“20 Theses on Justice” Countered

Just a note that I very much appreciate Jady and Liza Koch’s patient response to the “20 Theses on Justice” from Esau McCaulley and Jonathan Warren.  I will not summarize the response here. (So go read it over at Stand Firm.) But I especially appreciate two things they do.

First, they nicely but firmly debunk the Woke Church’s specious conflation of “justice” with Leftist political agendas:

…Nobody is a “critic of the advocacy for justice,” until “justice” is defined in non-biblical ways, which is precisely what is happening in much of the conversation both within the church and in the wider culture. It should be noted that these terms are used and assumed throughout these theses over against their “opponents” and “critics,” as if there are those involved in this conversation who are legitimately opposed to “justice” and, by extension, somehow “pro-oppression.” If one examines the arguments of these so-called ” critics of justice,” what is clearly evident is a sincere belief that there is great danger in appropriating non-Christian worldviews and concepts to diagnose and cure the human problem. Acknowledging the Marxist and postmodern theories undergirding the discussion surrounding much of what passes for “justice” is a necessary part of defining fully the terms at play. Read Marx, Marcuse, Alinski, Gramsci, Foucault, Baudrillard, etc., and show how their ideas can be baptized, rooted as they are in the fundamental convictions that 1) there is no God, 2) truth is relative, 3) morality is culturally bound, and 4) every relationship in life is a zero-sum power struggle. Until that work is done, the (so-called) “critics of the advocacy for justice” will continue to ignore the unfounded (and frankly slanderous) repeated assertion that anyone who disagrees with this new understanding of “justice” (and by extension, racism, oppression, equality, etc.) is indifferent to the biblical demand for justice.

Second, they refuse to play the Woke game that disagreeing with approved “oppressed voices” is not listening to “oppressed voices” or to “Black voices” etc. and is harming them.  May more and more firmly tell the Woke Church cabal that we shall not play that race-baiting victim-playing game.  The Kochs nicely blow up one tactic of that game when they write:

The influence of radical European and Marxist philosophy into the modern discourse around modern theories of “justice” is well-documented, and, simply stating that the theology of ethnic minorities sprung up entirely apart from those influences does not prove it so. What is more, the African-American Christian tradition, insofar as people like James Cone are illustrative of at least one stream, was and is deeply influenced by (so-called) liberation theology and other theological schools explicitly indebted to Marxist influence.

Yes, the “Black voices” we must listen to, lest we be racist, always seem to be Leftist voices.  Listening to Voddie Baucham or Virgil Walker doesn’t count.

I also appreciate the Kochs addressing “the discouragement of many ethnic minorities and their departure” from conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists [Emphasis mine]:

It’s true that some high-profile people have left various churches, but people are free to determine what is most important to them in any given denomination. There is a global theological conversation about race, gender, sexuality, etc. that has caused and is causing a disruption in every denomination that affects all people, not just ethnic minorities. In this particular case, there may be some churches that are legitimately “opponents of justice,” but it’s also just as possible that some of those who left were/are the ones elevating race and various other “identities” to an idolatrous level. It makes sense that those who disagree with what’s being taught, when they try to “dialogue” and don’t make any headway, would give up and leave. That by no means proves their mistreatment.

Timely words.  I would go further and say if at least some Woke Church people are not leaving/avoiding a denomination, there is probably something wrong with that denomination.  

But then I am meaner than Jady and Liza Koch.  So go read them instead of me.

“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save racial justice.”

Oh. That’s not what St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:2? 

Nobody tell Jemar Tisby:

Given the depth of theological mis-education when it comes to race in white churches, a brief sermon series on race before you get back to your "regularly scheduled programming" isn't going to cut it. We need to consistently address racial justice for months and years at a time.

Leaving aside whether his woke version of “racial justice” is right or wrong, is this the right use of a church’s teaching time?  Abortion and attacks on freedom of speech and on freedom of religion are much bigger problems in America today than racism and any remaining affect on justice.  But it would be a serious mistake to preach on these problems week after week, month after month.  The church has (Anglican Understatement Alert) higher priorities.

But what Tisby advises is the nature of Critical Theory.  It tries to consume all it touches, including the Gospel as James White notes:

I will just leave this here in the "Woke Church is Broke" file. The gospel and CRT cannot inhabit the same space for the same purposes. One drives out the other. https://t.co/CSvvmAO2mZ

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 5, 2020

But if you push back against Tisby’s overweaning proposal or even dare to mock his Holy Wokeness….

Wokeness 2:2 "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except race and the problem with white people."https://t.co/YeeqhtnH1U

— Woke Bible (@BibleWoke) August 4, 2020

…you are in league with White Supremacy and Christian Nationalism.  Just letting you know.  Tisby:

I've seen some rancorous trolling in my day, but the responses to my last tweet are a doozy. Always be ready for backlash. White supremacy and Christian Nationalism don't go down without a fight. Never have, never will. But we are stronger.

Now you might be thinking, “There’s goes Wannabe picking on Jemar Tisby again.  My church doesn’t have such distorted priorities anyway.”

Are you sure?  You might want to think again, especially if you are in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  Stay tuned.

Democrats Show They Cannot Be Trusted with Justice

This week may be one to be remembered.  I was intending to make a different post today, but yesterday, particularly the exoneration of Michael Flynn, was of such import and possible lasting impact, I put that aside. 

So much could be said – and trust that I could say a lot! – but I will hone in on one important lesson of this week: today’s Democrats cannot be trusted with justice.

Yes, that is a very broad and very partisan sounding statement.  But stay with me and note the response of key Democrats to the Flynn exoneration.  They doubled down on portraying Flynn as the bad guy in this.  And that even though the FBI Comey Cabal pursued Flynn even as lower down agents advised that they thought Flynn did not lie and were even about to drop the case.  But not only did the Comey Cabal and DOJ prosecutors go forward with their unethical perjury trap; the prosecutors blackmailed Flynn into a guilty plea by threatening his son.  

Then through the pre-trial and trial, the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn’s lawyers.  It was this evidence finally being released this week, evidence that revealed FBI and prosecutorial misconduct, that prompted the Department of Justice to drop the case.

This should be a time to rejoice that justice prevailed and that an unjust investigation and prosecution failed.  Should be.

Yet not only are Democrats still portraying Flynn as the bad guy, they are attacking Attorney General Barr for doing what any ethical AG would do.  Democrats once again are demonstrating they would rather have political prisoners than justice.

In a different area note that Joe Biden this week pledged to reverse reforms by Education Secretary DeVos protecting the due process rights of college students accused of sexual misconduct.  Recall that under Obama, college tribunals tore up due process rights of the accused, including cross examination and the presumption of innocence.  They became kangaroo courts in a number of cases with predicable injustices and subsequent lawsuits.

Biden wants to go back to that.

In light of the credible sexual misconduct accusations against Biden, his message to college students is quite clear: “Due process and the presumption of innocence for me, but not for thee.”

Is that who we want appointing DOJ officials, federal judges, and Supreme Court Justices?

Yes, seeing Democrats react to real progress in justice this week makes me fear for justice should they regain power.

Now there are a number of church leaders and activists, particularly in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), who are all about “justice.”  Good for them!  Here they have an opportunity to demonstrate their concern for justice by speaking out against these Democrat attacks on justice, particularly on fair play, the presumption of innocence and due process.  These “justice” church people have an opportunity to demonstrate that their much desired “justice” isn’t just a buzzword for Leftist political agendas and Democrat victory.

I advise against holding one’s breath waiting for them to do so.

Important Abortion Vote Coming

Next Week, the Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act is scheduled to come up for votes in the U. S. Senate. This will be worth watching not only because protecting the unborn is of paramount importance, but only because of the political ramifications.

Alabama Senator Doug Jones is among the Democrats not thrilled about the political ramifications. If a 2018 vote repeats itself, Democrats and two or three RINOs will filibuster the bill.  However Democrats choose to oppose the bill this time, it will put them on the record during this crucial election year as extreme supporters of legal abortion.

For the bill outlaws abortions after 20 weeks unless medically necessary.  I believe there are exceptions for rape and incest as last time.  And the bill targets abortion providers, not women seeking abortions.

I know enough biology to know that after 20 weeks, the unborn child is very much a baby; it is almost entirely a matter of growth after that.  That the child can experience pain is only part of the picture.  And women know they are pregnant weeks before that point.  There is no excuse for seeking an elective abortion after 20 weeks except in the most extreme, life-threatening circumstances. One does not have to be a pro-lifer to see that the Pain-Capable Act is the very least we should do to protect unborn children.

So in the next week or so, the country will likely get a reminder what a bunch of baby killers Democrat politicians are. It will be interesting to see if those Senators running for President, including Bernie Sanders, even show up for the vote and so expose their monstrous abortion extremism.

It will also be interesting to watch those, in and out of the church, who claim to be pro-life yet usually support Democrats.  How will “social justice” “pro-lifers” respond to this vote, before, during, and after?  I do not have expectations in that regard, and some will surely be more active than others, but it may reveal just how pro-life they really are – or are not.

The Roger Stone Controversy and MOAR Impeachment Speaks Volumes

The controversy about the sentencing of Roger Stone combines four subjects that can get me to rant and foam at the mouth: prosecutorial misconduct, two-tiered justice, corrupt Democrat hacks-in-black judges, and the perpetual coup against Trump and Constitutional democracy.

Now although my having a prolonged wall-eyed fit may be entertaining, it might not be edifying. So instead I point you to two videos from yesterday that summarize this situation very well.  The first is from Tim Pool (who is not a Trump voter by the way) on Democrats using the controversy as a pretext to continue their coup against Trump.

The second is Tucker Carlson summarizing the facts of the Roger Stone case, including the first excessive sentence request and the jury foreman being a rabid Trump hater who apparently lied to get on the jury.

Again, there is so much I could rant, I mean, say.  But I will confine myself to the reaction of Democrats.

Democrats are oh-so for “justice” and against “fascism.”  So one would think they would speak out against prosecutors attempting to create a political prisoner through excessive sentencing.  One would think they would be upset by a jury being rigged by being led by a rabid political opponent of the defendant.

But, no.  Instead, when they see Trump speaking out against this outrage and Attorney General Bill Barr trying to undo some of the damage the four prosecutors have done, Democrats immediately use that as a pretext to open the door to impeaching Trump again and to impeach Barr.

All this illustrates once again how Democrats cannot be trusted with Constitutional democracy and justice.  They apparently have no problem with turning political opponents into political prisoners.  They certainly have no problem with two-tiered justice rigged for them and against political opponents.  And they so disrespect elections they don’t win, especially the 2016 election, that they are still continuing the perpetual coup against Trump, this time because he did a horrible thing: he opposed a kangaroo court turning Roger Stone into a political prisoner.

And the reaction from some in the church speaks volumes as well.  Some leaders in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), in the Southern Baptist Convention, and in The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now smear Trump and smear his supporters, especially his supporters within the church.  But does this “social justice” crowd say a peep about the injustice against Roger Stone?  Do they say a word about Democrats’ perpetual coup against Trump and disrespect for Constitutional democracy unless they win?  If so, they sure are awful quiet about it.

Maybe some of this “social justice” “evangelical” crowd is more Leftist than they are Christian.

The ACNA College of Bishops Communique and a Problem of Trust

The communiqué from the latest Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) College of Bishops meeting was released yesterday, and I honestly do not know what to make of it.  Part of that is that I have trust issues, but part of it is also that the ACNA has trustworthiness issues.

The section on “issues of race” illustrates this well. 

Following a video presentation by the Rev. Dr. Esau McCaulley, Director of the Anglican Church in North America's Next Generation Initiative, and the Rt. Rev. Alphonza Gadsden, Bishop of the Diocese of the Southeast (REC), the College spent time in discussion and prayer about issues of race, racism, and recent mass shootings. Particular attention was given to the great need for multi-ethnic outreach and church planting, ensuring that all peoples are reached for Christ and to addressing the public witness of the Province and our dioceses on matters of justice.

Now these presentations and discussions may have been balanced and fruitful, and I actually have good reason to think they were.  But I also know Dr. McCaulley’s approach to such issues has often been not balanced in the past, including his reluctance to affirm the obvious, that people of color can be racist against white people.  I also know that “justice” has become a buzzword in ACNA for pushing a “social justice” agenda. And ACNA has become a “social justice” playground in the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others, in the Matthew 25 Initiative, in the Anglican Multi-Ethnic Network, etc.

So it is difficult for me to welcome this communiqué and, yes, to trust the College of Bishops.

Trust can be restored, however if the College of Bishops were to set some boundaries.  One such boundary is needed in the area of racism particularly since, thanks to Critical Race Theory and related ideologies, “racism” is now a much abused word.  Both trust and clarity require the College of Bishops make clear that the sin of racism can be committed by people of all ethnicities against people of all ethnicities. As I have written at length before, this is needful and would be helpful in facilitating both trust and conversation. 

But I do not expect the College of Bishops to do even this. I expect the trust issues to continue.  I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Pushing “Social Justice” in ACNA Disregards Too Many Faithful

Alexander Wilgus has well responded to an article advocating more unity between The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and The Episcopal Church (TEC). One problem he has with such increased unity and relationships is that it does not give enough weight to the difficult experiences of those perhaps slightly older who fled TEC.  

Ask any of them: it was not a concern for “being right” that caused the men, women, youth, and children to separate themselves from their ancestral congregations which–they assure me–had ceased to partake in Christ’s body, and instead given themselves over to become literal bodies of death. These acts were discerned through years of deep and careful prayer. Besides this, their decision to flee from false teaching, which in so many cases cost them property, friendships and reputations, ought to be honored by those of us in the next generation… 

I think a similar argument can be made against pushing “social justice” political agendas in ACNA and other predominantly orthodox churches. Part of the bad memories of many who fled “mainline” denominations, including TEC, is they saw their churches pushing political agendas they find repugnant. 

I remember being especially offended by my Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (PCUS), into which I was baptized, pushing legal abortion on demand and constantly siding with the Soviet Union against President Ronald Reagan. (Trust that I am notexaggerating.) Such was done in the name of being “prophetic” among other inane rationalizations. 

When I decided to leave PCUS and “mainline” denominations in general behind for that and other reasons, I thought with relief that I was leaving such churchly Leftism long behind as well.

So imagine my chagrin when I began to see ACNA, the formation of which I enthusiastically supported, being used as a venue for “social justice” agendas.  No, the leadership of ACNA is not as whole hog behind lib/left politics as PCUS was and TEC is. But ACNA initiatives behind “social justice” have proliferated and those who are pushing “justice” (a buzzword in ACNA now) keep getting promoted to leadership. 

When I first noticed this tendency, it was the first time I realized something might be seriously wrong with ACNA.  Yes, I had been warned that ACNA had “the Episcopalian virus,” but I disregarded those warnings . . . until I saw ACNA sponsoring “justice” through the Matthew 25 Project, the Anglican Multiethnic Network, The Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), etc.  

Anyway, seeing all this has me considering exit scenarios just ten years after attending and cheering the formation of ACNA.  I never thought I would ever be at this point.  I once would have laughed at anyone who suggested I would be.  Again, I thought I had left such toxic church politics behind.  Of course, I knew that ACNA contains people of differing political views.  But it never occurred to me that those of a more Leftist political bent would so disrespect conservatives and gain so much influence as to push their political agendas under ACNA auspices.

I am not alone. Many now in ACNA and other orthodox churches fled “mainline” churches and their toxic Leftist politics.  They have no desire to see their own churches once again being used to push Leftist agendas they find repugnant.  Using the church to push “social justice” offends these faithful and stresses their loyalty and support.  Disregarding their experiences and consciences by returning to the vomit of LibChurch politics* puts the unity of ACNA at further risk.

*Proverbs 26:11

A Good Question to Ask “Social Justice” Church People

At the beginning of his latest video, James White tells of an online conversation he had with a professing Christian espousing various “social justice” themes.  White decided to ask him a simple question: Is there such a thing as Black racism?  Can a Black person be racist?

The social justice person hemmed and hawed and talked about history . . . and would not give a straight answer.  Whereupon, White decided to politely end the conversation.

White’s reasoning is cogent.  Scripture teaches that all are capable of sin and do sin.  And people are so fallen that they often sin in ways we might not expect.  The rich can be envious; the poor can be covetous; and so on. And, yes, people of all ethnicities are capable of racism. None are exempt.  

So to explain away or redefine sin as to exempt large groups of people is a thoroughly unscriptural view of sin.  And so it is with redefining racism to be just a White thing, and not a Black or Brown or whatever color thing.

Thus White’s question in a very simple, straightforward way smokes out whether someone’s “social justice” concerns come out of scripture (or a well-meaning misinterpretation of scripture) or are imported out of worldly ideologies incompatible with orthodox Christianity and with the orthodox view of sin such as Critical Race Theory.  

No, it is not the perfect question, if one exists, but it is one that reveals a lot.

I may revisit this.

----

N. B. Since CRT defines “racism” as prejudice plus power, and since in some countries Blacks are dominant in holding political and/or economic power, a more on-target way to ask the question may be, “In the American context, can a Black/Brown person be racist?”

The Political Litany of ¡Caminemos Juntos!

I post this with sadness.  My church supports ministry to Hispanics, and our beloved bilingual Rector is remarkably active in that.  As part of his ministry, working with ¡Caminemos Juntos!  (CJuntos) has been a possibility and may still be; it’s up to him (although because of the following I have advised him to work with other groups instead).  I had thought that perhaps CJuntos had backed away from its previous political activism for the sake of ministry and unity.  So I find their Litany Of Lament And Repentance For Our Treatment Of Immigrants And Refugees disappointing to say the least.

First, there is this introduction on the CJuntos site:

The last weeks have seen a dramatic increase in tension even in what has already been an incredibly tense climate for immigrants in the United States. Threats of raids and deportation, rapidly changing and confusing immigration law making it harder to legally enter the country to request asylum, rumors of the ending of all refugee resettlement and the increase of negative rhetoric in the news media has terrorized the immigrant community including those within out Caminemos Juntos family. We are in many ways a persecuted people. . . .

Oh please.  First, immigrants who have entered legally have nothing to worry about as long as they continue to obey the law. That’s the way it is for citizens, too, by the way.  Second, even illegal immigrants who have not skipped their court dates, have otherwise not committed crimes, and don’t have deportation orders on them have not much to worry about either.  There are 11 million or more illegals in this country.  Only a small fraction of those have deportation orders or are being deported.  The authorities are prioritizing who to deport because they have no choice with that many illegals here.

Besides that, being removed from a country you entered illegally is hardly terror.  If I entered the UK illegally or stayed longer than permitted and were then removed, I would look rather silly if I cried out, “Help! Help! I’m being terrorized!” If you really want to be “terrorized,” live in an area where the MS-13 gang of mostly illegals operates.

I will concede that we should watch our rhetoric especially in the current climate.  I hope CJuntos is also concerned about some of the rhetoric against those who oppose open borders. 

Note the conflation of both legal and illegal immigrants as simply “immigrants.”  There are a lot of legal immigrants who find that offensive. And this conflation is throughout this litany.

Finally, to equate enforcing immigration law and restricting who may enter and stay in this country with persecution is slanderous.  

Skipping a bit into the litany itself:

Officiant: You said: “Don’t oppress an immigrant.

You know what it’s like to be an immigrant,

because you were immigrants in Egypt.”

I don’t know Hebrew, but “immigrant” seems a sloppy translation for political purposes to me.  

But we have forgotten the hardships faced

by our ancestors who came to this country…

Speak for yourself!  My Granddad was a legal immigrant.  He worked himself to early grave, a few years before I was born, to provide well for his family.  My family still benefits, and I am here because of him.  I sure have not forgotten him or his hardships.

Officiant: You said “When a stranger sojourns 

with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.         

You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you          

as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself.”                                                                                                                                      

But we done wrong to the sojourners to this land:            

separating children from parents and husbands               

from wives, limiting opportunities for work                   

and education opportunities and not loving these              

new neighbors as ourselves. 

So much to dissect there.  First, when one breaks the law, the lawbreaker is often separated from his family.  That goes for citizens, too.  Second, as I have noted, there is rampant child trafficking along the border.  There have been several surges of migrants.  Dealing with the numbers and figuring out who are real families and who are fake families (of which there are many) and dealing with them accordingly is not an easy task at all.  There is not much question that the surges and caravans with accompanying child smuggling were designed to overwhelm the border.  So then to whinge when we struggle imperfectly to deal with that situation humanely is . . . well, I will allow readers to choose the adjectives of their choice.

Now, of course, the simplest way to keep illegals and their families together is quickly to deport them together or, better, to not allow them in at all.  But I doubt ¡Caminemos Juntos! would like that.  Instead, they likely want to let most to all of these families right on in together.  And then, after an eventual amnesty of some sort (which I would guess - just guess - CJuntos also likely wants), by chain migration, here come the extended families!  So really their whinging about “families” is advocating for open borders and mass immigration, or close to it.

Further, making too much of a priority to keep families together is encouraging and enabling the child trafficking at the border.  By the way, notice how the serious problem of child trafficking is not mentioned in this litany?

“Limiting opportunities for work…” So we should displace citizen labor with illegal immigrant labor?  Ask construction workers who have seen their wages depressed by cheap illegal labor what they think of that!  Where is the concern for those whose opportunities and wages are suppressed by cheap immigrant labor?  This lack of concern for citizens sounds more like the Democrat Party than the church.

That is another problem with this litany. It is not only out of balance; it pretends valid competing claims have no legitimacy worth mentioning.  

“Limiting . . . education opportunities…” How?  Thanks to an old Supreme Court ruling, public schools have to educate the children of illegals (which is overwhelming some school districts and harming the education of citizens).  Most universities welcome illegals and many even provide financial aid.  Many illegals get a far better education here than they would hope to get in their home countries.    

Skipping a bit…

But rather than recognizing your sovereign

disciple-making purposes in the dispersion of 

peoples across borders, we have seen 

immigrants as a threat. We have failed to 

practice Godly hospitality and instead embraced 

protectionist nationalism, not submit our ways of 

thinking to the authority of your word.

Well, MS-13 and other criminals streaming across the border are a threat to say the least.

“We have . . . embraced protectionist nationalism.”

That is a straw man.  To want controls on immigration and a secure border is hardly “protectionist nationalism.”  And what is that anyway?  If I love my country and want to protect it and its culture, does that make me a “protectionist nationalist”?  Instead of engaging with different views of what is appropriate immigration policy, CJuntos engages in buzzwords in a prayer no less. Maybe they should submit that “to the authority of your word.”

By the way, whatever “protectionist nationalists” are, I don’t think there are many of them at ¡Caminemos Juntos! meetings.  I thought confessing other people’s sins was an Episcopalian thing.

We have opposed change resisting any giving up of our ways of worship and life.   

That’s backward, isn’t it?  It’s immigrants (and now I include legal immigrants) who should change and become American if they are going to move to America. (Yes, different cultures enrich America.) If I were to move to England, even I would not insist it become Texan.  (Well, I have introduced Tabasco Sauce on eggs to Pusey House, but anyway….)  I would instead become at least English enough to participate well in that culture.  And if someone is going to become Anglican, Anglican churches shouldn’t change their “ways of worship” for him/her.  We should not starting dunking people and stop baptizing babies if a Baptist joins us.  We shouldn’t cavort during our processions if a Pentecostal joins us.  “Our ways of worship” are an integral part of being Anglican.

But maybe I am misunderstanding here. How should we change, even give up “our ways of worship” for immigrants other than providing language assistance? This seems to me more of what we hear from the social justice crowd, that the church should change to be more to their liking.  But that is a whole ‘nother post, and maybe I am hearing this wrong anyway. Am I?  It is a perplexing clause at best.     

At least the litany ends well:

Lord, have mercy upon us.                                            

Christ, have mercy upon us.                                    

Lord, have mercy upon us.                                                               

Let us pray. Oremos.

A Collect for Refugees and Immigrants          

Heavenly Father, from whom every family on earth derives its name, have mercy on all those who sojourn in this world. As you sheltered your Son Jesus who fled from the tyranny of Herod, so now provide new homes for all those who flee the violence of this age that they may know the peace of Christ. Grace your people with hearts of welcome and lives of courage through Jesus Christ who lives and   reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

That collect was written by Archbishop Foley Beach and serves as a godly example of making public prayer something in which all faithful Anglicans can participate.  Unlike most of the litany, I can pray that collect along with ¡Caminemos Juntos!.  Public prayer certainly should not smear and divide the faithful church along political lines.

A Good Summary History of Recent Southern Baptist Social Justice Troubles

Many of my readers, especially the Anglican ones, may be like me – I was slow to notice the struggles in the Southern Baptist Convention over social justice issues.  A year ago it wasn’t on my radar at all.

For us, Matthew Garnett has performed a public service with a good summary history of recent divisions among Baptists over “social justice.” I commend it to you.

I do have one quibble, however.  Garnett goes a bit easy on Albert Mohler:

Mohler was repeatedly clear that politically leftist ideologies such as critical theory, identity politics, and any other notion of postmodern, neo-Marxism have no place in the church of Jesus Christ, even as “analytical tools.”

But when that “analytical tools” Resolution 9 came to the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention and his voice was most needed, Mohler was silent.  In that and other ways, he has been an enabler of the SBC social justice cabal.

Probably he is trying to keep the SBC together.  But his enabling is helping bring Southern Baptists closer to division. 

The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now V: CRU (Campus Crusade) Goes Woke

I guess I should have seen it coming, but I didn’t.  The campus ministry in which I was active, InterVarsity went way woke years ago.  But the last group I expected to go woke was Campus Crusade for Christ (now CRU).  Yet it apparently has or is at least running in that direction.

I will leave the unhappy details, particularly the address of Sandra Maria Van Opstal to Jon Harris, Seth Dunn and others.  But this from her address particularly grated on me:

If we want to get this next generation of people who are spiritually hungry, yet disorientated and dissatisfied by what they see in the church, then the church has to change.

In other words, the church should cater to the prevailing sins and disfunctions of the “next generation.”  Ministering to people and coming generations in their brokenness byremaining true to the Faith and godly tradition handed down won’t do. “The church has to change,” particularlly become woke, to cater to “this next generation.”

I don’t call it The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now (TECoWHaN) for nothing. 

Looking at the big picture, I think CRU going woke will assist a coming acceleration of rebellion against the “social justice” cabal in Big Evangelicalism.  There are a lot of very conservative Christians who have participated in and supported what was Campus Crusade for Christ.  It, of all organizations, going woke will wake people up.  Conflict over social justice in the Southern Baptist Convention continues.  And two movies focusing the infiltration of social justice ideology into the SBC and Big Eva are coming out, Enemies Within the Church and By What Standard.  Even the trailer for the latter has the SBC stirred up.

As much as I may hope it so, I doubt the social justice cabal and enablers will be ousted from their positions of leadership in Big Eva. They became very entrenched well before most Christians noticed.  But God is stronger, so who knows.

What I do expect is greater and more heated division, with even a split here and there and with enough funds withheld to put a serious hit on church and parachurch budgets.  And, frankly, offerings should be withheld and given to more faithful organizations.  It is a matter of good stewardship.  And, sadly, it takes money to get some to really get the message.

Big Eva will soon find out that “Go woke, go broke” doesn’t apply only to businesses.

Old tricks were used to pass Resolution 9 at the SBC.

Not only is the Southern Baptist Convention’s Resolution 9 endorsing “critical race theory and intersectionality . . . as analytical tools” unacceptable in itself, the manner in which it was passed this week displayed unethical gamesmanship that is all too common at political and church conventions.

This became clear to me in watching this recap of the convention by James White and Tom Buck. (You may want to skip the first 12 minutes to get to the SBC recap).  The first trick is mentioned at roughly 16 minutes -- the resolutions were not published until the morning they were to be voted on.  I’ve seen that before – spring a resolution on a convention at the last minute or close to it so that any possible opposition cannot organize and educate adequately.

I’ve also seen important business rushed through at conventions by leaving it until the end when people have planes to catch or when the reservation for the facility is about to run out or when people just want to get out of there and go eat dinner.  It’s easier to ram stuff through then, don’tcha know.

And, sure enough, Resolution 9 was rushed through when time was short and people wanted to get to dinner or other plans.  (See about minute 36 of the video.) Now I do not know if that was intentional.  And maybe Resolution 9 would have passed anyway. But that is not an ethical way to deal with an important and contested resolution.

But then we should not expect false teachers to be ethical, should we.

Southern Baptist Convention Passes Resolution 9, The Aftermath

Last night, I did not sleep well.  Part of that was likely being upset. (And if this post seems a bit stream-of-consciousness, I apologize ahead of time.)  But I did sleep on yesterday’s passage on Resolution 9 by the Southern Baptist Convention, and I’m glad I did.  For I now do not see the situation as bad as I did last night.

But it is bad.  There is no getting around it – Resolution 9 endorses the use of “critical race theory and intersectionality . . . as analytical tools” in the church. Yes, they are to be subordinate to scripture and not used “as transcendent ideological frameworks.”  Yes, it is just one resolution from one convention passed after a reportedly rushed debate.  But the fact remains that today the SBC is officially on the record as okaying the use of these racist Leftist ideologies “as analytical tools” in the church.

But read for comprehension the whole resolution for yourself.  (Scroll down.  And, no, I do not yet think “the Southern Baptist Convention is gone” or some of the other conclusions at the source.)

One funny/sad/true conclusion: 

So, as of right now, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson hold to a better, more biblical view of radical feminist inspired Intersectionality and Critical Race Theory than Southern Baptists.
Ouch!

So what to do now?  First, my free advice for Southern Baptists. It may be worth as much as it costs, but anyway…

First and foremost, being unhappy about this is not enough.  The now dying and dead mainline denominations once had lots of people unhappy about the direction they were going.  But they continued to enable the liberals by continuing to send in their offerings.  Yes, an important start is to stop enabling the social justice cabal with your offerings.  Cut them off and let church leaders know why.  And if your congregation won’t cut off the money spigot to them, then cut off the money to your congregation and perhaps find another church home. The Lord’s money shouldn’t be spent for evil anyway.  So don’t let it.

Second, organize and/or support those who are organizing. And not just for a year or two.  Those old enough, remember the conservative resurgence in the SBC? Maybe I am too optimistic, but I think it can be done again with God’s help.  But it took years.  And it took work.

I do think the Southern Baptists are too important and too committed to scripture to give up on them just yet.  But it will take more than grousing to turn things around.

----

Resolution 9 also puts us Anglicans in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) in a bad position.  For Russell Moore is on tap to be a keynote speaker at our Provincial Assembly next week.  And he supports Resolution 9 by endorsing all the resolutions passed:

Stellar work by the #SBC19 Resolutions Committee. These were strong, biblical, thoughtful resolutions. Grateful for their adoption by the Southern Baptist Convention.

— Russell Moore (@drmoore) June 12, 2019

Frankly, I suspect he had a role in drafting it. But that is pure speculation on my part. 

It is that much clearer that inviting Moore to speak was a mistake, but what to do now?  Perhaps, the ACNA College of Bishops should consider disinviting him, but they won’t.  And I am not sure that is now the best way to proceed.  I personally support disinviting him but realize that would likely cause a lot of tumult at this late date.

I would suggest key bishops ask him to stay away from social justice issues during his speech.  But that’s like inviting Trump and asking him not to mention The Wall.

There is one thing the bishops should do for sure – the procedure for selecting speakers at Provincial Assemblies must be changed.  And the bishops should let it be known that it will be changed.  That would nicely and indirectly acknowledge that selecting Moore is a mistake and that efforts will be made to avoid similar mistakes in the future.  And the selection of speakers this year demonstrates the process must be changed anyway.

What about the rest of us in ACNA who oppose critical race theory and other “social justice” madness?  Don’t be quiet about it.  Respectfully but firmly talk to your rectors and bishops. 

And the time may be near to redirect your offerings although I hope it doesn’t get to that point.  If you do at some point find it necessary to withhold funds from ACNA or diocese offices or from other ACNA entities, let church leaders know why.  I have for reasons of conscience in one instance, but I’m not ready to recommend that for others. 

Again just being unhappy doesn’t work.  See The Episcopal Church for how that ends up.

Also, if I were attending the Provincial Assembly, I would likely walk out immediately after Russell Moore begins his speech.  But that’s just me.  Attendees are free to consider doing likewise.

Southern Baptists Battle Over Resolution Endorsing “Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality” UPDATE: RESOLUTION PASSES

The Southern Baptist Convention is just beginning, but already battle lines are drawn over “social justice” issues.  For the Resolutions Committee is offering a resolution endorsing “critical race theory and intersectionality” as “analytical tools.”

Concerns that J.D. Greear’s appointments to the 2019 Resolution’s Committee would promote Social Justice were well founded. The Resolution’s Committee report offers a resolution that promotes Intersectionality and Critical Race Theory.

According to RESOLUTION 9 – ON CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND INTERSECTIONALITY, “WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences.”

And, in the Resolved section,

“RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks,” the resolution declares.

Well that is so nice that the resolution subordinates Holy Race Theory and Sacred Intersectionality to scripture. But to endorse these divisive, Leftist, and, yes, racist tools as good for anything in the church is asking for war. . . . which may be what Southern Baptists are getting to about now.

Read more, including sane Christian responses already coming out, at the Capstone Report.

---
UPDATE:  Bad news.  The resolution passed.  I do not yet know if it was amended or not or any other details.  I may post again when I know more.

A Timely Good Friday Exhortation from Keble

Once again, a Holy Week has found me reading John Keble’s Good Friday sermon, “The World’s Conduct to the Man of Sorrows.”  This time a passage stood out to me as an almost prophetic admonition for us today (Emphasis his.):

One very common and very dangerous trial is when notions and practices forbidden by God’s law and His Church are become customary under whatever pretense. . . . These things are now become so common that I suppose it must require Christian courage, something like taking up the Cross, in any one who resolutely sets himself against them on true Church principles.  Surely, then, this is a time in which we ought to be much on our guard as to how much we join in the disrespect and scorn with which the world is sure to treat every opinion or person which it calls bigoted.  If there be such a thing as Christian truth and a Christian Church, surely they are to be upheld, and we must cling to them in spite of any loss or credit, ease or purpose. 

This is more applicable now than when it was preached.  Today, standing firm on orthodoxy and against falsehood will get one called a bigot and for many it does risk loss in many forms.  But we faithful are to do so anyway.  

And, yes, that includes opposing the various falsehoods, pollutions of the gospel, and false gospels pushed on the church and in the church by “social justice” cabals.  That is part of carrying our cross.  At least that is part of carrying my cross.

And there are many Christians and faux Christians who are joining the world “in the disrespect and scorn” against those courageous faithful who are standing on orthodoxy and against “social justice” errors and falsehoods.  These scorners should stop and repent for their own good and for the good of the church and of the Gospel.

Yes, Keble’s admonition is certainly applicable to us in the Anglican Church in North America.

My God grant us all grace and strength to take up our cross and follow Jesus.