspend our meals in private homes, or even to ask Titus to leave or sit apart, why not just become circumcised for the sake of unity? The question that lurks in the shadows is, What is the price of unity? The account in Acts 15:4 presupposes that the dispute was presented before a complex organization in Jerusalem. This organization consisted of the whole community, led by a council of elders who assemble for important decisions with the twelve apostles, who are construed as a sort of executive committee. In the Galatians account the dispute is presented to the pillars of the Church in Jerusalem. Paul says to all of this, Titus was not compelled. Pauls oversight grew out of this theological perspec48

tive that God saves by Grace through faith in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. Thus, when the question is asked, Why did Paul refuse to circumcise Titus? the refrain comes, that the truth of the Gospel might be preserved for you. The truth of the Gospel is enunciated in Galatians 2:16, that a human being is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. That truth is the essence of the Gospel as found in Romans 1:16-17, For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, he who through faith is righteous shall live. The refusal of Church fellowship to a believer in this Gospel on social grounds would nullify the truth that faith in Christ is the sole and sufficient ground of justification. Pauls understanding of the truth of the Gospel says something about the nature of God and the all-inclusive nature of the Christian partnership. Galatians 2:6-10 A responsible bishop seeks to be inclusive, avoiding perpetuation of oppressive conditions that might have developed among dichotomies of slave/free, male/female, Jews/Gentiles, rich/ poor, clergy/laity, or one form of leadership structure over another form of leadership structure. Paul says in Galatians 2:6-10: And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas, and John, who reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; only they would have us remember the poor, which thing I was eager to do. One thing stands out in this conglomerate of relative pronouns and participlesPaul talked like this when he was caught up emotionally in his arguments. We shall comment on this one fundamental idea. God shows no partiality..., God recognizes no

external distinction (Weymouth), God is not impressed with a mans office (Phillips), God does not recognize these personal distinctions (New English Bible), God accepts not the person of man. The order of the words in the Greek text puts emphasis on prosoponperson. This means that it is never on account of a man or womans person that God accepts either. Since one of the Greek words for person (prosopon as used here) has a secondary meaning as mask, the phrase prosopon lamganein is said to denote the external circumstances of a personones rank, wealth, office, race, sexas opposed to ones real intrinsic character. The phrase accepts a human beings person is always used in a bad sense in the New Testament. On the other hand, the corresponding technical term among the Romans was persona, a word never used for the natural face, as prosopon was. So the word prosopon here may be used to designate the part, or certain accessories of the part, that a person plays on the stage of human life, in contradiction to ones more interior or essential character. The phrase denotes accepting persons, for example: for their worldly rank or position, for their office, nationality, gender or even their status in the church. What Paul is saying in this passage is that his knowledge and service as a minister of Jesus Christ is just as real as the knowledge and ministry of James and the other members of the twelve whom the enemies of Paul were honoring so far above him merely for their persons sake. God made no such distinction between him and them, but worked with him just as much (see 2 Corinthians 11:22ff). As Galatians 3:27-28 reads: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. In Pauls day as well as in ours, humanity was broken up by arbitrary distinctions of many kinds that set men and women against each other. There were racial and religious differences like those between Jew and Gentile, sexual conflicts between male and female, and class divisions of slave and free. Now that Christ has come, inwardly appropriated by faith and visibly assumed in baptism, we are made sons and daughters of God. This is the faith that restores the brokenness of humankind. Ones racial heritage is not the last word for a Christian: There is neither Jew nor Greek. Ones social status is not
49

the last word: There is neither bond nor free. Ones gender is not the last word; the Christians cause rests not upon gender but upon Gods grace toward us: There is neither male nor female. We are all one in Christ. God is no respecter of persons. Trust in the covenant begins here. The Church has only one option according to the Gospel. It is to accept all persons whom God accepts, whatever their race, gender, class, economic situation or education. A church that makes a certain race or class or sex the basis for membership has become something other than the Body of Christ, which is for all believers. Such a church may justly be placed in the category of a country club, where the major considerations are wealth, the color of a persons skin and similar criteria. In 1956, Martin Luther King, Jr. was right when he said, He who works against the community is working against the whole of creation. Therefore, if I respond to hate with a reciprocal hate, I do nothing by intensify the cleavage in broken community. I can only close the gap in broken community by meeting hate with love. In 1967, in his last Christmas sermon, after many trials, he still struck the same note; the same dream was shared: I have a dream that one day men (and women) will rise up and come to see that they are made to live together as brothers (and sisters)...that the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together...with this faith we will be able to speed up the day when there will be peace on earth and good will towards men (human beings). It will be a glorious day; the morning stars will sing together, and the sons (children) of God will shout for joy.

Notes
1. To go up to Jerusalem by revelation (Galatians 2:2) does not necessarily contradict the report in Acts 15:2 that the Antioch assembly ordered them to go. The revelation may indeed have been conveyed through a congregational prophet, the casting of lots, or some other means of inspired decision. While there are other differences in the Acts and Galatians accounts, we cannot rehearse here the long debate about them. The facts most important for our inquiry are reasonably clear.