American Evangelicalism: In Crisis and Confusion

We are witnessing nothing short of a full-on gospel crisis in American Evangelicalism today. Just as the homosexual movement has rapidly deteriorated into the full-blown confusion we see around the psychological disorder and delusion of gender dysphoria; we are witnessing the exponential demise of what was once a clear, focused, gospel-centered movement. When everything in evangelicalism is a gospel issue, nothing is. And this is precisely what is happening in modern evangelical Christianity. A few examples are presented in this post and then a plea for some sanctified common sense follows.

Social justice is all the rage these days. Even within the reformed camp, the balance between social concerns and the gospel is shifting much more quickly than one would have previously imagined. Social justice has, for all intents and purposes, eclipsed the pure gospel of historic Christianity so much so that we no longer know where the gospel story concludes, and it’s impacts on me as a new person in Christ, in my culture, begins. We can see this in a variety of movements that have and are competing for the attention and the money and the time of Christians, week in and week out. Abolish Human Abortion argues that the church isn’t being the church unless it works to feverishly put a stop to the murder of unborn babies. The unborn babies are your neighbor, says AHA, and you are commanded to love your neighbor and protect the defenseless. If you are not picketing abortion clinics and opposing abortion in just the right way, then you are not loving your neighbor. For AHA, ending abortion is a gospel issue. The Gospel Coalition is cranking out one social issue after another and they are all gospel issues. From Tim Keller’s highly controversial and questionable philosophies outlined in his Generous Justice to the most recent pet, outlawing American Football, TGC has turned every social concern into a gospel issue. Many prominent Southern Baptists leaders, a denomination of which I happen to be a part, has its political arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee, devoted almost exclusive to social issues. From its website we read the following: The ERLC is dedicated to engaging the culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ and speaking to issues in the public square for the protection of religious liberty and human flourishing. And of course, these issues, ranging from social justice to racial reconciliation, from sex trafficking to immigration, are all gospel issues. They ERLC, TGC, and AHA all want your attention, your time, and your money in order to carry out their agenda. But there is more.

Many of these movements, if not all of them, are contain varying degrees of components associated with liberation theology and are incredibly confused about the nature of Christianity, personal holiness, and the mission of the church. This is especially the case as it relates to the relationship of the church and the world, not to mention, the content of the gospel. Now, in case you are skeptical of my thesis (and healthy skepticism is encouraged) that what you are witnessing in Evangelicalism is in fact, liberation theology sporting a fresh coat of paint, note this comment from J. Daniel Salinas concerning the book, An Inquiry into the Possibility of an Evangelical-Liberationist theology: Chaves, the Brazilian professor at the Baptist University of the Americas, argues that later developments in both North American evangelicalism (NAE) and Latin American Liberation Theologies (LALT) have drawn them theologically closer than ever before.^[1]

The matter of liberation theology is itself indelibly linked to hermeneutics. This can be seen in how groups such as AHA, TGC, the ERLC, and Racial Reconciliation interpret the biblical text. Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutierrez wrote: “The theology of liberation offers us not so much a new theme for reflection as a new way to do theology. Theology as critical reflection on historical praxis.” As Samuel Escobar points out, “This critical reflection was the result of a new political alignment (praxis) of some Christians in Latin America during the 1960s and their critical way of reading the history of the church in that region.” Liberation then offers up a new way to do theology and along with it, a new hermeneutic, a modified gospel, an alternative mission of the church, and it defines the relationship between the church and the world. The old adage comes to mind: if it is new, it is not true and if it is true, it is not new. Is it too much to suggest that what we see taking place right now in evangelicalism, among the new Calvinists, some in the reformed branch, and especially in the Southern Baptists is a new way to do theology. Social concerns are informing how theology gets done rather than theology informing how the church gets things done. Liberation theology begins with the marginalized, the poor, the oppressed, and their concerns, and it shapes theology by insisting that exegesis submit to those concerns above all others. And this is how you end up with the proverbial tail wagging the dog problem. Don’t forget, Liberation theology fills those words with new meaning so that even the most orthodox of doctrines, such as male leadership in the church, is now viewed as complicit in the oppression and marginalization of women. Critical thinking is indispensable and the church neglects it to its own peril.

Returning to the Southern Baptists political arm, the ERLC, in reading the mission statement of this committee, one has to wonder if it should even exist in the first place: The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission exists to assist the churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with the churches and other Southern Baptist entities.

First, it is the local elders’ duty to help their communities understand the moral demands of the gospel. That is accomplished through preaching, teaching, and discipleship. The same is true for applying Christian principles to moral problems. The statement reveals its overtly political agenda when it turns to “social problems,” “questions of public policy,” and “to promote religious liberty.” In order to defend this mission statement, biblically anyways, one has to change the mission of the church so that it includes culture shaping, involvement in politics, and one has to believe that the church must work for religious liberty. But when one reads the New Testament Scriptures, writings that took place in a largely oppressive and intolerant setting, they do no find anything like these objectives there. More about this below when the subject of pure religion is addressed.

One of the most recent and highly visible areas of focus for these leaders is the topic of racial reconciliation. These men are operating on the basic premise that there is a rift between Christians of different racial classes in society. They begin by uncritically accepting melanin as a legitimate way to classify race and from there they carry their message forward with great enthusiasm and passion. Now, because racism is all the rage in the culture, and because no one wants to be called a racist or seen as doing anything whatsoever that any minority group could use to accuse one of racism, these leaders want to appear to be on board fully and completely. So, they are walking the politically correct line. With this in mind, they are working tirelessly to convince the church that they have a problem that needs to be addressed. The solution to this problem includes everything from the SBC repenting for past racism on an annual basis now for several years, to convincing white Christians that they are the bad guy, having been raised in a predominantly white culture and having unwittingly adopted racists attitudes of which they are naively ignorant and incapable of recognizing. One young minister at a prominent Southern Baptist church is the south went so far as to advocate for affirmative action in pastoral staffs, and even extended that point of view to the recommendations for books, and even conference speakers. There should be people in those positions who look like me he argues. The argument is not based on biblical exegesis, but instead, on principles directly coming from black liberation theology. In fact, recently an article appeared over at Core Christianity that was, for all intents and purposes, denying the sufficiency of Scripture on the issue of racism. I don’t measure a man’s ears when I decide to read his book or attend a conference or submit to his leadership as an elder. I am not going to pay attention to his skin tone either. It is that ridiculous and the sooner we start seeing that truth and looking at the issue that way, the better off we will be in my opinion.

Coming back to the article over at Core Christianity, the title of the article was a sure attention-getter: “Good Doctrine isn’t the Answer to Racism.” The racial reconciliation argument continues to lose exegetical debates, making it necessary to retreat and come up with new strategies. The article begins with the claim, “Just because doctrine is right, good, and true does not mean it is healthy.” Andrew Menkis argues that doctrine, in order to healthy, must be lived. Menkis, in his own attempt to jump on board the racial reconciliation train and project just the right appearance and perhaps “make his contribution” confuses Christian doctrine with Christian praxis. The word doctrine is derived from the Greek didaskalia. It simply means, teaching, instruction, that which is taught. Doctrine is a teaching. For example, the idea that doctrine should be lived out is implied in the teaching itself. When Menkis makes the claim that he makes, that just because doctrine is right, good, and true does not mean it’s healthy, he is making a false statement on the one hand and a very basic category error on the other. If it is true that doctrine must be lived in order to be healthy doctrine, then Menkis’ doctrine is in the same boat as all other doctrine. That means that Menkis’ own doctrine about doctrine being lived is itself not a healthy doctrine. A question for Menkis might be, “If good, right, and true doctrine isn’t healthy, what is it?” If something is not healthy, then that means, logically speaking, that it is unhealthy. This means that good, right, and true doctrines can be unhealthy. This reasoning is specious. Living doctrine isn’t doctrine. The actual application of doctrine to daily life is not doctrine. Christian doctrine, in many, many cases is meant to be lived but not always. For example, the doctrine that all those in the body of Christ are in fellowship with one another is not a doctrine itself that can be practiced. It is a doctrine that describes our new status in Christ. We call it the doctrine of reconciliation. Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled to God through Christ in one body by the blood of Christ. I cannot live that. I cannot live the doctrine of justification. I cannot live the doctrine of regeneration. Menkis, in his attempt to project the appearance that he is on board and in his ambition to “make a contribution” to the topic, has made himself look rather silly in my opinion. This is the kind of foolishness that you end up with when you abandon sound hermeneutical principles in preference for methods that begin with the core values and principles of pagan society.

Pure religion begins with the gospel of Christ which is itself the power of God to save and regenerate the human heart. To Nichodemus, Jesus said, you must be born afresh, anew, from above, all over again. According to James, religion that is pure, that is undefiled, is religion that includes ministry to widows and orphans and to keep oneself pure from worldly influence. This hearkens back to 1:22 where James says be doers of the word and not hearers only. But my “not doing the word” does not make the word itself unhealthy nor does it mean that the word itself does not have to cure to my problem. The word is always intended to be applied or lived where there is application to be made. The proof that God has invaded my life can be seen in my care for others, especially widows and orphans and in my refusal to pattern my life after worldly principles derived from society. The church must have a vigorous ministry in place to care for widows and orphans. In some cases, this means providing food for care, medical needs where appropriate, etc. The same is true for orphans. It could mean financial support for orphanages, investing time in visiting the children living in these arrangements, or, in some cases, it could mean adoption. God directs the heart. James tells us to look after people in need during their time of affliction. But Paul also reminds us of the practical aspects of this ministry. Paul gives us criteria with qualification before placing a widow on the list in 1 Timothy 5. That we care for widows and orphans with some qualifications is undeniable. But how we do that will vary from person to person or church to church.

The mission of the church is to preach the gospel, baptize converts, and to make disciples. The gospel is that Christ came and died to save helpless sinners from their hopeless condition. To baptize converts is to practice the public confession that one has indeed bound himself to Christ as Lord and Savior. To make disciples is to make students of the commandments of God. Disciple-making entails teaching men to observe everything that Christ has commanded. This is the mission of the church. Nowhere in Christ’s commandments are we told that we must fight for religious freedom, shape the culture in which we find ourselves, or influence civil government to adopt Christian principles. It is through the use of a hermeneutic of liberation that such nonsense finds its way into the mainstream. The source is not Scripture, but instead, the personal ideologies of men who have gained a platform of influence. They need to be corrected by other godly, strong leaders or removed from the platform.

The relationship of the church with the world is the last component of the three basic elements that make up pure religion. The gospel is first, the mission is second, and the relationship of the church with the world is the third component of pure religion. In Romans 13 and in 1 Peter 2, the church has her instructions for how she is to relate to the civil government. Whatever philosophy you might have on this topic, you would be well-served to make sure it is grounded in these passages of Scripture. What are these instructions? First, every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. That is pretty clear. Why? Because every authority is from God. Every civil government is established by God according to Paul. And to that government, we must submit. Whoever resists the authority opposes the ordinance of God. Of course, taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, when civil law contradicts divine law, divine law is the greater of the two. Peter instructions are identical to Paul’s instructions. Peter says that we must submit ourselves to every human institution for the Lord’s sake. This applies to a king or to someone the king might send. Peter commands us to honor the king. This is not an option. It is a commandment. The word honor, from the Greek timaō means to show high regard for, to revere. Yet, many of the social causes and issues that the church and these leaders specifically find themselves obsessed with are issues that fly in the face of these instructions. This means that Christians should avoid vilifying our government leaders, president and all, publicly. We must submit to, honor, and respect our government leaders. The objection is sure to come that our leaders are godless men who support all sorts of immoral legislation and policy. This is true. But it is not any truer than it was for the government under which Paul and Peter and the rest of the early church operated. In fact, modern American government is morally superior to Rome from a this-world perspective. If you doubt that, then perhaps you should do some reading on the practices of ancient Rome. What is puzzling is that most of the leaders involved in these movements are also involved in completely ignoring the clear NT mandate regarding how the church ought to relate to the secular authority. In fact, their agenda seems to require a certain rebellion against the secular authority. Such insurrection is not the fruit of Christian living we see in the first century church.

The evangelical church, to include its reformed branch is in a full-on crisis today. That crisis is due in large part to elements of a hermeneutic of liberation theology finding its way into the community. Men have gained access to the celebrity platform and ascended to a place of influence who do not hold to the historic positions handed down from the reformers. Movements like liberation theology, black liberation theology, the seeker movement, and the emergent church have all worked in varying degrees to weaken the hermeneutic of the conservative Protestant churches. The intensity in the war for truth has increased exponentially just within the last 5 years and more so even within the last year. Christian leaders must do a better job of examining the foundational teachings of men before enabling their influence. It is not evil to examine these claims to make sure they reflect the teachings of Scripture. Nor is it evil, when those claims are lacking in support, are incredibly weak, or outright contrary to Scripture, to correct these men. If we continue to embrace worldly practices, such as obsessing over offending one another, then truth will truly suffer as a result. We should always remember that God is an ever-present witness in what we do and why we do it.

In closing, we should remember some of the very last words of one of the greatest Christian soldiers to have fought in Way, the Apostle Paul:

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing. (2 Tim. 4:7-8)

---

^[1] J. Daniel Salinas, “Review of Evangelicals and Liberation Revisited: An Inquiry into the Possibility of an Evangelical-Liberationist Theology by João B. Chaves,” Themelios 39, no. 1 (2014): 142.

Why I Reject the Racial Reconciliation Argument: Interacting with Jarvis Williams Pt. 7

 Qualification: This post deals with the gospel of racial reconciliation as defined by men like Jarvis Williams, Russell Moore, and others over at The Gospel Coalition. You can either read the argument outlined in this post and weigh it against Scripture or you can decide that I am just a trouble-maker looking to stir things up. The choice is yours.

Recently The Gospel Coalition posted an article entitled "Jesus is not Colorblind." Now, the article is poking fun at a mindset that I think is actually impossible to reject without running the risk of being a melanin-centric bigot. Yeah, my expression. I coined it. Credit me when you use it, please. A melanin-centric bigot is someone who forms attitudes about others based solely on melanin as their criteria. The "colorblind" mindset is a mindset that says I refuse to define you based on the absence or presence of melanin I see in your skin. That is a good thing since the opposite position says I am going to define you based on the absence or presence of melanin I see in your skin, especially if that means you will make moral values about someone based on that criterion. That is like me defining you by your ear size or hair and eye color. It's the kind of thinking that should be dispensed with these days.

Now, to be sure, Jesus is not colorblind--at least not in the way TGC has framed it--but he is also not obsessed with melanin in the way that modern Americans are either. He just wasn't. In fact, one has to look no further than God's rebuke of the prophet Samuel to understand that God does NOT look on man's outward appearance. God told the prophet point blank: "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7)." So, if TGC means the colorblind mindset, then Scripture offers a harsh contradiction to their claim. Jesus actually is colorblind. Sounded good when you said it. Lots of things do. Trouble is, it isn't true. And who better to tell us that it isn't true than God himself. 

Now, the reason I reject the racial reconciliation movement is not that I like division. It is not that I am a racist. It is not that I just want to disagree with people for the sake of being disagreeable. The reason I reject it is because it is not the gospel. And, more than that, it isn't even a gospel issue. Racial reconciliation is not a gospel issue. If it is anything, it is a sanctification issue. The New Testament shows us how the early church viewed the human race. First, the early church viewed the human race as one race. Paul said, And he made from one man every nation of mankind. The Greek says, he made from one all the nations of mankind and then he determined their allotted times and boundaries (Acts 17:26). The New Testament recognizes nationality, but it nowhere categorizes people based on physical features like melanin. For this reason, it is a bad argument to claim that since modern culture has created a category arbitrarily based on melanin that we must accept it. The Scripture does not support it. Science does not support it. The Church should decide not to support it and teach its community accordingly. Just like I refuse to acknowledge that the man who has had a sex-change operation is now a woman, I refuse to acknowledge that it is appropriate to class human beings into groups based on skin tone and refer to them as "races." I will not use the feminine pronoun with a boy who wants to self-identify as a girl.

The NT focuses its classification on people much differently. The focus is on Jews and Gentiles, the children of God and the children of the devil, the righteous and the unrighteous. Since we are the church, why not eradicate this modern nonsense and replace it with biblical talk? Perhaps that kind of talk doesn't really support someone's pet agenda. Who knows?  So, there are black people, brown people, white people, red people, and yellow people. But there isn't a yellow race or a red race, etc. There are English, Irish, German, Africans (of numerous people groups), native Americans (of numerous people groups) etc. I have no problem saying that this person is a black or brown German or Irishman, etc. This becomes an issue when a society starts to flock together around certain physical characteristics for whatever reason and then that group begins to form a culture within a culture. This is actually the area where the Scriptures have something to say about people groups coming into tension with one another. (This will be addressed later in this post.)

In an article published by National Geographic, Elizabeth Kolbert writes, “Over the past few decades, genetic research has revealed two deep truths about people. The first is that all humans are closely related—more closely related than all chimps, even though there are many more humans around today. Everyone has the same collection of genes, but with the exception of identical twins, everyone has slightly different versions of some of them. Studies of this genetic diversity have allowed scientists to reconstruct a kind of family tree of human populations. That has revealed the second deep truth: In a very real sense, all people alive today are Africans.” Now, this is exactly what we would expect to find as we read the Bible. Of course, the article is written from a philosophical standpoint that flies in the face of Scripture, but that does not change the fact that the data itself, apart from that philosophy, agrees with the basic claims of Scripture regarding human origins. Human beings are descended from one man and one woman created by God a few thousand years ago.

As it turns out, nearly everything most modern Americans including Christians believe about race and even skin tone is wrong. The last time I checked, when your view reflects bad information, you adjust your view to reflect the new, more accurate information. What you don’t do is defend a practice or behavior that has been always based on bad information. Science suggests that skin tone, where it is geographically related, more about the health of the individual than it is anything else. A darker tone protects humans who live closer to the equator where they are exposed to more Sun while people who are located closer to the poles have lighter skin to help promote the production of vitamin D. Additionally, it is the white skin tone that reflects a mutation in the gene known as SLC24A5. The difference is tiny. The point is that no two human beings, outside of identical twins are identical. That society would classify humans based on this tiny mutation in this gene and formulate all sorts of crazy theories around this difference is absurd. My suggestion then is to change the conversation regarding racial reconciliation because, for starters, it only serves to reinforce past ignorance. I believe it is a bad practice to reinforce past ignorance. It is a bad practice to provide fodder for such ignorant thinking. Some will say that they want to preserve their culture. I think its fine to preserve cultural practices that are based on legitimate family traditions. But the desire to preserve cultural practices that are based on pseudo-science deserves a good deal of scrutiny. Additionally, if a cultural practice is contrary to the teachings and ethics of Christianity, it must be rejected regardless of the culture it comes from and regardless of the age of that tradition. So, I reject racial reconciliation because it reinforces thinking that is the product of pseudo-science. And I reject racial reconciliation because it is not the gospel issue its proponents claim.

A third reason I reject racial reconciliation is that the work of reconciliation is complete. Here is why I think this way: Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:17-19). The language is explicit. This is how Paul describes us and it is how we should describe ourselves. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household (Eph. 2:19). Only when we embrace this mindset will we begin to experience a community of believers that are united in the truth of the gospel! The racial reconciliation movement has latched onto the wrong end of the dragon.

We have fellowship with God and with one another: but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). The Greek word koinonia means, close association involving mutual interests and sharing, association, communion, fellowship, close relationship. We are already in close association with one another. We are not estranged. And if we are not estranged, we do not need to be reconciled with one another. The kind of fellowship John is talking about is the fellowship that exists in Christ which means that I am joined with my brothers and sisters in far-away places in the world even though I have never physically seen them or personally met them. I am joined with them in fellowship as members of the one body of Christ.

We are all one chosen race, meaning people group: But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy (1 Peter 2:9-10). This is what the church actually is. We are now a chosen race, chosen by God. Isa. 43:21 says “The people who I formed for myself will declare my praise.” That is who we are and what we are to do!

We are one body and as such, even legitimate people group tags, such as Jew and Gentile, or English and African, no longer define us. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise (Gal. 2:26-29). What makes us the same? We are all sons of God through faith in Christ. That is what makes us the same.

In Romans 8:15, Paul says we belong to the same family: For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” In Christ, through the power of the gospel, both Jews and Gentiles are now one family, having been adopted by God in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Being in the same family now, we are one new man. Even if you wanted to talk about this in terms of reconciliation, we have been reconciled. The work is complete. There is no division.

Does this mean that it is impossible for some Christians to think improperly about other Christians based on the gene SLC24A5? Of course not. There are people who profess to be Christian whose only reason for hating another person is precisely this gene. Any person guilty of this kind of behavior is guilty of sin. Any person guilty of sin must be confronted with that sin and corrected. If that person refuses to repent, one or two witnesses must confront the person regarding their sin. And should that person persist in that sin, that church should be informed. If that person refuses to listen to the church and repent of their racism, they should be excommunicated and treated like an unbeliever. This is the biblical way to handle racism in the body of Christ. It is a repugnant sin just like adultery, fornication, other forms of hate, lying, etc., that has no place in the body. In 1 Cor. 5:11 Paul writes, But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. The English word translated ‘reviler’ in the NASB is loidoros in the Greek. It means one who engages in slander. All racists fit this category just as all adulterers fit the category of pornos, or immoral. The church has no business tolerating such behavior in its community. But we are talking about a community where, according to one recent study, 68% of men watch porn regularly. Where illicit divorce is as common as it is in the ungodly culture in which it finds itself. Think about this: when was the last time someone in your church was actually excommunicated? Have you ever observed anyone actually being removed from the body unwillingly because of their obstinance? Most Christians will likely answer, never!

The obsession in the church with racial reconciliation is the product of leaders who have failed for years now to involve those whom God has given them in anything remotely resembling quality biblical discipleship. The leaders who are barking racial reconciliation are the very men responsible for the conditions they claim they are trying to fix. The irony is that these very same leaders are the men who continue to neglect the practice of making disciples and equipping the saints to this very hour. Do you really want a healthy, unified church with the right focus? Then start making disciples and stop managing your kingdom. Put as much energy into equipping the saints as you do other activities and you will be shocked at what happens. Actually, no, put more energy into making disciples and equipping the body than you do other activities.

All this means that I should take my focus off the gene SLC24A5. Now is a great time for the church to repent and lead the way forward where this topic is concerned. Now is always the best time for repentance. We begin by adjusting our thinking to match the teaching of Scripture on this subject. We reject definitions that are determined by the pagan culture. We embrace a biblical view of the church. We are one man in Christ. We acknowledge that social constructs such as race are usually contrary to Scripture and in this case, it is even contrary to science. Then, and only then, can we begin to teach our children to think properly about how society defines race, why it is wrong, and how it contradicts Christian principles. I am not interested in the past. And no, this will not solve mistreatment by others in this godless culture. But you are misguided if you think the church can or should strive to solve the issue of racism. I prefer to work on the problem of how we react to such mistreatment. That is something you can control, and you must. It’s called walking in the Spirit.

Does this mean that Christians who have darker skin tone have not and do not suffer from ungodly attitudes in society? Of course, they suffer from such attitudes. There are all kinds of ungodly people in all kinds of different positions of power and influence in this society and in every society, who form opinions of others based on a variety of different criteria. Do we, the church, have control over those attitudes? No, we do not. Should we? No, we should not. Does the black Christian have control over those attitudes? No, he doesn’t. But he has control over his own attitude. Should he be able to control that situation? No, he should not. But he can control how he thinks about it and responds to it. God has determined the boundaries of our existence. Paul tells us this in Acts 17 as clearly as it could be told to us. Discrimination based on skin tone, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, and a number of other factors is a product of the fall and a fact of reality with which every Christian has to grapple. How you decide to respond to such discrimination and mistreatment says volumes about the nature of your faith, your view of the church, and even the sort of gospel you embrace. True Christians have been the most marginalized people group the world has ever known throughout its entire history. Modern racism has nothing on the marginalization of true Christians for the last 2,000 years.

In summary then, are white Christians and black Christians estranged from one another? According to Scripture, all genuine Christians are one new man, one chosen race, one holy family in Christ. Therefore, we are not estranged from each other. If we are not estranged from each other, why then do we need to be reconciled? The proponents of racial reconciliation will make the following statements as proof that we are estranged from one another.

First and foremost, most white Christians attend predominantly white churches and most black Christians attend predominantly black churches. Follow the thinking here. The proponents of racial reconciliation want us to believe that this fact means there is a problem in the churches. But does it? How does this practice in and of itself demonstrate that there is a racial (SLC24A5) problem in the churches? The truth is that it doesn't. I drive by several white churches to get to my church. I do not believe this makes me divisive or estranged from the Christians in those churches. There is a church about a mile from my house. It is Baptist. I am Baptist. But I prefer NOT to worship there. I am a Reformed Baptist with deep convictions about Reformed theology. That Baptist church has deep convictions that are antithetical to Reformed theology. In Christ, we are one. But my preference is to serve under leaders who share my theological perspective. Does that mean I hate the other church? Not at all. I don't worship in a Lutheran church or a Presbyterian church. I could do so. But I choose not to. Does that mean that I am estranged from Mike Kruger or Chris Rosebrough? Absolutely not! To say that our churches ought to be SLC24A5 diverse has no basis in Scripture and it does not mean we are racists if they are not. People select the church they are in for numerous reasons, some of them good, some of the not so good. We should exercise care in how we approach this conversation. There are music styles, preaching styles, and personality styles and theological beliefs that drive this decision. Like I said, some of these are acceptable and good, and others, not so much.

Certain practices, attitudes, and beliefs are going to create division, and because of the fall, that is unavoidable. The racial reconciliation movement, as far as I can tell, never talks about theological unity and what makes for legitimate godly division. For instance, is the gospel really about ending oppression in this world? Is the resurrection of Christ, as MLK said, about good overcoming evil like civil rights putting an end to segregation? These beliefs about the gospel are bound to clash with the true gospel. And when they do, tension and division are inevitable. Take the Martin Luther King Jr. celebration for instance. As great a civil rights leader as he was, and that he was, Martin Luther King was nowhere close to being orthodox or evangelical in his views on Christ, the gospel, or the Bible. These are heartbeat issues in evangelicalism. Yet, men who should know better, men like Jarvis Williams and Russell Moore, are leading an event that celebrates Martin Luther King as a great Christian leader. It feels like his wonderful accomplishments in the area of civil rights are ipso fact accomplishments in the realm of the church. They were not. This is being done in the spirit of racial reconciliation. King was surely the wonderful civil rights leader, but he was certainly not a wonderful Christian leader. The problem here is that those who know the truth about King’s theology will make judgments about Williams and Moore. I cannot join hands with someone who believes that King’s theology was acceptable and that because he accomplished so much as a civil rights leader, that makes up for what amounts to outright heresy in his Christian beliefs. If one of the necessary conditions for me to be “reconciled” to black Christians everywhere is the endorsement of King as a great gospel preacher, then for me, division is unavoidable. If I were a black Christian and someone said that I had to endorse say, Andy Stanley in order to be reconciled with white Christians, I would respond in exactly the same fashion. On the principle of truth, I cannot be joined to Martin Luther King on his theology even though I agree with his civil rights principles wholeheartedly. Where is concerns men like King, I follow Paul, who said, Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them (Rom. 16:17).

What is racism? Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Does it exist in our society? It exists in every godless society throughout the world. That is pretty much all of them. But racism is only one form of hatred and discrimination among many. God will judge the world for its racism. We must judge those who are brothers and sisters, so-called and remove them either through repentance or excommunication. (1 Cor. 5:12-13)

God does not look on the outward appearance of man. Neither should we. If you think that idea means not seeing the real you, then perhaps you don’t see the real you either. The real you is the person God sees when he looks at you. God sees your values, your principles, your ethics, your beliefs. God sees the real you. What you see in the mirror is not the real you. When you see yourself breaking the law of God revealed in Scripture, that is the real you. God, as our creator, is the only one qualified and authorized to provide us with our identity. If you want to know the real you, become better acquainted with Scripture. It is there that you will find your true self.