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

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

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

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.

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

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

"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

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.

Are Reparations Biblical?

The issues of injustice and ethnicity in our country appear to have reached a watershed moment in wake of the murder of George Floyd. With this come various issues which many may prefer not discuss. Can’t we just move on? We’re all equal under the law, what more should we do? Phil Vischer tried to communicate a compelling narrative with a video on various injustices in the black community. The end application of that video? Care. 

I find arguments like this uncompelling not because I am not moved by the tears of my brothers and sisters in Christ who have suffered, but because I find them mysteriously absent of gospel application. This is why I am thankful Dr. Bryan Loritts recently shared his thoughts on reparations and the gospel. Dr. Loritts is someone whom I deeply admire. His thoughts after my friend Darrin took his life were some of the most comforting and truthful remarks on the issue I found. Dr. Loritts is trying to help us think through what the gospel in action could look like. He is right that we should be willing and able to talk about these issues and a lack of willingness to do so might reveal something about our hearts that would be unChristian. 

Just as Dr. Loritts discussed his desire to discuss these at the table, I would like to throw my two cents on his arguments as he presented them. I would hope that by showing areas of agreement and areas of concern, I am in line with his vision of having a conversation. A chief concern of mine is how these discussions are presented at all. Or to put another way, how the table is being set. It would seem that having concerns or serious disagreement with the gospel demanding societal reparation could be interpreted to be denying that I care or that I am willing to consider the idea. Far from it, by engaging on this issue with a man I deeply respect, I am trying to consider the idea very clearly. 

One non-starter with the idea of reparations for the history of slavery and even Jim Crow in our country is that it would be too complicated to carry out. While this pragmatic line of thinking is a legitimate and necessary means of moral reasoning and cannot be dismissed outright, what should chiefly concern us is if reparations are what biblical justice demands. If it is, then we can move on to implications and the limitations regarding the pragmatic implementation of what biblical justice demands. Sometimes what biblical justice demands isn’t fully possible on this side of the return of Christ. But, we must have the conversation before we should simply refuse to discuss because it seems too hard to implement.

Does the gospel demand reparations? One biblical example Dr. Loritts mentions is that of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10. This is a wonderful story of Jesus’ love for sinners and the response of someone who has encountered the radical and revolutionary hospitality of Jesus. Zacchaeus is moved to restore to those from whom he has stolen four fold. Dr. Loritts takes this to be a form of reparations. Zacchaeus’ heart is moved by Jesus and his love for Jesus to restore from those he has stolen. Zacchaeus is part of a system of corruption in tax collecting for Rome and he has participated in systemic injustice. Therefore, after encountering the good news of Jesus he works against the systemic injustice in which he has participated. 

I am trying to consider reparations in the light of the gospel. It’s important to bring clarity to the potential limitations of this example and others regarding the broad based application that because Zacchaeus was moved to practice a form of personal restoration or reparations for the wrongs he committed, there therefore should be some form of communal or societal or national reparations. It could be argued from this that reparations for slavery are a natural outworking of the gospel. This is essentially what Dr. Loritts argues in saying “a mature believer places love for neighbor over arguments of silence, the law, questions of culpability and logistical details of who gets the money.” It could also not be argued. In fact, it could prove to be an overreach of what the Bible expects.

As an example, there is an absence of evidence that Jesus desired his disciples to implore the government to divest itself of Gentile-ness and recreate a more equitable Roman system. To read back into the gospels these kinds of implications or even imperatives would be to create a false gospel of sorts. Is it exegetically sound to take this passage which deals with an individual walking in repentance and then make a political demand that the same is expected of a nation, country, or empire? To be certain, the United States has certainly paid reparations and continues to do so. But the line of reasoning I am arguing for is not political but biblical in this situation. There is a difference between a government deciding that reparations are justified and claiming that the gospel demands them and are therefore required.

There are legitimate political and economic arguments for reparations to be made because of slavery and/or Jim Crow. It could be a legitimate means of restitution for injustice. But my question is: are we making the Bible say something that it doesn’t wish to say? While the Bible does lay out an ethical system as a formational tool for God’s people and then those people in turn shape society at large, to claim that the Bible demands governments act in line with it’s ethical system is questionable. Could we make the argument more appropriately utilizing economic and legal precedents for such reparations? Could we argue from natural law that reparations are a legitimate means of correcting a past injustice against a people group? I believe so.

Another example of reparations biblically could be found in Numbers 5:5-9. In this passage, when a person commits a sin against another, the person is not only to confess the sin he has committed but must pay full compensation with interest. Some translations refer to this act of restitution as reparations. This is a legitimate example of biblical reparations. But, consider what verse 8 says, “if the man has no next of kin to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for the wrong shall go to the LORD for the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him.” This creates some sort of biblical limit for reparations. It does not say go find someone who is a distant relative and give them the money. It says no next of kin. I take that to mean no immediate living family related to the aggrieved party (my Hebrew is rusty enough such that this brief interpretation could very well be mistaken). 

This brings up a legitimate concern regarding the conversation regarding reparations. And, lest we forget how the table has been set, I am not saying that any talk of reparations is on its face illegitimate. I am trying to biblically reason through the issue. Is there a point at which justice unserved, or an injustice, has passed a feasible point of biblical restitution? It’s even hard to type that question because it puts the legitimate pain of people into a category which would seem hopeless for justice. But if we want legitimate biblical justice, we must ask if there is a ‘statute of limitations’ to some issues of justice? Might there be a gospel to be preached amidst situations where injustices persist for which minimal earthly justice can be done? Are there some historical atrocities for which restitution cannot be made? I am not saying that slavery or Jim Crow would be an example of something like this. I am saying that it seems that there could be an argument, biblically, for a statute of limitations on some historical injustices. In the case that the injustice has passed a point of legitimate justice being done, what alternatives to reparations could be explored?

All of this is to add to the conversation not to detract. There are and continue to be legitimate grievances and injustices towards people of color in the United States. This bring us to the question of the gospel. Because I do not believe “care!” is a sufficient application to injustice biblically. If we want to execute justice well, we must know the greatest injustice in history. The injustice of Jesus dying for sins he did not commit on the cross. This paradigm shattering act flips the script on how conversations of justice should go. God used the greatest injustice in human history to restore us to relationship with him. Conversations on justice apart from that reality will invariably drift into conversations about “who deserves what.” And in light of the cross, Jesus Christ got what I deserved. Because of that, I am free to give and be generous and consider reparations for wrongs committed, even if I did not necessarily personally commit the injustice. And because of that, I am free overlook wrongs and not “get what I deserve” because I have been forgiven by Christ. To make gospel demands where the gospel might not demand is dangerous territory (worth considering but dangerous territory nonetheless). In our efforts to explore what the gospel demands, let’s make sure we don’t add to the gospel itself. 

Christians Who Harm

Eric Johnson’s God and Soul Care is a fantastic treatment of formation and discipleship. While it is focused on soul care it reads almost like a systematic theology (which may be a turn off to some, I realize). However, his attention and thought on the topic of sin (referred to in traditional theological terms as hamartiology) is exceptional. Here is an excerpt followed by some thoughts of my own:

“At the most superficial level, this opposition to God, self, and others is paradoxically manifested in conscious overidentification with God. Here, we might say, sin cloaks itself under the guise of one’s religiosity, where one is consciously ‘on God’s side’ and opposed to sin. Yet this reaction formation is the most dangerous side of our opposition, supremely displayed in the murder of Christ in the name of God and righteousness” (220).

The most dangerous outworking of sin is when people use God to play God in the lives of other people. This is incredibly accurate from my personal experience. The most relationally harmful people have been those that stand on “God’s side” of issues and have inflicted undue harm to me relationally because they stand on God’s side of things. The most relationally harmful people in ministry that I have served have been those that have an “overidentification with God“ issue. They claim to represent God and his ways while being merciless and ruthless in their application of “God’s ways.” In doing so, they misrepresent the very God they claim because no matter how much one repents or apologizes, there is no mercy. No matter how much one pleads that our only hope is in Christ alone, those that have an overidentification with God issue simply will not let up. These religious types are like a pit bull and once they have bitten, they will not let go.

Furthermore, could it be that those with a strange obsession to prophesy on God’s behalf, speaking his words, hearing directly from him, and challenging those around them with specific words from God, have a subconscious desire to over-identify with God himself? Not that everyone who desires these gifts have nefarious intentions, but that it could be possible that those with a strong desire for charismatic giftings, a seemingly unrealistic thirst to be ‘used by God’ could, in fact, be operating in the dark and simply be trying to be like God. Speculation, sure. Possible, yes.

I personally believe that these giftings are important aspects of the church, but I have seen church communities and church unity ripped apart by people who seek to control the church with their unique take on how the giftings should work out. As an example, I have heard of a situation where one individual who was in the middle of bringing charges against his pastor in order to show his pastor’s unfitness for ministry then proceed to share a prophetic word from his wife with the pastor so that she could share it with the church during a Sunday service. This kind of relational denseness underscores the real possibility that it wasn’t God using this individual but this individual using God.

The relational harm inflicted by those who stand “on God’s side” is disturbing and, as Johnson highlights, exemplified by those who killed Christ. Those of us who follow Christ would do well to model his charity towards those who stumble and falter (as we all will at some points in life). We would also do well to call out those religious types who show no mercy to the wayward (as Christ did). The situation for those who over-identify with God seems hopeless, but we must remember that Paul himself was this very type of person, killing in the name of love. God’s mercy is inexhaustible. Let’s not become the very people we have been harmed by, by not extending mercy to the religious as well.