1 Samuel 1:1-20 Devotional

Here’s my sermon from 1 Samuel 1:1-20 that I preached Sunday January 12, 2025 at The Well Church in Boulder: https://boulderwell.org/media/dw3h4f9/samuel

I used AI to provide a short 5 day devotional based on my sermon. I hope it blesses you.

Here's a 5-day Bible reading plan and devotional guide based on the themes from the sermon:

Day 1: Pouring Out Your Soul to God Reading: 1 Samuel 1:1-18 Devotional: Hannah's story reminds us that God welcomes our raw, honest prayers. Like Hannah, we may face situations that leave us feeling desperate and alone. Yet it's precisely in these moments that we're invited to pour out our souls to God. Today, reflect on any burdens weighing on your heart. Instead of hiding your pain or putting on a brave face, bring your true feelings before God. He isn't put off by your tears or your anguish. Rather, He longs to meet you in your vulnerability. As you pray, remember that you're speaking to a loving Father who cares deeply for you. How might your prayer life change if you approached God with this level of openness and trust?

Day 2: Remembering God's Faithfulness Reading: Psalm 77:1-20 Devotional: The psalmist begins in distress but ends by recounting God's mighty deeds. When we feel forgotten by God, it's crucial to remember His faithfulness. Think back on times when God has come through for you in the past. How has He demonstrated His love and care? Even if you're in a season of waiting or suffering, choose to trust that God remembers you. He hasn't forgotten or abandoned you. Like Hannah, your current struggle may be preparing the way for something greater than you can imagine. Today, make a list of specific ways God has been faithful to you. Let this fuel your faith and hope as you face current challenges.

Day 3: God's Heart for the Barren Reading: Isaiah 54:1-8 Devotional: God often works powerfully through those who feel barren or unfruitful. Whether you're facing literal infertility or feeling spiritually dry, know that God sees your pain. He specializes in bringing life from barrenness. Consider areas of your life where you long to see growth or fruit. Offer these to God, trusting that He can bring abundance where you see only lack. Remember that your worth isn't determined by your productivity or success. God loves you simply because you are His. How might embracing this truth change your perspective on your current circumstances?

Day 4: The Power of Persistent Prayer Reading: Luke 18:1-8 Devotional: Jesus encourages us to pray persistently, like the widow who wouldn't give up. Hannah's yearly pilgrimage and continued prayers demonstrate this kind of perseverance. Are there prayers you've given up on because they seem unanswered? Consider rekindling these prayers, not as a way to manipulate God, but as an act of ongoing trust. Remember, prayer isn't just about getting what we want; it's about aligning our hearts with God's. As you pray today, ask God to give you His perspective on your requests. Be open to how He might be working, even if it's not in the way you expected.

Day 5: God's Purposes in Our Suffering Reading: Romans 8:18-30 Devotional: Paul reminds us that our present sufferings pale in comparison to the glory that will be revealed. Like Hannah's barrenness, which led to the birth of Samuel and ultimately to King David, our struggles can serve a greater purpose. This doesn't minimize our pain, but it can give us hope. Reflect on a current difficulty you're facing. How might God be using this to shape you or to impact others? Ask God for the strength to endure, knowing that He is working all things for good. Consider how you can be a light to others even in your struggles, trusting that God can use your story to encourage and inspire faith in those around you.

Why Are Young Men Drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy?

Podcast Episode 160

Audio - https://www.buzzsprout.com/1249781/episodes/16318121

Video - https://youtu.be/xBMXww3kSII

Today I'm going to start talking about Eastern Orthodoxy. And the reason I want to talk about it,

is because I've heard many, stories at this point over the last few years of young men being drawn to more kind of high church. When we talk about high church traditions, we obviously don't mean like Boulder high, like a weed church. There was one of those in Boulder for a while. We mean a high church, meaning a high, high liturgy rather than low liturgy. If you think of liturgy, I kind of on a spectrum, low liturgy is going to be more of the kind of either house church or in a Baptist. Not a lot of structure, but there is kind of a

Every church has a liturgy. They have a liturgy that it's just not as formal, whereas high church is going to be more Episcopalian, Anglican, get into Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, those kinds of expressions of worship. And so as young men have statistically become more conservative and young women are becoming more liberal, and this is just proven data at this point, there has been a draw for young men to find church home and more traditional expressions of worship.

And so I want to talk about what is happening, why it's happening, and why I'm making the argument I'm making, and then what we should do about it. That's kind of going to be how the episode flows. So the first, we're going to use Eastern Orthodoxy as a prime example, but we could also say this is true of Anglicanism or Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, and why people are being drawn to it, particularly young men. So I'm going to kind of reference an article. I'll put a link to it in the show notes from the New York Post.

I would share screenshare with you, but there's all these advertisements that make it look very, very ugly. So I don't want to do that to you if you're watching it online. But the article title is young men leaving traditional churches for masculine Orthodox Christianity in droves. Now, we'll get into if this is accurate or not. But they highlight a couple of stories, kind of an interview they do with someone who was raised Anglican and was wanting a more traditional faith.

And he realized that there was a lot of change. This young man's name is Ben Christensen. And, and so he grew up in the Anglican church and he kind of watched as a lot of the traditions went by the wayside, even in the Anglican church. So the robed choir was swapped out for a worship band. Lines were blurred on female ordination and long held stances on LGBTQ matters shifted. And so all that stuff for him was pretty changeable and

Chase Davis (04:33.87)

it gave him a sense that the theological commitments are kind of changeable as well. So they go through his story and how he became Orthodox in 2022 at the age of 25. He said, it seems like most mainline denominations are hemorrhaging people. This is true. If you're still serious about being a Christian now, there really isn't much social status tied up in it. And you want something that has some heft to it. There's more of an awareness of Orthodoxy than there used to be.

So he converted when he was a younger man in his twenties. I actually just a side note here before I finished the article. So I was on sabbatical last summer in June and I got to go visit several churches in the area. I try to visit other churches just to see what's going on, see how God's working in different churches. I made a decision to go visit an Antiochian Orthodox Church.

I still feel bit conflicted on this. I'm going to get into the theology of the Orthodox Church later in the episode, and I'll explain a bit why there's a bit of a conflict there. But I had heard about this phenomenon. I just wanted to go experience Eastern Orthodox or Antiochian as it was, church. Some of my neighbors go there, so I thought I'd go see what it was like. And it was a very interesting experience. They're very warm people, hospitable. But in terms of how they approach their worship, there's very little like

hey, I hope you liked worship today, or, you know, here are the songs we're seeing in their own slides. There's literally like a 70 page handbook. No one tells you where you are. Some of it's done in a different language, but most of it was done in English at this particular Orthodox Antiochian church. And so they had a meal afterwards, almost like a Baptist potluck. They were very welcoming there. And I could understand what was going on, but there was iconography.

It was weird in the sense of it was very different than going to your local kind of mega McChurch. There's kind of a way that they carry their tradition that's very disinterested in like if you like it or not, it's like this is what the tradition says. And so in that way, a lot of the appeal for I think for traditions like Eastern Orthodox is rooted in a sense of like people feel ruthless and people want something that's just not going to change.

Chase Davis (06:53.422)

So in an ever changing world, they're looking for something that's predictable, where they can go, this is way it's been done for thousands of years. I'm just going to stick with this, even if it's not like meeting me emotionally or something like that. And so kind of back to the article, they go through his story and how it feels more traditional to him. As the author of the article says, as more and more Protestant churches unfurl pride flags and Black Lives Matter banners in front of their gates, young men are turning towards more traditional.

forms of worship, survey of Orthodox churches around the country found that parishes saw a 78 % increase in converts in 20, in 2022, compared with pre pre pandemic levels in 2019. And so while historically, men and women converted in equal numbers vastly more men have joined in 2020. I'd like to see the total numbers Orthodox, the Orthodox Church in America still isn't that big. So I don't know, you know, how big and of course, they're they're kind of like

they call them fathers and patriarchs and that kind of thing. They're talking about, you know, it's massive. It's kind of almost this revival, all this kind of stuff. And it's it's a lot of men is what they're seeing. The person they interview Father Josiah Trenum, lead St. Andrew's Orthodox Church in Riverside, California. And he explained that

it's more it's a more masculine appeal to people. So the feminization of non orthodox forms of Christianity in America has been in high gear for decades. He explains, men are much less comfortable in those settings, the settings he's referring to being most churches that are more female centric, have emotional songs, swaying uplifted hands, eyes closed and ecstasy, all this kind of stuff. And they voted for their feet, which is why their minorities in these forms of worship, our worship forms are traditional and very masculine. And that's from

father, forget his names, kind of quote. Another 17 year old talks about named Elijah Wee. says Christianity in North America has become extremely emotional. He was raised evangelical. Going to evangelical worship services, I found it to be like an emotionally driven rock concert with the lifting of the hands. He said he was attracted to orthodoxy because it's more traditional and masculine. He said it appealed to him because of how orthodoxy is static and it was steadfast.

Chase Davis (09:13.869)

I generally do prefer something that is more traditional and has an ancient feel to it. Another guy, they talked to no, it's still we modern. He says modern Christianity has become very watered down. People go to church on Sunday, they sing a few songs, they listen to an hour long sermon that feels more like a TED talk. And they go home and they just go on with their lives. And so the author goes on to explain he kind of connects Jordan Peterson to this. So it's a very interesting article.

Bailey Mullins grew up Baptist in South Carolina at 26. It's ritualized, it's dance, and it's not the words only, it's the architecture, the images, the history, you're participating in it. He began to have questions about religion in high school and college when he noticed many mainline denominations were getting co-opted by politics, fracturing into conservative and liberal branches, and getting distracted by cultural debates like LGBTQ issues. And so I wanted to be, he says, I wanted to be somewhere that was stable and wasn't going to change. It felt very ancient.

that was not something I experienced elsewhere. So this is not news to me necessarily. I mean, it was initially a new story, of course, it may be news to you. So what I want to do is kind of explain what's going on. Obviously, I kind of mentioned men are becoming more conservative, they're looking for more traditional expressions of worship. I'm more interested in why is it happening? What's what's going on there? They highlight some things these these young men and they highlight some observations they have.

But this is kind of within my wheelhouse of my research in terms of phenomenology and religious expression and religious experience. And so I wanted to talk about it on the podcast because I think there's a lot more going on than a lot of people are talking about. There's a lot of cultural factors that are that are pushing young people to look at more traditional forms of worship. There's a great deal of disenchantment as people feel more isolated, more disconnected from one another, lacking community.

there's individualism that's run rampant, where kind of the sense of self is lost, because we don't have a bound set of relationships, or we feel duties and obligations. And people are naturally God has put eternity on the hearts of men. And so people want a sense of the sacred and divine when they go to Lord's Day worship, when they go worship the Lord, they're not looking for something that's common.

Chase Davis (11:33.87)

and it's the same thing they could experience at a concert they go to, they're looking for something that's other. The church in the last 30 years in America has been especially heavy on communicating the eminence of God, meaning God being close to you, being near to you, being your friend, but it has been poor on the transcendence of God, meaning God is other. God is not you, you are not God. And so as the church kind of

whether it's mainline or just evangelical churches in general have emphasized the eminence of God kind of Jesus being your best bud. They've they de-emphasize the kind of transcendence. Why? Because the transcendence is immediately gives people a sense of like judgment. And it can be off putting to people who are very therapeutic and want to experience pleasure in life. And so what's the way that they think to reach people with this kind of eminence framework that Jesus is is just like you.

He's your best bud, he can give you a sense of like, I'm a normal person. Whereas the transcendence emphasis gives people a sense of guilt, a sense of fear, all this kind of stuff. And as the church has lost the ability to articulate that well, and not just articulate it, but emphasize it even in their worship practices. A lot of people are turned off by it at this point, because they see it as just another kind of franchise model of the church. That's just kind of pandering to felt needs.

And so I want to highlight an article I wrote for American reformer called A &W Church. Now this title was not a reference to the root beer chain actually have great memories growing up with my granddad and going and getting root beer, root beer flows from A &W. But that's a story for a different day. It was not a reference to the root beer chain. It was a reference to a Lana Del Rey song called A &W, which stands for American Whore.

And the reason I titled it that is because Lana Del Rey is thought to be kind of this right wing figure. I have no idea if this is true. It's in the lore. It's in the literature out there in some niche circles. You know, I've tried to convince my wife of this, but she still doesn't enjoy listening to Lana Del Rey. But, you know, I titled it A &W Church. And so I wanted to read through this. It shouldn't take too long to read through. I try not to write articles that are too long. I was actually surprised that they published it as just the way it is.

Chase Davis (13:58.102)

In fact, you'll sense my wow factor as I read it because it's fairly spicy. I expected them to kind of tone it down for me. But the editors at American Informer were very permissive with me on this one. let's read through this. The subheading is the American church has not resisted consumerism. It says starts, no strategy is more central to the leftist bleats, Craig.

than the deracination and destruction of the unchosen bonds such as family ties, our cultural heritage, and the common way of life of the American people. Once you alienate man from himself and his people, he quickly succumbs to the total state. He will believe lies so long as he can feel the cold blue glow of his pixelated screen. A fundamental way the left has accomplished the deracination and alienation of the American people from themselves and their roots is through mass-scaled consumerism. No.

In and out coming to your Texas town is not a wonderful sign of progress. It is a sign of just how bad things are. Rootlessness is the goal. In particularity is in the way. However, the average American consumer does not think this way. For them, the convenience of consuming foods and products from foreign cultures is very in vogue and cosmopolitan. This is the end goal of the left. A ruthless people free from unchosen bonds. No longer do we have regional cuisine.

go to your local Trader Joe's and eat the same beans as everyone else you rub. The average American's rootlessness has produced a sad state of affairs. Children move away to college. At best, they can find a spouse from a different location often and get a job in another location far from home.

Chase Davis (15:40.588)

Then they can attempt to plant roots in this new local economic zone, but are frequently moved to another economic zone before any relationships can form. If statistics are to believe 60 % of evangelicals never returned to church after college. Before they know it, they've drifted far from home. Depression and anxiety are salved by mass produced happy pills by corporations spending billions of dollars, add dollars on the very same devices that promise freedom, but only make us more isolated and disconnected.

Rootlessness is now a blessing of liberty and the way of life for many young evangelical Christians. The church has not resisted this mass market rootless consumerism. In fact, it has simply given itself over to managerial Christianity. Now you can go to your local life Baptist church in 12 different states, piping in the same sermon and music.

You can turn on the radio and listen to positive encouraging music that your worship band will knock out of the park next Sunday during the worship experience. Did you miss church for the fourth week in a row because you just had to get brunch with the girls? Don't worry, catch the latest worship experience on your phone. In this religious climate, the youth are looking for something more rooted. The rootless American has tried to call us a mappolitan buffet and is still hungry. Many realize that this is no life. In fact, it seems the entire world is anti-life. Where can these rootless people find roots?

It is no wonder that younger generations are flocking to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Evangelical churches often have the temperament of a desperate woman or a pick-me church looking for approval from outsiders. The American evangelical church reeks of desperation. Like a prostitute on a street corner, they adorn themselves to look pleasing and for the right amount of attendance they aim to please. However, churches aiming to pass down the tradition have the cool indifference of a man who says, take it or leave it, this is who we are.

This is the self-assertive, unbothered posture of many high church traditions. You are welcome to come, but they care little if you like it. In fact, you may not even be able to sing along or clap your hands or kneel at the right times. There may be words you do not understand and remain unexplained by the pastor. That is not the point for them. The point is to transmute their tradition faithfully. They are aiming for rootedness. Unbothered by your ignorance or displeasure with their teachings, they will still welcome you so long as you don't mess with the tradition.

Chase Davis (18:01.056)

A church that is hospitable and yet confident of its own identity and tradition is naturally attractive without trying to be. But even if it was not pleasing to degenerates, since when did the marketability of the gospel to the lost become the litmus test for faithfulness? The fact that we have conceived of the church in terms of its attractiveness to the world is, how do they say, problematic. On the other hand, a church that seems like it would change its very beliefs and traditions for you to join comes across as a desperate, needy,

and clingy church because they are. This is the disposition of the Pikmin McChurch that preaches on felt needs Sunday after Sunday in their next topical sermon you don't want to miss. The American evangelical church mainline or otherwise, whose reason to exist is more lost people, is more akin to a whore spreading her legs than the bride of Christ adorned for her betrothed. The American evangelical church has become an American whore. For the right amount of money, your only fans girl will make you feel a certain way.

After all, what is more important to the American consumer than feeling a certain way? Rather than resisting this descent into whoredom, the American church celebrates it. Go to your local OnlyFans church right from your phone. If anything bothers the youth of our nation, it is inauthenticity. You can smell a sleazy sales gimmick a mile away. For them, the church desperate for you to belong before you believe is not compelling. In fact, it's a major turnoff.

Churches constantly seek to pivot and perform just so that lost people will darken their doors. How pathetic! Where is our sense of propriety and decency? Are we that far gone? The lost are not looking for a church that is insecure regarding its own tradition. They're looking for something stable in a rootless world. They're looking for clear teaching that is timeless, applicable, and rooted in a particular way of life. What could be more compelling to a rootless people than a church that says, here, come and be joined to the vine?

The Church offers to all people to come and find life to the full, but first you must die. Fundamental to that death is our consumer mindset. There is no hope that these rootless people will find the true vine if we are ashamed of our own roots. Much of the Church's capitulation today is grounded in the false idea that the Church's primary purpose is evangelism or saving souls. This was seen most recently when Bruce Frank of the SBC said, and I paraphrase,

Chase Davis (20:23.298)

We must care about saving souls more than our doctrine. When saving souls becomes the predominant mood of the church, younger generations see it as Wade Stotz puts it, a multi-level marketing scheme. The church no longer exists as a faithful bride, but as a platform for saving souls. No wonder the church caves left and right by seeking to maintain a market share. When the church is reduced to a platform, entering it

Entering into service in the great marketplace of ideas, it becomes commodified and weak. Rather than transmuting the particularities of the tradition, American evangelical churches will do anything short of sin to reach the lost. That boomer mind virus has run its course, and now we're left to pick up the pieces in the ruins. Yes, the church cares about the lost. Evangelism is important. Go and share the good news of Jesus Christ. But even more, guard the faith and make sure your children are raised in the nurture and admission of the Lord. We can do both.

But the grave error of the church has been front loading evangelism and keeping doctrine and tradition back in the warehouse. For our nation, the church must be unashamed of the truth of God's word. We should not be embarrassed about one jot or tittle. Instead, we should trumpet the word to the world. No more blushing about the Bible. Out with the sloganeering and gimmicks. Preach the whole counsel of God's word. Raise your children as confident Protestants, knowing the particular distinctives of their tradition. Give them roots.

No son, we're not just Protestants. are Baptist. Give your children the faith entrusted to you. Guard it fiercely. The world is starved for the word of life, the bread of life. They are starving for spiritual nourishment and commodifying your church is not going to give them the food they need. You'll lose both the next generation and the one you have. So obviously there's some spicy content in there that

I'm still surprised they put in there I stand by it. I think it's, you know, fun, and true, not just fun, but true. Because I this is the problem I see most churches will bend over backwards for a lost person to show up. And that includes changing their worship style, changing their tradition, changing their doctrine, muting truths in God's Word in order not to offend the lost. And so it's very disgusting to me, I find it very off putting. And it's no surprise that

Chase Davis (22:46.814)

young people are off put by this as well. I think they they view it as kind of gross and commercial and like it's a it's a gimmick. People are tired of feeling like Christianity has been pitched as a bait and a bait and switch. A lot of Christians behave as if you know, they're just normal people like everybody else and they're just waiting for a crisis to hit someone else's life before they share the gospel and I feel that that's that's pretty cruel. And I don't blame people for feeling kind of preyed on in that way.

Because you would you would hope to be able to share the good news of Jesus before somebody reaches kind of rock bottom People can know Jesus before that and I I would hope that they would So the way I'm arguing about this Is that people are drawn to religious tradition less from doctrinal position precision of that religious tradition and more for what? We'll call certain vibes because most of us don't like aren't

raised in a sense of like a lab, where we get certain doctrinal matters kind of sorted out, and we reach certain conclusions. And then all of a okay, which of these options denominationally or church tradition, church tradition wise, matches my doctrinal kind of, kind of niche topics, most people are drawn to kind of churches based on relationships and vibes.

And so we could discuss this as a theological problem. And I think there are theological problems. We could do that another episode if we want. For example, we could get into the controversy between the Eastern and Western Church over the the Phileo clause, or we get into papal authority, we could get into kind of Eastern Orthodoxy and and kind of its emphasis on the mystic and why that that's a different than the Western Protestant tradition. But that's, like I said,

we could make that argument. I'm not that's not the main argument I'm trying to make right now. The main argument is I'm sensing that a lot of people are drawn to a certain vibe, to a certain experience. And so in a way, they're still kind of giving themselves over to an experiential thing. In the Eastern Orthodox, that's what they emphasize, they kind of emphasize the mystical experience of, of communing with the Lord, and that kind of thing. And so like, it's not necessarily wrong, but

Chase Davis (25:09.624)

they're still behaving the same way. And that they're kind of leaning on that I don't blame them. They're looking for something rootless or rooted in a ruthless world, something that's unashamed. But there is a bit of a problem with that. They're looking for people that are hospitable, but not not to a point where they're like, open borders church where it's like we'll do anything short of sin to reach the loss. They're looking for people that are confident in their own tradition.

Chase Davis (25:49.878)

And so the question becomes, what should we do about this? Okay, if this if you agree with me up to this point, maybe disagree with me, but let's say you do agree with me that this is a challenge today. This is going on today. And the church should kind of take stock of why it's going on, then what should we do instead? And so I'm going to make several suggestions. One, I think we need kind of a renewed sense of Protestant identity in America, we need kind of a robust, unashamed Protestant identity.

I saw this all the time growing up in the 90s, where churches would remove a Baptist from their logo left and right because it was seen as a turnoff to lost people. So there there has always been a temperament, especially in the last 30 years, to remove any kind of semblance of tradition and opt for more generic things about our faith. And intentionally, so kind of the deconstruction stuff that we see in a lot of places actually, many times starts in the church, where they're deconstructing kind of their own tradition.

Another thing that I just wanted to make note of Eastern Orthodoxy is very un-American. I'm not saying these people are not Americans that are my neighbors. I'm saying that the tradition itself is very foreign to the American story. And so it's odd. I view it as very strange. I respect it. I understand it. But it's definitely a foreign religion in terms of its tradition. It's not

natural to the American people. Protestantism is more naturally suited to the American people in terms of religious tradition. The other thing would be an emphasis on liturgy. think liturgy, like I explained at the top of the episode, all churches have a liturgy. It's just whether it's articulated or not, and how they articulate it. But I think there's, with liturgy, one of the benefits with a more articulated and more formal liturgy, meaning there's certain prayers we read together, there's maybe

standing or sitting or kneeling or reciting all this kind of stuff. There's ritual, there's going to be kind of a fight against a more felt needs approach to ministry. So a lot of pastors are taught kind of a more felt needs market share approach to ministry in order to either reach the lost or grow the church or anything like that. And by and large, most American Christians are typically easily

Chase Davis (28:14.882)

convinced that things are good at a church if it's meet, baptizing new people and reaching new people they assume, well, you know, everything must be fine here. When it when it may not be. And so we typically because we're Americans were raised in kind of that consumer mindset, we typically see like, anything that's up into the right as a positive thing, when that may not may not be the case always. In fact,

that's that's just an indicator. It's a lagging metric of things that are upstream, more upstream of leading metrics. And so with liturgy, though, it provides some grounding and it provides a sense of rootedness where every Sunday, this is what I expect there's an even we don't necessarily do this at our church, we're Baptist, but there are other traditions that will practice the church calendar. So there's a sense of predictability with, you know, people's personal family kind of devotional life and also the church calendar provides that kind of rhythm of

of things and you as a church, if you're not Baptist or non-denominational, you can still incorporate a church calendar. Every church is going have kind of a church calendar rhythms. Hey, every year at this time of year, we do this. so churches typically have a church calendar, but rooting that in kind of our historic faith can be really helpful. And another one is just how we talk about our faith, how we think about Christianity, how we represent the Lord God in our lives by loving him, by obeying him.

is that we should just have a matter of factness about our faith that's, that's unbothered. I think that too many Christians are bothered by what people will think of them if they said what they believe. And you don't even have to be like, if you're scared of offending someone, you don't even have to think of offending someone just be like, yeah, we're Christians, we don't believe that. That's not even like saying, you should repent of your sins, which I think you should probably tell them at some point. But that's just saying like, hey, we as Christians, this is our

this is what we do as Christians. And they're going to call you mean names, they're going to call you all sort of bigot, you know, misogynist, all this kind of stuff. And it's like, yeah, just okay. And so I think it's important for pastors, especially to have kind of a cool calm presence about their own church, and their own tradition they're part of. If you're a non denominational pastor, which is typically just Baptist, but you don't have the word Baptist, because somehow, that's a bad word.

Chase Davis (30:33.696)

then you should just own the fact that you're part of the church, like not just your church, but other churches, and you should seek ways to partner with them. I think it's good to do that. I think it's fine to have partnerships outside of your denomination and you can have fun fights amongst brothers. And so there needs to be a way we handle and carry ourselves with our faith, where we kind of assume the center, we assume that what is true, what God says is true is true.

And we assume that God's ways are normal and the world's ways are very abnormal and backwards and weird. And so there needs to be a sense of like, hey, like, yeah, why, why wouldn't you go to church? Church is great. Instead of kind of this more apologetic mindset of like, yeah, I'm sorry for what the church has done. This is very like blue light jazz. If you remember that book, this was a very common approach with Rob Bell and like new videos, always apologizing, always embarrassed. gross fundamentalism, all this kind of stuff. And it's like, no,

Like stop, stop doing that. That's disgusting. No one's attracted to that. And the only people that are attracted to that are people who are already on the path to deconstructing the whole project anyways. What you want to do is know your own tradition. If you don't know it, go read one of your church confessions. If your church doesn't have a confession, ask them why they don't have a confession and see if they recommend any to you. You can go read the Westminster Confession. You can go read the London Baptist Confession. There's all sorts of church confessions. You could go pick up a book of common prayer.

can be helpful in your devotional life. Actually, all of the marriage vows we use in marriage ceremonies in our day, well, not all of them, because there are many pagan marriage celebrations today. But those are historically rooted in the Book of Common Prayer. We can get into a whole topic of Book of Common Prayer and the historical controversy over its implementation in England. But my point is that it can be helpful devotionally for you. And so I would just encourage you to have a matter of factness about your faith that's not embarrassed. Stop being embarrassed about the Bible.

There's nothing to be embarrassed about. You belong to the Lord God, Jesus Christ. He saved you. He died for you. He rose again. He's seated on his throne. And so we have everything to be joyful for, to rejoice in, and we can be confident. We don't have to be braggadocious, but we can be confident. And we don't need to be embarrassed about any part of God's Word. God's Word is always true and reliable. It is good for many good things in this world. And so I want you to be confident in your own tradition, especially if you're a Protestant.

Chase Davis (32:54.988)

and not be ashamed because they want you to feel ashamed. That's part of the point is they want you to feel ashamed. And so I think this is an issue phenomenon to discuss because obviously I've written an article on it, but it's happening. And I hope that churches will take this more seriously, not by kind of like LARPing as Eastern Orthodox. No, just living into their own tradition, being confident in who they are and having a better presence about themselves that young people aren't going to be so disgusted by because it is fairly disgusting when a church like

sells itself to whatever the latest light lighting trend, or screen trend or, you know, now you've got Saddleback Church, I think has VR church. I mean, this is all very gross. It's very abnormal. It's not cool. It's not leadership. It's it's just giving out. It's giving yourself over to the spirit of the age the church, when you come to Lord's Day worship should be a unique experience in a ruthless world. And so that's my hope. I hope we can see many churches like that.

many churches rooted in our faith and maturing together as we seek to glorify God and everything we do and seek the loss to be saved.

You’ve Changed…

Well by God I hope so. Make sure to let me know if I haven’t changed. If I’m not changing, I’m already dead.

The times have changed. Christianity is no longer seen as a social good or even socially neutral. To be a Christian, or worse an “evangelical,” is to invite social stigma. Gone are the days when Christianity could be used as a social badge to gain favor. Those days have been long gone in Boulder but it seems for many these are new times. As the times have changed, so must we change and adapt to meet the needs of the hour. To fail to adapt and change to meet the problems of our day would be a dereliction of duty.

And so I have changed to meet the most pressing problems of our day with what I believe to be a more effective strategy. Strategy involves pragmatism but should be derived from biblical principles at the foundation. That means that our strategies may change to be more effective but they shouldn’t run contrary to biblical norms. Unfortunately, the silence of many of my brothers in the face of such powerful forces today betrays biblical norms in many ways and reveals their own commitment to pragmatism. The strategies of which I am referring to involve my use of writing publicly, particularly social media (specifically Facebook and Twitter at this time, although if you’re paying attention my Instagram is suffering the same fate).

Some have remarked that they like what I say just not the way I say it. Others question why I feel the need to share things at all. A few are concerned that my acerbic writing is reflective of a bitter heart. Still more concerned that I will needlessly alienate the lost. Even more are those who perceive plain speaking as arrogant, intimidating, and prideful. With such serious charges and concerns, I thought it might be useful to share why my writing style has changed with the times.

Because my tone lacks the appropriate nuance and winsomeness typically associated with and expected of people speaking in the "public square," some assume I am not receptive to feedback, stubborn, and judgmental. Such is the cost of speaking plainly. We live in a day where saying things which are plain to all is regarded as hate speech. You may not know this but I have multiple people who have the authority to ask me to remove, retract, or rephrase what I post in this "public square." They include church members (who I will almost always meet with to hear their concerns), church elders, and advisors.

Believe it or not, there have been instances in which I have been proven to be wrong in what I’ve stated publicly and I have removed those posts. Facebook also has a neat feature where it reminds you of what you’ve said in years past. One advantage of this is that I have to own what I written. I either delete those posts which I no longer endorse or I’ll repost them to publicly shame my own stupidity. I've been informed that I come across as mean online and then when people meet me they are typically surprised that I'm not a complete ass. A normal human might receive that feedback and adapt their tactics so as to be more charitably regarded. But I’m not a normal human, I’m a church planter for crying out loud. I enjoy the challenge, the opportunity.

Speaking of church planting, it is not lost on me that my position as a pastor requires a certain amount discretion and restraint on various issues (“above reproach” and all that). This position as a pastor also implies that my office is somewhat of a public position. When people read what I say, they might interpret that as reflective of the church I lead as an entity. It goes without saying that some of this overlap is inevitable. However, it must be said that my public musings regarding a variety of cultural issues do not reflect the position of my employer. If my employer believes that my presence online is too harmful to the reputation of the entity, they are welcome to let me know as much (as I previously mentioned).

Some might believe this to be unwise considering my public position. Quite the opposite in fact. This public position of mine is actually part of the impetus for my online presence. Many people at my church are publicly engaged on social media listening to all sorts of teachers. There are many teachers out there who I believe are deadly wrong about a variety of issues. Because I have been entrusted with a certain level of theological aptitude both educationally and by the grace of God, I view it as part of my responsibility to make sure the sheep know which water is safe to drink and which is poison. I would not be “above reproach” if I stood by while the sheep died from water that I knew was poison and yet did nothing to warn them.

One of the joys of speaking in an assertive tone online is that it welcomes good hearted disagreement and bothers those who prefer to keep their Christ in the grave, out of site, so as not to upset their neighbor. After all, the resurrection of Jesus will be very upsetting to those who don’t believe dead people come back to life and would rather God remain out of sight and out of mind. Many Christians would prefer Jesus just not wear his crown because the regime finds it very problematic for their cause. They are not so much concerned with their own feelings about Jesus’s kingship but the feelings of their friends who might not like the idea that they live in a monarchy and are currently considered traitors to the crown. My aim in using these public platforms is not merely to encourage but also reform. This involves pointing out hypocrisy, double standards, and general foolishness. I welcome your engagement. If you'd prefer to avoid this public iteration of mine, feel free to hit that unfollow button (you may enjoy me much better in person anyways, or not, I’ll leave that concern to more narcissistically minded people). But, if you’ll pay attention, I’m actually trying to give you an opportunity. The opportunity is to step into the fight.

In a past life, I avoided social media. And by avoid, I mean I used to lurk. I would see what others were saying or posting and not say much at all of substance or controversy online. I’ve decided that for now this use of social media was rather useless and self-indulgent. One of the best ways I can grow in virtue is to share openly what I am seeing and what I am thinking. It would be easier to hide in my thoughts and keep them safely to myself. But that isn’t very much fun.

My new tactic is twofold. First, I want to share my thoughts publicly with those whom I might deeply differ so that we can engage in public dialogue to broaden discourse. The world would like to snuff out this ability to talk openly across party lines. I realize that for some of you, you may perceive my public musings to be less than helpful. I understand your perception and feel no need to dissuade you of this (remember that unfollow button?). Second, I want to show the public what they can expect from me and my teaching. It is a type of air war in which I drop bombs to soften the defenses and discourage the enemy. It is a way of showing what teaching and commitments you can expect from me.

“But Chase, why not just add some nuance or qualifications? Wouldn’t that reach a broader audience?” It might. It might not. That’s a strategy question (and it assumes I would like to have a big audience, a very narcissistic concern). I believe much of that strategy (that of qualification and prolegomena) is of a bygone era. I do know that at this point part of the problem in the church is that we have embraced the ‘tolerance’ of the world in the form a winsome witness so that nothing we say is that offensive to anyone. As I heard one pastor say, “nuance is often where cowards hide.” By dropping the nuance, we can have maximal impact.

Must we be needlessly offensive? No. But must we be unashamedly truthful about God’s world? Yes. At this point saying things plainly about gender, ethnicity, economics, immigration, and the church will be seen as offensive. The way out is to stop doing the same thing that got us here: qualifying everything we say because we’re scared of harming our ‘public witness.’ We need to go for maximal impact and you can be sure that when you are getting flak that you are right over enemy territory. Now of course, you must make sure it is flak you’re catching and not a flock of innocent birds. But in general, it is easy to see who you’re upsetting and if you’re upsetting the right people according to God’s standards then you might just have a good offense because a good offense will always be received offensively to those playing defense.

I experiment with punchy-ness which invariably feels like a punch to some. Twitter has helped my writing tremendously (much to my critics dismay). It provides creative limitations. It forces to you to delete or live with your mistakes forever. It demands perfection within certain creative boundaries. It is a good teacher in those ways. This means I have grown in my bite. If you get bit, I apologize. Unless I meant for you to get bit, then in that case you might want to get that looked at by a professional.

I will be committed to the truth which means I am open to correction, ready to be proven wrong, and eager to engage in conversation and debate regarding a variety of issues. I wish to embody the best of Christian charity without succumbing to the worst antics of tribalism (such as stifling debate and ad hominem attacks). This could be described as a core principle of mine. But this core principle does not negate the necessity of changing to meet the times with a different set of tactics. I guess the question is, the times they are a changing, but have you?

Christian “Cool Kids”

Wherever people exist, there will be the “cool kids.” C.S. Lewis referred to them as the inner ring. Christian “cool kids” operate in positions of power and influence in the evangelical world (leader at a big church, conference speaker, published by the “right” outlets, professor at the “good” seminary, retweeted by the respectable people, etc.). Oftentimes, our reaction to this inevitable reality is more revealing and instructive than any kind of moral indictment against the existence of such “cliques.” Some react by trying to mimic the “cool kids” so that they can be respected and accepted. Others rebel seeking to undermine them through sarcasm and cynicism. 

The “cool kids” will rarely listen to such rebels. In fact, I’ve found Christian “cool kids” to be some of the most intolerant to such “pot stirrers.” They label these rebels as divisive, immature, pugnacious, and any number of biblical terms meant to make an example of such dissidents.

Christian “cool kids” will also shame the conformists for their desire to be part of the inner ring. They will talk about the danger of ambition while they occupy the position they themselves pursued by ambition. They will talk about the dangers of power while pontificating from positions of power. They will talk about the dangers of desiring influence while influencing thousands upon thousands. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

The best antidote to not becoming a reactionary to the “cool kids” is to 1. Accept they exist and 2. Don’t let them control your principles and posture. Some rightfully deserve the position and influence they’ve achieved. Many do not and reveal it through their hypocrisy. Make no mistake about it, if you do not center these insecure “cool kids” and show them the respect they think they deserve, you will suffer the consequences (at the very least you will be blacklisted). You must be willing to suffer such consequences if you want to make a difference in the long run however. 

Tomorrow Will Be Worse

IMG_9787.png

In a fallen world, it is always possible to prove that tomorrow will be worse than today. Why? Because you can always find bad news: death. And if it’s not you that dies, someone else will have died. It makes one feel prophetic. “See I knew that today would be worse than yesterday.”

This is the secret journalists have discovered. They have become purveyors of death, prospectors of fear, paralyzing society with anxiety. Only showing feel good stories to tease us into thinking they’re objective.

This is also what makes Christian hope so potent. It is not simply something like positive thinking, good vibes, or projecting success. It is a defiant hope grounded in the objective reality that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead. And if He rose, then we will rise. It is much more implausible to remain hopeful in a fallen world. However, that is why we as Christians are called to hope, because we know the truth and possess an inherently positive and sober hope in Christ.

Let Us Get About Our Work

Unknown.png

This year, 183,122 people under the age of 44 have died. For each one of those, there is mourning, grief, and loss. For those in Christ, there is also hope (albeit deferred in some ways for those who remain behind to pick up the pieces). As a pastor, I know this pain firsthand.

3.73% of deaths for this age cohort involved COVID-19. That is a total of 6,824 deaths this year involving COVID-19 out of 190,857,821 total people in this age group. We make up 58% of the U.S. population. Coronavirus has been involved in leading to the death of .003% of us.

Most pastors in the United States are above this age cohort and, therefore, more at risk. 85% of pastors are over the age of 40. Perhaps that would make sense of why many don't seem to speak as plainly on these statistics, instead preferring vague thoughts on what it means to love your neighbor. More likely for most pastors is that we’re just trying to survive and come out on the other side without quitting or self-sabotaging.

The longterm fallout of 8 months of lockdowns, restrictions, and fear is terrifying to consider. It is predicted that at least 20% of churches will close permanently. It is reported that 70% of pastors are currently looking for another job. Who knows how many pastors will burnout in the next 3 years because of over-exertion during this particular season from which they will be unable to recover? God have mercy.

With all this considered, when will those of us who are under the age of 44 say, “Enough!”? When will we say, “If you are at risk and/or scared, you can stay home. For the rest of us, let us get about our work”? The long term known health risks associated with isolation, anxiety, loneliness, suicidal ideation, depression outweigh continuing to lockdown until the unknown longterm health risks associated with contracting COVID-19 for this age cohort can be fully understood.

Let us get about our work. This younger age cohort will not forget this season. May it sear on our consciences the conviction that ruining relationships, careers, mental and spiritual health, through widespread government restrictions and lockdowns because of a virus that has killed .003% of us this year is not worth the cost.

The Gospel and White Privilege

9832BC81-ABCF-4871-BAAD-0BBE17A6230A.PNG

Culture – What is the culture saying?

White privilege has received significant airtime recently in American society as seen in a Google trends analysis showing the interest of a word or phrase over time. As Christians who are concerned about preaching the gospel rightly in a way that is understandable to the culture, we would do well to understand the concept of white privilege.

Picture1.png

White privilege is a concept born from critical race theory proposing that white people are born with an invisible bag of privileges and cultural assets of which they are unaware. Some authors writing on privilege broaden the concept of privilege do deal with any perceived power group in culture such as Ibram X. Kendi when he says: “We cannot be antiracist if we are homophobic or transphobic… To be queer antiracist is to understand the privileges of my cisgender, of my masculinity, of my heterosexuality, of their intersections” (How to Be, 197). However, specifically with regard to white privilege, a primary source would be Peggy McIntosh who describes it as “an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.” (McIntosh, Peace and Freedom Magazine, July/August, 1989, pp. 10-12). Furthermore, she has created a white privilege checklist to help people understand this concept more. 

It is fairly easy to understand the concept of privilege generally and white privilege specifically from McIntosh’s description. However, expanding on her concept, Delgado and Stefancic state that “White privilege refers to the myriad of social advantages, benefits, and courtesies that come with being a member of the dominant race” (Critical Race Theory: An Intro, 89-90). In a broader way, some posit that white privilege refers to “refers to the individual and systemic advantages afforded to White people by virtue of them belonging to the dominant ethnic group in society.” Much of the academic writing on white privilege focuses on both its invisibility and the intentionality of that invisibility. Meaning that white privilege is not simply a way to describe something that is invisible but it also carries moral intentionality because it is intended to remain unseen.

To be certain, this is a disputed area of research and there are many who point out that it (critical race theory) has developed a faulty method of epistemological reasoning which lacks empirical analysis. However, with its nascent popularity, Christian leaders should wisely engage this concept knowing the manner in which it developed.

Another point of consideration should be how everyday people use the concept. It is fair to assume that most people who have heard of (whether on Dr. Phil or other places) or utilize the term white privilege do not trace it back to critical race theory. For most people, they simply intend to describe the way that the historical and present ethnic majority in our country (white people) receive more cultural capital by nature of their ethnicity. This can result in a discrepancy in the way other people (non-white) are treated in everyday life when compared to white people.

 

Church – What is the church saying?

There are many in the church who are speaking on the idea of white privilege. For example, Matt Chandler describes white privilege as “an invisible bag that I can reach in that other people don’t possess.” His hope in sharing this concept is that “if you don’t let the gospel purify your heart. If you don’t let the Word of God direct you, you will expect other people to measure up to what you have access to you.” He further describes white privilege as “invisible air we breathe.” Eric Mason reflects on the invisibility of the air we breathe and the concept of white privilege by describing how fish do not know they are wet.

Jemar Tisby says that white privilege is a way of describing “how benefits are unequally distributed among different groups of people.” An author for CRU writes that “privilege, instead of being a pejorative judgment, is a simple, factual reality. It’s defined as ‘having systemic or inherited advantages in a society.’”

However, not all evangelicals are as positive as to the implementation of the concept of white privilege within Christianity. Neil Shenvi has shown that white privilege can be helpful in describing some racial disparities in our society. However, because white privilege as a concept was birthed from an epistemologically erroneous starting point (critical theory), it could do more harm than good. Furthermore, he laments that it is a rather simplistic way to describe the advantages and disadvantages people have in society. The concept of white privilege tends to conflate moral and non-moral categories making it confusing to understand what should be done about white privilege. This can be seen in the academic literature which connects the concept with moral intentionality.

Samuel Sey decries the implications of white privilege when he writes that “white privilege is a popular concept today because White people are encouraged to congratulate themselves for pitying their Black neighbours. White privilege is a popular concept today because the culture encourages Black people to embrace self-pity, bitterness, covetousness, and envy—and it turns Black people green for White people.” Furthermore, he highlights that taken in the worst reading, it is a racist conception because it assigns to entire ethnicity particular attributes and rights.

 

Christ – How should we consider this topic Christologically?

Some appeal to the theological concept of Kenosis in Philippians as way that white privilege could be thought of redemptively. It is argued that because Jesus is our example in how we should look to the interest of others, we should take the concept of white privilege as a means to further understand how we could look to the interests of others.

Jesus Christ is the ultimate privileged one who reigns in power. He is the firstborn of all creation. He is before all things. He is the head of the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. He is king of kings and Lord of Lords. He reigns over all. His place is a place of privilege. One must consider that if white privilege is so specifically pernicious and privilege is generally problematic, would not these kerfuffles over privilege and power ultimately result in the desire that God himself confess, lament, and divest Himself of His privilege? 

Jesus commands us to be like Him in humility. A prime example of this by Jesus was through washing the feet of the disciples. He tells us the first shall be last and the last first. His kingdom is not one of power and lording over each other. It is one of being a servant and a bondservant of His kingdom. He views his “privilege” as something to be used to bless others. Power was not something Jesus sought on this earth. In fact, He rejected to temptation to use His privilege to gain power (as if it was something that could be given to Him) when tempted. In these ways, reflecting on possible privileges we possess could produce in us more humility.

Jesus was a first century Jew who understood ethnic tensions. He intentionally sought to minister to people who were seen as ‘less than’ and inferior in his day such as the Samaritan woman at the well. For Jesus, his privilege as the Son of God was something to be utilized for the good of others. The ministry of Jesus was one which was marked by his taking “privilege” and leveraging it for the good of others. However, reading back into the life of Christ the philosophy of critical race theory is highly problematic.

There is an argument that needs to be considered regarding the whiteness of Jesus (which sounds ludicrous at first). This is not an argument that is easily considered because Jesus was obviously a middle eastern Jew in the first century. Eric Metaxas recently attempted to make this argument and was lambasted. Yet, the way many people are arguing against the concept of whiteness, it seems that Jewish people are to be considered white. This would seem to implicate Jesus in upholding white privilege. Which brings us to a further point.

Is white privilege to be considered a sin? If not, is there a point at which denying either the existence of white privilege or not adequately working against white privilege is to be thought of as a sin? If one does not decry their white privilege and in so doing covertly promotes white normativity, would not this be perpetuating white supremacy according the logic of critical race theory? If so, are we to conclude that Jesus sinned by perpetuating white normativity such as upholding personal responsibility, family values, cause and effect relationships, a respect for authority, delayed gratification, intentions counting, etc.?  

Care & Carry Out– How should we care about it? And carry out gospel mission?

We must be wise and discerning on how we should employee the concepts of privilege and what the gospel intention might be behind utilizing the concept. In one sense, we can acknowledge that in God’s sovereignty some people are born with more privileges than others. Christians are called to steward whatever privileges they have with wisdom and in light of God’s expectation that we steward our resources well. Christians who are part of majority ethnicities in any country around the world could consider how their cultural norms might place undue burdens on non-majority people or create real or perceived barriers to entry to community.

In another sense, we must be cautious about assigning to an entire ethnicity a particular group attribute. This is what is historically called racism. The idea that all white people are inherently privileged is a racist statement. To extend this logic, are we comfortable calling all Nigerians privileged within Nigeria because of the color of their skin? While white privilege could be redeemed within the missiological methods and principles in the Bible, one would be wise to consider its usefulness and compatibility within a worldview in which rich and poor, powerful and powerless, every tribe tongue and nation are called to submit in unity to Jesus Christ our King. One should be clear on how white privilege stems from a worldview which is not just agnostic but anti-God and materialistic.

Christians should be concerned about fairness and justice in light of God’s sovereignty and justice. If we allow ourselves to focus on the privileges that we do not have, we run the risk of living in bitterness. Yet, if we allow ourselves to ignore privileges we have been afforded, we run the risk of living thankless lives of self-righteousness. Couldn’t we teach all of this without pulling from the polluted waters of critical race theory? This concept of white privilege often goes with male privilege. Are Christians ready to start talking about male privilege? Why not? Regardless of the privileges society bestows upon us due to the way we look or way we talk or our gender, should the mission of the church be so intricately tied to theories which seek to undermine Christianity and reason itself?

Let’s run a though experiment. I am not tall. I wish I were. Alas, my height prevented me from excelling in sports like basketball. It could be argued that there is height privilege in basketball. What of it? How is this is a helpful way to view the world? What is the purpose of introducing the concept of white privilege into our churches? For some, the hope is that white people would lament. For others, it is an interesting way to consider how majority ethnic cultures might put undue burdens upon non-majority ethnic cultures.

When we condition success or achievement on privilege such as saying that success is contingent or requires privilege, we make racist claims that one’s success or lack of success in life is contingent on one’s skin color. This of course depends on how one defines success. For Christians, success looks faithfulness and being found in Christ. For our world, success looks like material and reputational acclaim. We can all acknowledge that certain privileges will lead to a higher likelihood of worldly success in certain areas. However, there are too many other variables that apply to someone’s worldly success to reduce all success to ethnic privilege. And when one does so, it appears incredibly racist.

We Christians already have categories for the way God bestows different privileges on different groups; providence and common grace. God has already told us how to use his common grace and blessings in our life (what others might refer to as privileges). He has told us to use them for the good of others, for the building up of the body of Christ, and to be thankful for any and all blessings. Whatever church planting context you find yourself in, the wisdom of Christ encourages us to consider the privileges bestowed upon you and how those might be utilized to serve the least of these. The missionary goal in church planting is not to speak against the majority ethnicity in any context but to call both majority and non-majority ethnicities to repent and believe the gospel.

Limitations of Linguistic Redemption

C9113CFF-E624-4E04-9C38-9D92BD1B5034.PNG

Christians should be people who are concerned with issues of justice in our world. From cover to cover, God exhorts his people to reflect his character and his perfect justice. There is plenty of confusion regarding whether issues of justice in our world are ‘gospel issues’ or if they are simply areas of disagreement. This requires that Christians explore more deeply modern concepts of justice than slogans or movements typically permit. What might it look like to explore the sub-terrain of these modern conversations regarding justice by conducting a linguistic thought experiment?

We live in an age of linguistic relativism. Words are malleable. Meaning has been disconnected from a correspondence theory of truth and instead replaced with relativism. While aspects of relativism can be useful for having a more well-rounded understanding of knowledge, it seems to have taken on a totalitarian manifestation in society at large. Relativism was propagated in the academy through post-modernism and has now become the general perspective of many people in our world. The most important thing is not whether the word means something objectively true but what you think it means. Think of these examples:

Anti-fascist – a group that by their name would seem to be engaged in work that is against any movement of fascism (defined as forcible suppression of opposition) and yet they themselves operate as fascists (by forcibly suppressing opposition).

People’s Republic of North Korea – a country that is a communist dictatorship where the dictator is thought to be a god and they have placed many of their own citizens in labor camps. Yet, the name republic would seem to insinuate something very different than what the name implies.

White Supremacy – what has traditionally been thought of as a belief or system of beliefs which postulates that those who are ethnically white are innately superior and qualitatively better and more valuable than other ethnicities. This term has now morphed into a definition that is equated with upholding whiteness through implicitly upholding white normativity by having expectations of people which are defined as white.

Social Justice – this term has debated historical beginnings in that some argue for its birth out of the church and others argue for its birth out of secularism. Regardless, the term is intended to connote the idea that there should be a form of justice which is applied socially. In that sense, Christians rightly stand against abortion and call out other injustices such as racial injustice. Today, however, it is a loaded term which has been absorbed and employed by Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory bringing along with it many other concepts which are materialistic in orientation and inherently anti-God. It has come to describe any disparity between groups as justice issues.

The question for Christian pastors, academics, leaders, and laity is thus: at what point is a linguistic construction too compromised to redeem? Or put differently, is there a point at which utilizing and attempting to redeem a linguistic concept is unwise?

For example, if one were to call oneself a Christian White Supremacist everyone would balk and be rightly abhorred at this concept. How could one say this? Well, according to some today, it can be redeemed in a similar way that Paul redeemed Greco-Roman worldview concepts for Christ in preaching the gospel. So too, it is argued that if we can twist the concept of White Supremacist to submit to Christ, then we can redeem it. No one I know of is actually making this argument. My point is that we all know there is a point at which a phrase becomes so corrupt that we reject its utilization by Christians.

Or consider the challenges in ministry to Muslims. There are obvious worldview differences between Christianity and Islam. In ministering to Muslims, there are unique opportunities to bridge the worldview divide in order to establish a common ground of influence for Christ. For example, using their own language such as calling Jesus Isa and showing how both religions value prayer and fasting are areas of commonality. However, it is argued by some that if we can twist the concepts of Islam to show how Christ is better, then we can redeem some or even many elements of Islam. In that understanding, a Christian could still participate in Islam but be a Christian (see insider Muslims).

We agree that God’s justice is best and should have real impacts in society.

What does this have to do with Social Justice? Whenever I speak to a Christian friend who touts Social Justice concepts such as anti-racist, woke, white supremacist, white privilege, etc. I actually find there is much on which we agree. In fact, I would say we agree biblically on most points. We may disagree on how justice should work itself out in society (ex. reparations) but in general we both agree with the biblical realities of sin and justice. We agree that God’s justice is best and should have real impacts in society. We both believe true life change and salvation starts with individuals and works of justice and mercy flow out of the gospel. Christians may have differences of opinion on what that looks like but we agree that justice should have societal impact. Many Christians may even call this social justice. The tension lies with what words we are attaching to biblical concepts and the principles of missiological engagement with the culture at large.

What is it we’re trying to accomplish by adopting the words of a well-established academic field in order to explain the Bible? Are we trying to reach people who believe in social justice as defined by Critical Theory? What do we anticipate their reaction to be when we take their language and twist it beyond recognition? Would we do the same with the theological beliefs of Muslims? Is there a point at which we are starting to conflate two ideologies? Are we trying to get Christians to use the language of Critical Theory? If so, why? Could we not just use the phrase Christian justice and avoid the tension all together? If we agree on what the Bible teaches, why the pressure and need to describe what the Bible teaches with ideologies that are avowedly unchristian? Are we even willing to admit that much of the Social Justice literature today has significant epistemological errors and theological contradictions with Christianity?

If I was a missionary in India, then I would want to reach people who were operating from a Hindu worldview. I would attempt to preach the gospel in a way that reached them in their language by adapting some of their worldview components and repurposing them into Christianity. That is understandable (and popularly called contextualization). Perhaps we need to do that with some Social Justice concepts in the United States. But, there comes a point in my ministry in India when I cannot just start replacing the words of Christianity with the words of Hinduism. If I was encouraging my church in India to dwell on the dharmic reality of life and consider how dharma teaches that there are universal laws regarding right behavior and social order and that Jesus came to be the fulfillment of dharma, then I would hope a elder of the church would steer me away from this language. I would imagine that those who are Hindu would be offended (not by the gospel) but by my conflation of two worldviews and that Christians in the congregation would be rightly concerned about what appears to be syncretism.

I am not saying that those who are utilizing concepts such as anti-racist, woke, white privilege, white supremacy, and social justice are syncretistic. I am wondering aloud if there is a point at which it becomes syncretistic and at what that point is?

Paul’s missionary strategies involved contextualizing the gospel. However, was Paul practicing relativism when he preached the gospel to Greeks? Was he simply trying to adopt their language and import his own meaning to their language? I would assume this would be missiologically anachronistic. I hesitate to read back into Paul our current missiological convictions.

My hope is that we would think more deeply about the terms and language we’re employing to represent: the good news that God saves sinners, the Christian worldview, and the authority of the Word of God. We Christians actually agree on much but when we start employing language from a worldview which is avowedly anti-God, is it any wonder that it naturally produces divisive conversations? In fact, the worldview itself is intended to divide, not include. It is a worldview of binaries. Is it not surprising that when we employ the language of that worldview it feels so divisive?

The Plague

468DBF4E-B298-410D-9EFF-B4C39E4CC72E.png

"So long as we are in this ministry, I do not see that any pretext will avail us, if, through fear of infection, we are found wanting in the discharge of our duty when there is most need of our assistance." - John Calvin in a letter to a fellow pastor (Viret) in 1542 in Geneva during an outbreak of the plague.

They did not know the death rate (it was probably around 60%).
They did not know the R0 value.
They did not have ventilators.
They did not know when it would end.

No charts.
No vaccine.
No Tylenol.

Just death.

But, they ministered to the sick and dying. They took steps to thwart the spread of the virus while spreading the good news of the gospel. They quarantined the sick. They held church services, made a hospital for those infected, temporarily shut down parts of the economy, etc. They also made grave mistakes: more than 100 people were executed for witchcraft (which was thought to have caused the outbreak), they killed all dogs and cats in the city (they were thought to be carriers), etc. They did their best all things considered. And people still died. Lots.

It was Calvin's conviction that Christian duty should be carried on in the face of such death. I am not necessarily suggesting the specific removal of any restriction currently imposed in describing this historical situation. I am suggesting that our current crisis should be considered within the context of church history for a more appropriate level of discourse regarding what is most wise for our society. What might this historical situation teach us?

Thankfulness - We live an age of unprecedented health and wealth worldwide (which makes it odd that so many would peddle a reductionistic prosperity gospel). We have antibiotics. We can develop vaccines. We know the transmission rate in general, the death rate in general of COVID-19. Through God’s providence, our society in many ways is able to carry on in the midst of a global pandemic. The death rate, when taken into historical consideration, is low. Not only this, but the church has endured conditions much worse than these. We can be thankful for God’s common grace and providence.

Humility - Modern technology has produced in us a strange godlike attitude with respect to the amount of control we have in life. This has produced the side effect of thinking that there is nothing beyond our control. This is a lie. There are many things out of our control. This pandemic is an invitation to get ourselves right with our God who is always in control. We are not the first to encounter a pandemic and we won’t be last. This is not our World War 2 or Pearl Harbor. It is a global pandemic. It has happened before. It will probably happen again.

Courage - Christians throughout history have championed gospel ministry during plagues and pandemics as a means to carry out the great commandment and great commission. It has been one of the hallmarks of the church. Fear does not look good on a Christian. We are the people who believe that Jesus Christ walked out of a grave and lives today. We believe that we live with Him and that death has lost its sting. We should take courage that Christians throughout the ages have remained faithful and bold in the face of death from disease.

Charity - Finally, I think we can all learn a bit of charity in how we treat one another. The pastors in Geneva were expected to minister to the sick and dying. This would have undoubtedly led to their own contraction of the plague and some died because of this aspect of ministry. At one point, the pastors drew straws to see who would have to go minister to the sick and dying because they were all afraid. Some abandoned their post. Others courageously volunteered to carry on ministering to the sick only to die from the disease itself. But they all experienced fear. We could learn to give grace to those who are afraid. We can be charitable with those who are afraid while at the same time reminding them to take courage because He has overcome the world.

How to Think About Racial Injustice

1EF2C021-F840-4456-9335-37EB94D10B86_1_102_o.jpeg

The question I’m concerned with is how we’re thinking about our world and ultimate reality. Now, I realize that in trying to advance a position on how to think about racial injustice I’m playing a little inside baseball. It’s as if you went to a car dealership looking to purchase a new vehicle and the car salesman said, “well, first I think it’s important to ask ‘what is a car?’” You would obviously be annoyed (as would I). With that said, I think that before we buy a point of view, we ask how we arrived at that point of view.

This is why I am passionate about epistemology (lame hobby). How we know what we know matters. It matters more than we would care to think about. Most of us avoid these questions because they seem to lead us into the disposition of Albert Camus or Qohelet of Ecclesiastes wherein we reflect upon the absurdity of life and death. Why bother with how we know what we know? We need action. We’re Americans. Let’s just get something done and move on. Well let’s slow down there and consider some epistemology before we just decide to remake society.

A triperspectival approach to epistemology could help greatly in our current cultural climate. Let me explain. In the discipline of philosophy, triperspectivalism can be thought of with regards to three major schools of thought: the normative being rationalism, the existential being subjectivism, and the situational being empiricism. (James N. Anderson, “Presuppositionalism and Frame’s Epistemology,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame, ed. John J. Hughes (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2009), 441.) A core tenet of triperspectivalism is that each approach to knowledge is both legitimate and insufficient on its own. Meaning that each philosophical approach to knowledge brings a legitimate perspective on what is reality. And each perspective does not hold dominance or priority over the others. It is a disarming approach (and inevitably disappointing to those entrenched in a particular epistemic approach).

How would triperspectivalism help us think about racial injustice? Rationalism would teach me to examine the logical claims made regarding racial injustice and their cogency. We would be able to reason together with brutal honesty regarding the issues of injustice. We would be able to discuss the coherence or incoherence of various moral systems of thought which could provide justification for engagement or disengagement on these issues. This would give us key insights into ultimate reality (what is really going on). Empiricism would study the statistics and various legal and economic realities that can be quantified. There would be a thorough vetting of what should be studied and why. There should be quantitative analysis regarding police encounters and claims regarding injustice. There would be an interdisciplinary approach to which facts matter most. This approach would also give us key insights as to what is going on. Subjectivism would take into account the lived experience of people as a legitimate source of knowledge. Not all studied data points record the real lives of people. Hearing the cries of a community and listening to the actual experiences of people and how they interpret those experiences is a legitimate way to get closer to ultimate reality. All three taken together would create more holistic understanding of how and where racial injustice is a legitimate reality.

...we currently live in an age of competing philosophies...

Why does all this matter? Because we currently live in an age of competing philosophies (as well as narratives). Those who believe in rationalism believe that reason should trump feelings and lived experience. They want to have rational discussions about what makes the most sense. They appeal to data but more than data they appeal to worldviews and relentless logic as the key to solving problems. Relentless reason is the key in the rationalist mind to solving the problems of the world.

Those who believe in empiricism want to focus only on what can be studied and seen. These are the sciences, even the soft ones, who study data and information and process it accordingly. Empiricists pride themselves in just sticking to what the data shows. You have economists, sociologist, et al. These are people who make a living studying information such as outcomes and disparities.We should have a clear and uninhibited consideration of the data regarding racial injustice.

Then you have the subjectivists, those who care primarily about lived experience. Those who believe in social constructivism (knowledge is legitimate based on the social and relational context of the knower) tout lived experience as the key to true knowledge. If you have not lived the experience of a black person in America, it is suggested that you cannot know or have an opinion on their lived experience. This seems to be the loudest camp currently. They have their cheers down, camp colors sorted out nicely, and their camp counselors (cult leaders?) selling NYT bestsellers.

Now this camp seems to consists of those who champion both empiricism and subjectivism (a seemingly contradictory position). Let’s call it empirical subjectivism or intersectionality. Where the only knowledge you can have is from experience and the knowledge is infinitely malleable based on the subjectivity of the individual. The only sociologists and economists who are considered legitimate in this camp are those who agree with them a priori. This is why you’ll hear claims that ‘conservative’ commentators, sociologists, and economists who are black are not real representations of the black experience and should not be listened to. So we have this false dilemma being presented wherein rationalism is being pit against empirical subjectivism.

Two things are in order. First, someone needs to show empirical subjectivism their logical incoherence (yes, the rational perspective needs to rain on their parade). These are not bedfellows. Subjectivists should embrace their subjectivism. Empiricists should retake their social studies without cowering to the subjectivists. The modern tendency to make a particular angle of triperspectivalism the primary starting point will only lead to more chaos and philosophical subservience. Yet, this is exactly what has happened. Subjectivism, as opined in radical postmodernism and more acutely in critical race theory, has claimed king of the hill. Empiricism conceded their ascension. Rationalism is still holding out. Second, all three perspectives need to be appreciated as legitimate sources of knowledge. Until then, it will just be cats and dogs. The rationalists will keep appealing to reason and logic. The subjectivists will keep appealing to personal experience. The empiricists will be cowering in the corner just waiting to see who wins.

If this can happen, if we can appreciate all three perspectives as legitimate sources of inquiry philosophically, then we can actually have conversations where we point out some potential problems regarding racial injustice (and maybe even in our thinking about racial injustice). If this cannot happen, we will invariably drift into tribalism and not listen to one another. We won’t know the language the other is speaking and we will therefore not actually hear one another. We will just feel like we are yelling into the void. Which is how most of us feel anyways. See, I told you we’d end up feeling like Camus.