Considering No Flesh Shall Glory

As the civil rights movement was growing in America, C. Herbert Oliver wrote No Flesh Shall Glory: How the Bible Destroys the Foundations of Racism. With the recent increase in racial tension, P&R decided to re-publish his book and added the transcript of his lecture at Westminster Theological Seminary called “The Church and Social Change”.

The Author

C. Herbert Oliver was born and raised in Birmingham, AL subject to the Jim Crow laws. He attended Wheaton College and then Westminster Theological Seminary. While writing this book Oliver was the pastor of Bethel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ludlow-Smyrna and Houlton, ME. In 1959, the year the book was originally published he moved back to Birmingham to work in the civil rights movement. In the mid-60’s he moved to Brooklyn, NY to pastor Westminster Bethany United Presbyterian Church (now PC USA) and was on the school board. He was a man whose faith was active in seeking justice for himself and others.

This is a timely re-release as we struggle not only with racism but anti-racism. I think this volume speaks to both, powerfully. His was a time of segregation with interracial marriage being a controversial issue. We are on the verge of a new period of segregation, by choice not law, as many African-Americans are weary to the issues that come from living in the majority culture. Many are leaving out loud. Just as being black was denigrated, now many criticize and blame ‘whiteness’. I think this book speaks to these issues.

Introduction

Oliver speaks about freedom of thought in his introduction. Such freedom of thought was at work in breaking the bonds of racial tyranny. Racial tyranny was founded on lies which were part of the established thinking of the time. He notes that Luther and Calvin were freeing people from religious tyranny. True freedom is one that affirms divine revelation. Those who reject God’s Word are bound by sin and ignorant of their bondage to worldly thinking.

He addresses his use of the word “race” in the book. At times he uses it in the common usage. The concept of race is one he will challenge. He seeks to destroy the ground that racism stands upon.

“As a Christian my deepest sympathies lie with the claims of God and His Kingdom, which Kingdom will ever prevail over all opposition, Jew or Gentile, black or white.”

The Unity of the Human Race

Oliver begins with Genesis 1 and the declaration that God created man in the image of God. This is one of the “great foundational truths of revealed religion.” God has filled the world with great variety, and that includes people who are made in His image. He quietly appeals to both special and general revelation in this early section.

In creation we see the unity of humanity. We don’t see different groups of people created but they all come from Adam and Eve. In Scripture all people groups trace their roots back to Noah and ultimately to Adam. To separate people groups is anti-Christian, meaning working against the purposes of God in creation and redemption.

We see it in redemption in that Jesus has purchased people from every people group to enter His kingdom (Rev. 5). People from every people group and background will be in the one Kingdom, united together forever.

At the time he wrote this book “racial solidarity” was used to justify separation. Some use it today to refer to solidarity between races against racism. He uses it to speak of solidarity of a “race” as opposed to the other races. He’ll touch on this problem later in the book.

“Racial solidarity is the cohesion of a group around a few physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features. It seems that color ranks highest in importance, though Darwin truly called it the most fleeting of all characteristics.”

He speak of the racists’ goal to promote their race to the dominant position in a society. This is why he or she fears “intermarriage” since it breaks racial solidarity. When Christians advocate or acquiesce to racial solidarity they fall short of biblical Christianity. He argues that “the notion of racial solidarity itself must go.” The solidarity of one group tends to create an equal and opposite reaction for solidarity in other racial groups. Two systems of ethics emerge: one for the majority and one for the excluded group(s). Christians should be quick to see the problem of this, but sadly don’t always. He argues that “a convinced mind can be changed, but a convinced conscience is almost unmovable.”

“The fury of mobs in Algeria or Hong Kong is not directed against Europeans because they are white, but because as whites they have engaged in extending their solidaric relationship and dominance to the hurt of peoples excluded from that relationship.”

The ban on interracial marriage was the last fortress of racial supremacy. From Oliver’s perspective, no doctrine has been as successful in separating humanity into racial groups as evolution. Note the title page of The Origin of Species with the subtitle “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Evolution does not view all men as equal, but some as more developed than others. It divided people into the civilized and the savages. He concludes “as evolution has failed to discover the true dignity of all mankind, it has failed to discover the true dignity of any part of mankind.”

We are all united in Adam, having a common ancestor. Because we are united in Adam as our covenant head, we share in a sinful condition. We are united in being under the curse of God unless we have been ordain to eternal life through the work of Christ.

The Bible and Color

Oliver notes that in western Christendom, civilization is assumed to arise from Caucasians and Christianity is part of civilization. Adam is assumed to be white which makes it easier to enslave non-whites based on a misunderstand of the curse upon Ham.

Because African civilizations tended not to write histories, some wrongly assumed there were not African (black) civilizations. “People make history. The historian remakes it. And he remakes it according to the presuppositions under which he labors.”

I certainly understand the reality of remaking history. This is done to maintain power. Reading 1984 in middle school left an indelible mark upon me. But I’m foreign to the presuppositions of white supremacists. I’ve never really thought of the race of people in the Bible mattering. Or should I say skin color. I think of them as middle eastern- not white. I haven’t tried to recreate them in my image. But, sadly, many do.

Oliver mentions the attempt by the Book of Mormon to connect black skin with God’s curse. But it isn’t just the Mormons who did this since they were a product of their 19th century culture which struggled with race prior to the Civil War.

Biblically, the curse on Ham resulted in the destruction of the Canaanites in the conquest. Oliver is not trying to make the Bible a black man’s book, but is trying to free us from the assumption it is a white man’s book which is a lie fostered by white racists and black reactionaries.

Oliver argues that the Israelites were very dark skinned or black. Historical accounts indicate early Egyptians were black prior to being conquered and the resulting intermarriage with Europeans. Joseph was indistinguishable from the Egyptians according to his brothers. He didn’t stick out like a sore thumb due to the color of his skin. Moses was also thought to be an Egyptian by the Midianite shepherds, and not just because of his clothing.

Oliver addresses Song of Songs 1:5 as the KJV translates the text as “I am black but comely”. Other translations are similar. He argues this since the LXX uses “kai” (and) to translate the Hebrew conjunction which is ambiguous (either “and” or “but”). The issue I have with this is verse 6. She connects her darkness to working in the vineyards, not race. This issue here seems to be class, not race. She’s a working girl and the Lover is not.

This doesn’t negate his overarching point from extra-biblical sources like The Greatest Story Ever Told that European Christians have been servants or defenders of Western imperialism in the past. The Bible does not confirm the prejudices of racism unless greatly distorted. Christians should flee to the Bible so their minds are renewed and set free from the worldly conceptions of racism and racial superiority.

The Significance of Shem, Ham, and Japheth

I found this the weakest link in this book. At times it was confusing. The point does remain that many read racist attitudes and doctrine into the Bible. They assume their prejudices are explicit in the Scriptures. He looks at a number of commentaries to show how they do this. They include Keil and Delitzsch, George Bush, Murphy, Pink and many more. They extend the curse on Canaan to all the Hamites.

He does provide a few commentators who don’t do this. The (J.C.?) Ryle Cambridge Bible Series and Leopold (a Lutheran) are two examples of those who reject the extension of the curse to all of Ham and therefore a justification of chattel slavery.

“Only the Christian faith has the framework for universal harmony among peoples. Let the Christian rise to the occasion today and make practical the great doctrines of the Bible, which truths can transcend the narrow bounds of race.”

The Biblical History of Shem, Ham, and Japheth

Many commentators, like Matthew Henry, exclude Ham from all heavenly blessings contrary to the message of the prophets and Revelation. God chose to bless all the nations through Shem and his descendant via Abraham: Jesus. Gentiles is a term used not only for Japhethites but also Hamites. It is also used for the descendants of Shem other than Abraham’s line. The Bible does not mention the color of Japheth’s skin and to conclude he and his descendants were white is unwarranted.

Racism, Oliver argues, is not an ancient concept but a modern one. Because Egypt was a great empire many historians classify them as white. But Oliver warns that God will bring down to the dust all those nations that don’t worship Him regardless of the color of their skin.

Any marriage lines drawn between the three sons of Noah’s descendants had to do with faith, not skin color. Those who worshiped YHWH were not to marry those who did not.

As we think about God judging wicked nations, we should see that He frustrates false hopes including those rooted in racial solidarity. Oliver saw the discord in America as God frustrating those corrupt hopes.

“Policies of separateness can succeed only as the segregated group is kept in ignorance and economic weakness. And is it Christian to impose ignorance and poverty on anyone?”

He sees segregation opposed to love of neighbor and a denial of God’s creation of all humanity in His image.

Does this mean we should cancel those in the past who held some racist views? Should we tear down statues of Lee and Lincoln, for instance?

I don’t think he’d want us to do that. He recognized the presence of racism in them and their actions. But he also recognized better notions as well, actions inconsistent with the racist ideas they expressed at times.

“Among such systems, however, there are those who rise above their narrow and perverted surroundings and make unforgettable footprints in the sands of time. We cannot forget a General Lee who did not scruple to kneel with his black brother to receive the communion of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot forget the humble Lincoln, ever looking forward on the lowly penny to a better day in human relations. Though these men were not completely free of the racism of their day, they rise so high above the masses of their time as to deserve perpetual and warm memory.”

Christian Ethics and Segregation

He begins with a brief discussion of ethics. Idealistic Ethics focuses on self-realization whether as individuals or a nation. The Ethics of Evolution focuses on what contributes to the survival of the species. This, he believes, is the ethics that justifies segregation.

Christian Ethics are differentiated from these, and all other, ethical systems. Commitment to Christ shapes one’s ethics and provides the deepest and most lasting joy. Apart from faith this is no Christian Ethics.

“Man’s chief end is neither pleasure, nor self-realization, nor survival; it is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”

The natural man, on the other hand, aspires to wealth, culture, prestige and power. These aspirations are often pursued in light of racial superiority. We want them for ourselves and our race. Oliver brings in Abraham who had wealth and was given a great name. His hope however was in God, not these things.

The ethical standard for us is the Law of God. The Pharisees, Oliver notes, thought they kept the law while in fact they externalized it, and often substituted the tradition of the elders for Law.

Why in the world is he talking about this? Precisely for the fact that the Bible does not command people to be segregated by race. This principle is contrary to Christianity, severing bonds created by God. That segregation is not supported by God’s law does not keep one from choosing one’s own friends. That is true for everyone: black, Asian, Native American etc. You may choose your friends based on race due to freedom of association, but you can’t legalize such discrimination (but shouldn’t as a Christian). You also reject the blessing God has for His people. Oliver says that “a complete system of segregation can hardly prevail in a land where Christian teachings are accepted.” I want to know what he meant by that. Where truly understood, I agree. Many Christian teachings were accepted in the segregated South (as well as northern cities after the migration).

He addresses the reality of institutional racism. “Institutions have their source in ideas, and ideas have always been slow to change, and more so institutions.” Where the idea of racism is common, institutions will be shaped by it. While individuals may change rapidly, institutions do not. While people in America may be generally less racist, the institutions in America may still have left over influences from racism.

He brings into the discussion the “problem of stability and progress.” They are interdependent. The Constitution is “a system of government that is both stable and progressive.” It is stable because the document is hard to change, but it can be changed when most states agree to change it. The 3/5ths Compromise, for instance, is no longer in effect. The right to vote has been extended to all people groups who are citizens. Our government has adapted to the shift from an agrarian to an industrial society.

Into this he brings the Jubilee in the Old Testament. It broke the cycle of debt and periodically reset the society. Oliver advocates for some similar system in Christian nations. Jubilee “worked” (we actually have no record of it being celebrated) because land was inherited. It was not simply about debt forgiveness, and the release of slaves, but a return of the family land. Sojourners could rent land, buy a home in a walled city, but not own land for farming. I’m not sure how an industrial economy could operate in this way.

He shifts into the problem of identifying the segregated group. These laws become arbitrary and contradictory. “But if one drop of ‘Negro’ blood makes a white person a Negro, then by all laws of logic, one drop of ‘white’ blood would made a Negro white.” Negro was a social concept, not a biological one (Gunnar Myrdal).

The psychological constitution of sinners regularly requires that there be someone to look down upon. Whom that is will differ in various cultures. Here in the West blacks are commonly looked down upon. That is not universal. In the past, Koreans, valuing ethnic purity, looked down on all non-Koreans and the Amerasian children born during and after the Korean War which initiated the international adoption movement. In many Chinese action films we can often see the Japanese occupiers denigrating the Chinese. When we recognize that we are sinners, we can more easily reject disdain for others of different races.

Oliver returns to Jefferson and Lincoln. Both saw a time when there was no slavery, but thought it impossible for the two groups to live in the same government as equals. “May the good that Jefferson and Lincoln have spoken live long. May the evil of their statements above lie interred in their bones.” Oliver also looks at the Dred Scott decision and how the Constitution never defined a citizen. We must remember that there were free Blacks before and after the signing of the Constitution. They therefore should have been included in the “free persons” that comprised the citizenry. The Dred Scott decision gave states the right to confer citizenship on a person, but no other state had to honor that citizenship. A mess indeed. Thankfully the decision was overturned.

Association

Oliver begins with Amos 3:3- “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”. This is to introduce his criticism of segregation. He wants there to be harmony, which depends upon agreement. They must blend together like a great duet. In order to have agreement there must first be understanding. In order to have understanding you must have time together and communication, or association. Segregating people leads to misunderstanding, lack of agreement and disharmony.

Association ==> Understanding ==> Agreement ==> Harmony between Groups

Christians, wanting racial harmony, cannot oppose association. When the love of God dwells in our hearts, we will, according to John, love our brothers. Segregation is rooted in a lack of love. That lack of love means there is distrust, fear and any provocation (real or perceived) results in conflict. It is a toxic relationship.

Some argue for physical separation through legal means such as the Jim Crow laws. Oliver addresses mental segregation, those who hide “behind a mental wall of segregation” which can be more sturdy than the physical wall. What he is addressing is now called “kinism”, keeping with your own kind or kin. There is no interest in experiencing other cultures for this is seen as dilution of your race. Stay with your own kind, they say, especially in marriage.

“Good human relations are impossible where free and voluntary association is denied by legal enactments, but just as difficult when discountenanced and punished by social ostracism.”

He argues that differences should be studied, understood. Racism divides so this can’t happen. Recognition of the unity of humanity enables those differences to be understood. In this context, he returns to the problem of evolution which “establishes permanent differences between so-called inferior and superior races”.

“Evolutionistic racism overemphasizes similarity in the animal and plant kingdoms, and overemphasizes dissimilarity in the human sphere.”

He rejects racial dominance as a goal. He rejects blending as a goal. Integration for Oliver means that racial ideas are disturbed and rejected. He says many things that challenge the current anti-racist movement which makes “whiteness” the great sin. For instance:

“To replace a white racist ideology with a black racist ideology is not the road to good human relations. What we need is not another race ideology, but freedom for all racism.”

With the societal opposition to association, he argued that it has only been through agitation and pressure that change has come. I don’t read this in the same way as I read “Burn it down” as contemporary leaders say. Protests are not the same as riots. Speaking out is not the same as beating people and burning buildings.

Human Marriage

In addition to freedom of association, Oliver sees freedom of human marriage as important in moving toward understanding and harmony. Segregationists opposed marriage between blacks and whites. They still do. Racial superiority strives for racial purity. Human harmony strives for the freedom for two people to be married to the person of the opposite sex they want to marry. That freedom should not reside with only one sex, nor only one color.

Racial Solidarity <== Racial Preservation <== Racial Superiority

There are considerations of religion, culture and common interests. Those are obstacles in some cases, but not all. Some of the objections are that it is unnatural, children will suffer, it destroys the majority white race and that we must respect the feelings of those who are offended. Oliver refutes each of these in turn. He doesn’t provide complex answers because these are not complex objections.

“Prejudice of any kind is self-destructive. It destroys those who sustain and nourish it, like the dog that conceals a thousand fleas under his hair.”

He also provides a warning to the Christian who holds to segregation or superiority.

“We are not as close to God as we think when our religion becomes warm toward those of our own color, and progressively cool as the color difference increases.”

Appendix: The Church and Social Change

This appendix is a lecture at Westminster Seminary. He is addressing the stance of various groups in the church regarding the civil rights movement of the ’50’s and ’60’s. Too bad we can’t bring him into the present to address the current civil rights movement.

“The church may institute change or resist change; it may be carried along by it, or it may strengthen the good elements of change; it may seek self-preservation by an act of withdrawal from society, or it may lose its unique identity by conforming to social patterns which defy basis biblical concepts. Whatever choice she makes, one fact is certain- there is no real refuge from society, not even in lonely withdrawal, for there is no happiness there.”

This is just as pertinent now! We should not resist change, but neither should we be unthinkingly carried along by it. We should seek change consistent with Scripture, not worldly change. Too often in the past we’ve resisted worldly change AND biblical change. Or we’ve fully embraced worldly change.

This is true not only true of the question of race but also the sexual revolution. We tend to polarize rather than weigh, assess and act with wisdom, love, and prudence.

Oliver looks to past philosophical and political thought. He brings up Aristotle who viewed slavery as vital to the economy of his day. He thought the citizens should be able to live lives of leisure and the slaves should provide that opportunity for them. This sounds so much like communism to me. The Party thrives and the people labor. Aristotle thought some people were born to be slaves. He, Epictetus, and Aristides portray a grotesque society as well-ordered.

For the Church, we believe the Son became a slave to redeem us from slavery to sin. Slaves could know the love and salvation of God. Masters had to reckon themselves slaves of God. Those the world disregarded and disparaged “found a glorious home in God.” We recognize the sinful tendency among humans to strive for earthly supremacy of some sort. We see it “in doctrines of national, racial, and economic superiority.”

He then shifts to the degrading nature of Medieval class distinctions. Serfs were little better than slaves to the nobility. Labor was seen as beneath the elites. It took a Reformation to change how work and station were viewed. Class distinctions were rejected.

“Calvinism emphasized its dignity. Over against the contemporary view of the divine right of kings, Calvinism place the king under divine law and laid out his limitations. Over against the contemporary doctrine of the inherent inequality of men, Calvinism emphasized the inherent equality of all men before God. Thus was the church, by being the church, the instrument of social change.”

Oliver sees the Reformation very differently than many modern scholars. He sees positive social change resulting from the theological reformation. This doesn’t mean that the church continued to live up being the church. The Aristotelian ideal rose again with the rise of race-based slavery. Much of the church in America bears shame for endorsing, supporting or ignoring the realities of slavery.

He returns to Calvin and the doctrine of the lesser magistrate to protect people from tyrannical abuses. Calvin doesn’t recommend civil disobedience to remove tyranny. However, viewed from the perspective of religious authorities Calvin was viewed as an agitator, a seditious rebel who sought to subvert society. This is the lot of all who question the status quo

The church should be where there is association, understanding in increasing measure, agreement and harmony. We should be showing the world the way produced by the gospel which places us all on level ground. Applying our convictions in the voting booth would provide the larger societal change necessary. The church should be leading the way in example, and Christians shaping government.

Oliver shares a story from his life of being hungry while sitting in his car. He was a U.S. citizen with sufficient money to buy food. He was law-abiding, tax-paying and a pastor. Yet, he was unable to address his hunger despite smelling the aroma of tasty food in the air. As a black man, he was not permitted to enter those establishments and buy food.

Thankfully this is not the case today, but let’s not think the work is completed. There is more to do.

“We must not forget that the American Revolution did not destroy England. It only released the energies of a great people and enabled them to try the wings of nationhood.”

Oliver didn’t want to see America destroyed. He wants to see all its citizens released to expend their energies in the pursuit of liberty. Too many seem to want America to just burn, as though their version will be sin free. He warns against extremism, which is often born of finding one’s identity in race instead of in Christ. He wanted to see America come into full possession of its ideals rather than condemn the whole nation.

My Final Thoughts

This is an important book in many ways. I don’t agree with every jot and tittle but J. Herbert Oliver is generally spot on. He shows “how the Bible destroys the foundations of racism.” We need to hear this. I believe the gospel is the only message that enables us to move beyond the racial superiority that plagues just about every nation on earth. Worldly ideologies replace one form of superiority with another. White supremacy or sovereignty is replace by black supremacy or sovereignty. This merely perpetuates the problem. The gospel produces love, a consideration of the interests of others and self-denial. It produces forgiveness that breaks the cycle of reprisals and provocations.

This short book could have delved deeper into that, but it is a short book. It is a book that gets us moving in the right direction.

I find it odd that so many white Christians are so ignorant of black history. I did not grow up with “enlightened” parents. I did love stories which meant I watched movies, many of which touched on racial themes and some of them focused on historical events. I used to watch Sidney Pottier movies like In the Heat of the Night and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (dealing with interracial romantic relationships. I watched movies like Mississippi Burning, Rosewood and more on the effects of racism.

My concern is that many who are just discovering this historical reality get swept up in unbiblical movements and agendas. This is a book that can point out the folly of departing from the Scriptures in looking for solutions to this problem.