A Closer Look At "The Statement About The Deaths Of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, And Breonna Taylor"

This statement causes me to question what the CRCNA believes about sin, salvation, and sanctification

After having looked at some of the resources the signatories of the “Statement About The Deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor” believed were beneficial for guiding “church leaders and congregations to spiritually discern and take actions to be anti-racist,”I thought it would be worthwhile to look more closely at the statement itself.

The statement was initially released on June 4, 2020 a little over three months after Ahmaud Arbery’s death on 02/23/2020, 2 ½ months after Breonna Taylor’s death on 03/13/2020, and a mere 10 days after George Floyd’s death on 05/25/2020. It has since undergone several revisions, making slight punctuation changes, adding Sam Huizenga of Raise Up Global Ministries as a signatory, first updating the title of a resource link from “75 Things White People Can Do for Racial Justice” to “106 Things White People Can Do for Racial Justice” before removing the link entirely, and removing language that encouraged people to support Black Lives Matter and linked directly to the BLM website.

The statement raises many questions about what the CRCNA believes, and I think it would be worthwhile for a serious biblical scholar and theologian to look at this statement and explain its spiritual import. I am just a layperson, so I expect I will not be able to do justice to the “Statement on the Deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor”; nevertheless, I do have a number of questions and concerns, and I will try to lay those out.

Before even getting into the statement itself, it is worth pointing out that the picture posted at the top of the statement is of Black Lives Matter protesters. The most visible poster in the picture clearly includes the words “Black Lives Matter” and also prominently features a raised fist.

Black Lives Matter is a political organization that, back in June of 2020, openly stated on its website that it was doing “the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women”, trying to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement”, and “freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).” All of those goals strike me not only as being extremely progressive and left-wing in their political orientation but also generally harmful to society and deeply anti-Christian. One would assume that using a BLM sign to illustrate this statement indicates support of BLM’s mission by at least the signatories of this statement if not also by the denomination as a whole. Does the CRCNA believe the goals promoted by BLM back in June of 2020 were compatible with the Bible and the CRCNA’s confessions?

The statement itself begins with the sentence:

Racism is sin.

However, the signatories do not define what they mean by “racism” which is problematic given that in society there currently exist two competing understandings of what racism is.

One understanding of racism (the understanding that has been predominant up until the last few years) is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

The other understanding of racism (the understanding that started being popularized right around the time this statement was signed) holds that racism must involve the power of an institution or system, separates racism from racial prejudice, holds that it is impossible for “people of color” in the United States to be racist toward white people, and maintains that white people in the United States can be racist whether or not they engage in acts of racial prejudice.

This other understanding of racism is well illustrated by this University of Wisconsin Law School Training which defines it thusly: “Racism=racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power. To say people of color can be racist, denies the power imbalance inherent in racism. Certainly, people of color can be and are prejudiced against white people. That was a part of their societal conditioning. A person of color can act on prejudices to insult or hurt a white person. But there is a difference between being hurt and being oppressed. People of color, as a social group, do not have the societal, institutional power to oppress white people as a group. An individual person of color abusing a white person—while clearly wrong, (no person should be insulted, hurt, etc.) is acting out a personal racial prejudice, not racism.”

Given the competing natures of these two definitions, it seems irresponsible at best for the signatories of this statement to not have clearly explained what they were speaking against.

The gaping hole left by the lack of definition for the term “racism” immediately becomes apparent as one reads the next sentence which states:

We must all stand up and speak, work, and preach against the sin of racism.

Are the signatories exhorting us to stand up against the belief that a person’s race determines their abilities and value? Or are the signatories exhorting us to stand up against some sort of oppressive system or institution, and, if so, what specifically is that system and institution? The statement really warrants more details, and, again, it seems irresponsible for the signers to have been so vague in their language.

The statement goes on to claim:

This is not political action; it is a biblical position.

However, depending on what definition of racism they are utilizing, it seems that their call for action could very well be a call for political action. If they view racism as an attitude that an individual holds against people of another race, then, yes, that would be a spiritual matter that requires individual repentance, which would be a biblical position. If, however, the signatories are calling for people to stand up against some sort of institution or system, then such action could very be political in nature. Certainly, the resources linked to later on in the statement include things such supporting Black Lives Matter, supporting Antifa, defunding the police, lobbying the government to legalize marijuana, participating in reparations. All of these things are political actions with political goals such as supporting civil unrest and possible domestic terrorism (in the case of BLM and antifa), reshaping our criminal justice system (in the case of Defund the Police) and civil justice system (in the case of reparations), and promoting and sanctioning generally negative behavior that decreases competence (such as by legalizing marijuana).

The signatories of the “Statement About The Deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor” do not point to any specific Bible passages or sections of the Reformed confessions in the body of their statement to bolster their position, but more vaguely direct readers to “God’s Diverse and Unified Family” as providing the foundation for their vision of racism even though this document seems mostly to be an ecclesiastical document focused on how the CRCNA internally deals with issues pertaining to race, and the creators of this document were specifically tasked with studying:

1. The biblical basis for the development and use of multiethnic leadership.

2. The present criteria for leadership in the life of the CRCNA.

3. Biblical guidelines for church-planting principles to be used in the development of a racially and ethnically diverse family of God.

These things don’t necessarily have a lot to do with George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor, and vaguely pointing to this document as the religious foundation for the statement, instead of explicitly laying out their biblical case, was irresponsible and lazy of the signers.

In the next paragraph, the signatories deliberately state that they are speaking in their positions as denominational leaders by saying:

As denominational leaders in the Christian Reformed Church in North America, we grieve with the families of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and George Floyd.

It seems problematic for these individuals to be speaking as if the authority of the denomination is behind them. It gives the impression that everything within the statement is supported by the CRCNA as a whole and in line with the CRCNA’s beliefs, but I’m not actually sure that’s the case. The signatories ought to have been more careful about making it clear whether they were speaking for themselves or for the denomination, and given the number of times the statement has already been edited, it really ought to be updated at this point to make it clear whether or not it accurately represents the CRCNA’s position on racism and racially tinged social issues.

This need for care becomes particularly clear when they get to the next sentence, which reads:

We also recognize that [George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor] were killed because they were seen through a lens of racism.

That’s an extremely bold statement that seems unsupportable to me and certainly was not something that any of the signatories were in a position to be able to state definitively. What did the signatories base that claim on? Certainly not first-hand knowledge. One would assume that they were basing that claim on the same information that everyone else was basing their opinions on at the time which was social media and the news, neither of which are necessarily reliable or conducive to reasoned care and consideration of facts.

What on earth led the signatories of this statement to feel it was appropriate or right for them to make such a definitive judgment about the motivations of the individuals involved in these three separate situations, and how does this accusation, seemingly based on no substantive fact or finding, not contravene the 9th Commandment to not bear false witness? The Heidelberg Catechism clearly explains in Question and Answer 112 that the 9th Commandment means:

God’s will is that I never give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone without a hearing or without a just cause. Rather, in court and everywhere else, I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind; these are devices the devil himself uses, and they would call down on me God’s intense anger. I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it. And I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name.

In spite of the 9th Commandment and the clear understanding of that Commandment provided by the Heidelberg Catechism, the signatories of this statement, including the future Secretary General of the denomination, the President of Calvin Theological Seminary, and the then director of the Offices of Race Relations, Social Justice, and Diversity, seemed to have no problem assigning motives to the participants in these situations before court cases happened or full evidence was released.

Additionally, by assigning 100% of the blame for the deaths of these three people to “racism”, the signatories completely discount any other factors that may have contributed to these deaths. Surely George Floyd’s lifetime of criminal activity, drug use, and general poor decision-making was at least a factor in creating the situation that resulted in his death. Likewise, could not inadequate and outdated training, poor standards, and a general lack of accountability, separate from any “racism”, by the Minneapolis Police Department have contributed to Mr. Floyd’s death? What led the signatories of the statement to conclude that it was racism specifically rather than a conflux of factors that resulted in his death?

Regarding Breonna Taylor’s death, is it not more likely that the way no knock warrants were carried out played a role in her death rather than “racism”. Likewise, did not her choice to spend years in a relationship with a drug dealer (remaining with him even after a dead body showed up in the car she had rented and lent to said drug dealer) and maintain contact with him even after they broke up play a part in creating the event that resulted in her death?

Ahmaud Arbery's death is the least like the other two deaths in that that situation did not involve any formal law enforcement and the three private citizens who participated in his killing have all been convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison sentences. But, even in his case could his death have not been the result of a convergence of factors including not merely his race but also the fact that he was trespassing on private property and his attackers were on edge from the neighborhood having been recently burglarized several times, perhaps were too amped up and anxious to prevent further burglaries, and certainly possessed a poor to nonexistent understanding of the law surrounding citizens arrests.

The signatories go on to claim:

While these incidents create moments of crisis in the lives of non-black people, they actually expose centuries-long patterns of racism and prejudice in the United States that are lived every day by people of color.

These high profile cases are not anomalies. They are not simply the result of some rogue police officers. Instead, they underline the systemic nature of racism and its pervasiveness in our culture. George Floyd is one among way too many African American men disrespected as image bearers of God in the US. And in Canada, there are similar systemic realities that result in precious children of the Creator taken too soon. 

Regardless of the boldness of these claims, the signers do not in any way back their assertions up. They provide no facts or statistics to indicate how they have reached these conclusions or why these incidents cannot easily be explained by factors that do not include racism.

In fact, looking at available statistics, the number of black people killed by police in the United States seems to be fairly low (between 250-300 each year for the last 10 years). In 2023, they accounted for 282 of the 1,269 total number of people killed by police, markedly less than the 495 white people who were killed. In 2023, they accounted for only 22% of the deaths which seems in line with the percentage from previous years. For example, in 2018, (I choose that year because the Department of Justice has a very helpful report related to that year) black people accounted for 23% of the people killed by police which was actually markedly lower than the percentage they made up of people arrested for committing nonfatal violent crimes, which in 2018 was 33%. At the same time, in 2018 white people accounted for 45.9% of all the people arrested for nonfatal violent crimes and they also accounted for 44.8% of all the people killed by police in that year a much closer gap than that of black arrestees. Additionally, the FBI crime statistics website indicates that in 2018 black offenders committed 50% of the murders compared to the 38% committed by white offenders. If anything, it seems like one could argue that the number of white people killed by police is fairly proportionate with the number of white people who commit crimes whereas the number of black people killed by police is disproportionately lower than the number of black people committing crimes which would suggest the opposite of systemic racism.

I don't know where to find any statistics about the number of black people as opposed to members of other races killed per year by neighborhood residents trying to make citizens arrests, but my guess would be it's a statistically irrelevant number.

It seems to me that it was incumbent on the signatories of this statement, as faithful Christians leveling a charge of racism against police or society or whoever they were directing it at, to provide some sort of evidence of their claim, but they never actually do, choosing instead to provide no overall statistics and instead just pointing to 3 highly emotional cases that, at the time, had been popularized by social media and for which it is unlikely, given the timing of the statement, the signatories possessed a full picture or set of facts. How does that demonstrate wisdom or fairness or discernment or a commitment to truth? 

The statement’s signers continue:

The CRC’s Office of Race Relations has a 50-year history of working with congregations and collaborating in the public square on issues of racialized injustice. Most recently leaders from congregations and classes in the United States and Canada have asked the Office of Race Relations about actions to take in response to recent killings.

I’m deeply curious which leaders and classes (and how many) contacted the Office of Race Relations. It’s easy to view this paragraph as an attempt to make it look like there was a lot of demand from within the CRCNA for the Office of Race Relations to put together the “Statement About The Deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor”, but I’m not sure that was actually the case. Was this demand wide-spread or was it rather just centered in a few of the more progressive classes and congregations in the denomination? And are the signatories of this statement counting themselves as the nameless leaders and congregations who asked for the Office of Race Relations to do something? I think it would be illuminating if they shared who specifically asked for a statement to be made or resources to be shared.

The signatories continue:

We thank God for this interest, but we also understand that the news cycle will soon move on. It is imperative that, as a church and as individual Christians, we remain focused on the socialized beliefs and assumptions that perpetuate such racist acts, even when the media has moved on to the next news story.

My question is: what does the Bible tell Christians and churches to focus on? One of the last commands Christ gave the disciples while on earth was “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” Does this statement promote the Gospel message? Will it bring people to Christ? Do the resources this statement directs people to lead them to Christ? Should our focus as Christians not be on God? What is the Biblical foundation for focusing “on the socialized beliefs and assumptions that perpetuate […] racist acts”?

They continue:

Racism is a stronghold in our countries that will not go away overnight. The remedy is a commitment to sanctification. We invite you to walk with us in this sanctification process.

We now come to the part of the statement that I believe would particularly benefit from a close and discerning view by a well-trained, Biblically grounded theologian. I agree with the belief that becoming a Christian and becoming sanctified is the answer to not just racism but every sin. I suspect that Christianity has done more to improve relations between races than any other religion or philosophy throughout history. The basic Christian conception that we are all made in the image of God, that God is no respecter of persons, that God looks at the heart and not the outward appearance, and that He very specifically made salvation available not only to Jews but also to gentiles and told the disciples to go throughout the whole world preaching salvation seems to provide all the foundation one needs to view other people as equals, and certainly we see the fruits of this in the abolition of slavery in the Western, Christianized world and the increased effort to treat everyone equally under the law.

It concerns me that the signatories of this statement do not seem to think that the church and Christians have been adequately sanctified up until this point. I am also concerned that the signers have crafted this statement in such a way that a person’s sanctification will be called into question if they disagree with the basic premise that “Racism is a stronghold in our countries” or if they disagree with the idea that BIPOC individuals are treated disproportionately unfairly due to their skin color or if they disagree with the idea that George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor were killed because of racism.

The signatories go on to make a requirement, saying:

Each of us—pastors, leaders, church members, and classes—must ask ourselves questions like these:

• What is God saying to change us, heal us, renew us?

• What common narratives will this moment change?

• How much priority will we give to anti-racist spiritual formation?

• What will it mean to have a Reformed world and life view in responding to racialized inequality?

• Will we allow ourselves to be crucified with Christ, so that we no longer live, but Christ lives in us?”

The signers of the statement seem to be tying a person's sanctification to these actions. It sounds as if they're saying, in effect, “Racism is a sin. The solution is sanctification. In order to be sanctified you must do these specific things,” but the specific things they are requiring are quite dubious, and I’m not sure they’re grounded in scripture. The questions that people are told to ask themselves all seem designed to break down a person's common sense and discernment and guide them into embracing the idea that they as individuals and society as a whole are deeply racist and that some kind of major change needs to happen.

All of the questions have major presuppositions attached to them.

“What is God saying to change us, heal us, renew us?” assumes that God will be telling someone they need to be changed, healed, or renewed in the context of their views on race, but that’s not a given. As an example, many people don’t consume alcohol so it would be inapplicable to them if somebody who believed alcoholism was rampant in society told them that they needed to ask how God wanted to change, heal, or renew them in the context of alcoholism. Likewise, there are many people who have already been sanctified in regards to how they view people of other races and who already treat people equally regardless of their race. They may still have many other sins and failings, but they don’t need to be changed, healed, or renewed in terms of how they view people from other races.

“What common narratives will this moment change?” assumes that there are common narratives that need to change. Now, I would actually agree that there are some narratives that need to be changed, one of which is the entire concept of systemic racism which does not seem to be supported by actual facts, but I wonder if the signatories of this statement might view me as unsanctified for holding that view.

“How much priority will we give to anti-racist spiritual formation?” assumes that anti-racist spiritual formation is something that must be done and it is only a matter of establishing how much priority it should be given. I find it deeply concerning that a person’s sanctification is being tied to their “anti-racist spiritual formation” because the anti-racism resources provided later on in the statement are shockingly unChristian and are not only not focused on God in any way, shape, or form but seem actually designed to turn people’s focus away from Christ and the mechanism God has provided to deal with sin, centering self-flagellating works instead.

“What will it mean to have a Reformed world and life view in responding to racialized inequality?” assumes that “racialized inequality” is something that even exists and is common enough that individuals will have to respond to it.

“Will we allow ourselves to be crucified with Christ, so that we no longer live, but Christ lives in us?” implies that if a person does not fight racism that they have not been crucified with Christ and are basically being selfish and poor Christians.

The signatories continue, saying:

These recent killings have exposed racism to our collective attention. Some of us have participated in peaceful protests, but racism has not gone away. Turning from it toward equity and love will require remembering who we are in Christ, memorializing the murdered cloud of witnesses, taking the historical blood-stained sins to the cross, and raising our eyes to the hope of Jesus leading us to a beloved community.

This entire paragraph is filled with confusing assertions and strange metaphors, and again, I am struck by how much this statement suffers from the fact that the signers never actually defined what they mean by the term “racism”. Are they talking about individuals who view others negatively due to their race? Or are they talking about some sort of collective failing or sin? Who are they talking to? There are many, many Christians who are not racist and who, in this area, have no sin that they need to turn away from, who have already been transformed by Christ, and who view people of other races as equals and brothers.

I think it is also worth specifically pointing out that the signers of this statement say that people need to turn from racism to “equity”. That's a very loaded word that, although it sounds similar to the word “equality”, often is used to indicate that people from different groups should pointedly be treated differently or unfairly in order to achieve uniformity or parity of group outcomes. The signatories would have done better to clearly define what they meant when they used the term “equity”.

The language about needing to solve racism by “memorializing the murdered cloud of witnesses” is deeply confusing. What is this “murdered cloud of witnesses” being referenced? I know that the “cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1 refers to the Old Testament believers described in Hebrews 11 who died before Christ came but who still had faith in the promises of God. Some of those people were persecuted and even killed for their faith, but as a whole they were not all murdered and are not described as a “murdered” cloud of witnesses but as a “great” cloud of witnesses. I also wonder if this section of the statement is making some sort of oblique reference to Revelation 6:9-11 which paints the picture of the souls of people martyred for their faith crying out to God, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" But those people, while described as having been murdered are not referred to as a “cloud of witnesses”, so I’m honestly not sure what the signers of the “Statement About The Deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor” are trying to point to with this phrase that is similar to a phrase in the Bible but doesn’t actually appear in the Bible itself.

To me this section demonstrates serious deficiencies in the writing skills of the signatories. These people are denominational leaders with, one would presume, years of higher education and theological training. Jul Medenblik is the president of Calvin Theological Seminary; Zachary King is the current Secretary General of the denomination. When they reference scripture, they should be articulate enough that there is no question as to what section of the Bible they are referencing or what they mean by it. Instead, one is left to guess what they are trying to say in this part of the statement.

The signatories seem to be drawing some sort of parallel between Christians who were martyred for their faith and…I'm not entirely sure who…George Floyd?…the 250-300 black people a year who are killed by police?...something else? However, it does not seem to be an apt comparison. The deaths of George Floyd, Ahmed Arbery, and Breonna Taylor may have been unnecessary and avoidable, but those three people also were not killed because they had committed themselves to God and were unwilling to deny Him even in the face of persecution and threat of death as were some members of “the great cloud of witnesses” in Hebrews 11 or the martyrs in Revelation 6.

The language about “taking the historical blood-stained sins to the cross” also is not clear. What are these sins the signers are talking about? Is it not an inherent aspect of salvation that a person's past or historical sins are automatically taken to the cross when they become a Christian?

The signatories ask us to do these (very confusing and unclear) things and then “[raise] our eyes to the hope of Jesus leading us to a beloved community,” but is our community not already beloved? Are we individually not already beloved? Has Christ not already died for our sins? Has He not already saved us? Does He not already love us? I do not understand what this statement is asking or directing us to do.

It sounds like they are saying we need to pursue “equity” and “love”, remember who we are in Christ, memorialize some undefined group of people, take some past sin that the signatories have left undefined to the cross, and only then will we have the hope of being beloved by Christ. I do not understand how that lines up with my layman's understanding of salvation (an understanding that, admittedly, was formed outside the Reformed tradition). Could a biblically grounded Reformed theologian please explain to me what this paragraph is saying and how it aligns with the Bible and the three Reformed confessional documents? It sounds like the signatories are suggesting that the salvation we already have is not enough to cover the sins we committed in the past and that something more is required of us, but I don’t know what that other thing is.

It seems to me that there is some parallel here between what the signers of this statement are trying to do and what the Judaizers of the early church were trying to do. My concern is that just as the Judaizers tried to get the early Christians to look for salvation not in Christ but in the Law, the signers of this document are trying to turn people away from the work of Christ as the source of salvation and toward fighting racism as the way one either becomes saved or proves your salvation to other people.

In response to this, the Apostle Paul told the Galatians in Gal. 5:1, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.”

The signatories continue:

This may be easily said, but it will require a ministry commitment to humility, kenosis, education, conversation and action for it to be realized. Most of all, it will require sacrifice, especially for white members of our community. Pursuing a change like this will be costly. Yet, we believe that such sacrifice is not only necessary, it also reflects the type of sacrificial love Jesus showed most gloriously on the cross.

Again, I do not understand what sort of “change” they are calling for, and they have not explained it. I can look at the resources they provide that are supposed to help us bring about this change and I find them deeply concerning. The resources seem focused on dividing people by race and turning them into “anti-racists” not followers of Christ which leaves me to question what kind of “change” the signers of this statement are trying to bring about.

The signatories specifically state that the change they are calling for will require sacrifice; however, they do not explain what that sacrifice will be. They do, however note that the sacrifice they are calling for will be particularly difficult for white people specifically. I think something like that warrants a clear explanation.

The signatories finish up by saying:

So, let us allow ourselves to be enabled by the Spirit to take action. Let us sacrifice and die to ourselves, for the sake of love of brothers and sisters, who must live with racism directed against them every day. Below are some suggested actions that you—particularly our white sisters and brothers—can take individually, communally, and systemically. Please join us in moving beyond “thoughts and prayers” to truly becoming a church of reconciliation and justice.

I came to this denomination and the specific congregation I am attending because I thought that they were focused on providing orthodox biblical teaching. I did not come to this denomination to join an anti-racist cult that wants me and my children to feel like our race makes us inherently guilty, deficient, and sinful before God and our fellow Christians. I did not come to the CRCNA with the expectation that its leaders would be promoting things like BLM or the 1619 Project or providing links to resources suggesting that I donate to bail funds and get involved with LGBTQ+ organizations.

I can state unequivocally I don’t want to embrace an ideology that tells me or my children that we are perpetually guilty because of the color of our skin and we must perform outsized sacrifices in order to remove the guilt associated with our white skin. I view that as a deeply unChristian belief that is not in line with either the nature of sin or the nature of salvation. I don’t want to be turned into a nonChristian; I want to follow Christ. I don’t want to be conformed to the world, but this “Statement About The Deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor” seems to be the product of current worldly concerns and seems to offer only worldly solutions to those concerns.

Please, just come out and openly and clearly explain the changes you want to bring about in the church and the specifics of the sacrifices you expect white people to make so that I, and others in my situation, can make an informed decision as to whether or not we belong in the CRCNA.

If the denomination believes that the resources they provided in this statement and the claims the statement made about sin, salvation, and sanctification are in line with orthodox Reformed theology and the CRCNA wants to go in that direction, fine; go that way. But, as a basic matter of courtesy, you ought to make it clear up front at the denominational level, at the classis level, and at the congregational level that that is your focus. That way, unsuspecting people will not be reeled into joining CRC churches believing they are something other than they are, and those currently attending who disagree with this direction can leave sooner rather than later and put down roots elsewhere.