The past few days, I’ve watched the internet ablaze over this statement on social justice and the gospel. I read the statement and largely agree with many of the points and had trouble with others. My overall take, as I read through it was it seemed to set up a dichotomy where one was either for the gospel or for social justice as if orthodox believers can’t be involved in matters of social justice and still hold to biblical Christianity as historically articulated.
In his response to the statement, Joel McDurmon has expressed my concerns well;
In the name of a “closer examination” of the issues, the document not only offers no real “examination,” but precludes any future discussion on aspects central to the topic. It brings unnecessary division, demagoguing, grandstanding, pigeonholing, and fearmongering—all while neglecting any defined or substantial discussion of some of the actual points of disagreement or denial.
This document is not about issues, even though it uses pointed buzzwords. It is about power and alignment—tribalism. In the name of standing firm for Gospel truth, it works to solidify one group of believers against another group by demonizing the other with broad, undefined labels. The result is something like the following sentiment: “social justice” (undefined) is evil, and either you agree with us (sign the document), or you are dangerous to the church.
The aspect about power is a hefty charge that I’m not sure about. But I wholeheartedly concur that underneath the nebulous buzzwords lies a dividing stake that says either you are with us and for Christ or against us and against him. I’m pretty sure the crafters of this statement were sincere about upholding Christian orthodoxy and wanting to take a stand on factors that, at least in their mind, worked against it. But the the premise of the concern rests in an area in which there is a spectrum of beliefs that all do not work against the church. Continue reading
I’m currently going through the book of Matthew and paused at this passage;
Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward. (Matt. 10:40-42)
It’s the phrase in vs. 42 that caught my attention “whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple.” We might be inclined to think that Jesus is referring to children but the context tells a different story. The chapter begins with Jesus sending out the 12, the ones who would proclaim the apostolic message on which the testimony of Scripture rests (cf. Eph 2:20). So by inference, the application today would be those who have a responsibility for testifying to the risen Lord. Yes, that is all of us but I think the context of this passage bears on those who are charged with preaching and teaching.
So the connotation of “little ones” is not about children but those of little reputation. These are the ones who go about proclaiming the name of Christ and speaking his truth. These disciples may not be well known, or seem to do big things for God but their heart is to be a witness for Christ and to live out his truth in their lives. What is Jesus saying here? That the ones who strive to honor him are the ones to be honored. Don’t neglect the “little ones” because they don’t have a big standing. Continue reading
For the past week or so, I’ve watched the internet ablaze over a special gathering of women of color sponsored by Legacy at the TGCW18 conference. (see their write up about it here.) The meeting is for women to come together to discuss their shared experiences (a phrase I will definitely be coming back to) and encourage one another. Why? Well, because being a minority, where minorities are very much the minority, trying to navigate through predominantly white spaces can be tricky and trying. If you don’t understand that, try talking to some minority women in those circumstances. But the upshot is that some women feel the need to retreat and gather among themselves apart from those who don’t really understand what it is like. They have a shared experience.
Of course, I get that there are varying degrees of sensitivity. Especially in these times of heightened racial awareness, I can see how those who are quick to racialize every aspect of every environment and interaction might feel the need for separate spaces. But let’s not be too quick to make those assumptions that explains what is going on here. And let’s not be too quick to attribute this acute awareness only among racial lines. Consider those who experience being a very small minority representation of whatever is the majority group: parents of small children in a church full of older couples; singles in the midst of married people; men in the company of a majority of women and vice versa. It’s not that you’re repudiating the majority group but there is a heightened sense of awareness that you kind of stand out and open to varying degrees of misunderstandings, misperceptions and prejudices.
This special gathering has spawned a bit of an uproar with charges of gospel-denying racism. I have even heard that the noise has caused the FBI to make some inquiries. Some folks are concerned that this kind of segregation has no place in the body of Christ. I do understand and appreciate the sentiment that oneness in Christ should preclude any kind of racial or ethnic superiority or exclusivity. As I wrote about in Some Questions I’m Asking While Off to my White Evangelical Church, I too have concerns that racial animus is creating a divide in the body of Christ. After all, Christ broke down the walls of ethnic hostility so that we can hold our identity in him first and foremost, bearing with one another and learning to love each other in spite of the extensive legacy of racial hostility. We do have to be cautious of creating unnecessary divides in the body of Christ, resisting the urge to retreat into separate enclaves because working out our salvation with fear and trembling is simply too intolerable. Continue reading
My intention in doing this series was to post one segment at least once a month. I’ve let more time lapse since the last segment so I thought it would be good to get back to it. A crucial aspect of this series is seeing how God moved on behalf of his creation starting in Genesis to have a snapshot of what the entirety of the Bible is about. Therefore, in order to consider the cohesive story of the 66 books of Scripture, it is imperative to consider the overview (part 1), foundation in Genesis (part 2), and God’s provision through the law (part 3). Continuing on, this post will cover the period of kings known as Old Testament history.
By way of review, what we’ve seen so far leading up to this period is that from the beginning, God gives life to his creation with specific intentions for it to glorify him. As man is made in the image of God, a theme that undergirds Scripture: God will be a God to his people. From the Fall, God’s desire to rescue his people is seen throughout. From the promise of Abraham, comes a people who God rescued, then he gave them a name and then his requirements in the law. In the law, a system of worship was established and office of priest solidified through through which the mediation of God’s presence would occur. This was the whole point of the tabernacle so that God could meet with his people. So we see, as the narrative of God’s story continues, he reveals more of himself–his character, intent, and will.
What started as one man and one woman, evolved into a family, then a nation. As I noted in the last post, the nation of Israel should be seen as a people of God’s possession.
The historical books (Joshua-2 Chronicles) tell of Israel’s conquest of the promised land, life in the land, loss of the land, and return to the land. But there is a component added to this period of Israel’s history that bears a noteworthy mark of God’s revelation concerning his leadership. Continue reading
Occasionally, I come across an article stating reasons to either choose a church or make a decision to leave a church. The recommendations typically look something like this. Don’t leave for selfish reasons. Find a church that honors Christ, teaches the Bible and takes fellowship seriously. All that is well and good.
Over at Core Christianity, I thought this was a good list on 4 questions to ask when looking for a church;
What does the church believe about Scripture?
What is the church’s confession of faith?
Is the church man-centered or God-centered?
Is Christ faithfully preached each week?
But one thing I’ve discovered in my varied church experience and many years of being a Christian is that it’s not always that simple. You can have those standard elements present but there still be a hole. Just because the preacher uses the Bible doesn’t mean he’s being faithful to Scripture. Just because he quotes Bible verses doesn’t mean he’s preaching Christ. Just because people gather, doesn’t mean there is genuine love in the body. Just because there is evangelism doesn’t mean the church is being faithful to its whole task.
There’s also the varied expressions of church practice. Aside from the absolute essentials of the faith to which any Christian must be committed, there are questions to be asked about the way in which church is conducted. What does that church believe about the sacraments? The practice of spiritual gifts? The make up (liturgy) of the service? Continue reading