A Time for Clarity Not Muddy Waters

I think we can already call who will lose this election – the church, especially The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now.

With notable exceptions, even supposedly orthodox church leaders have utterly failed their people and the country this election.  The Trump is a Messiah guys have failed us.  The Woke Church crowd has failed us, to say the very least.  

But it is not only these churchly extremes that have failed us.  There is an element that has muddied the waters with nuances and moral equivalencies when clarity is called for.  Sadly, this video from the ACNA Diocese of Christ Our Hope is an example of this failure.

There may be elections when such videos would be helpful.  This is not one of them.  What we are facing is too awful, too destructive, and too difficult to reverse should the electorate (augmented by election fraud) make the wrong choice.  What is at issue is not policy differences that good people can disagree on, but the destruction of our American society itself.

Yes, that may sound alarmist.  But it is a time for clarity, for reality checks, not for excuses and high-sounding fig leaves for evil.  So some reality checks:

1. His “bi-partisan commission” cop-out aside, Biden refuses to disavow calls to pack the Supreme Court, i.e. to increase the number of Supreme Court justices and appoint Constitution-tearing Leftists to the new open spots not unlike Hugo Chavez.  The Constitution would then be a dead letter.

2. Democrats have been open about other plans to turn us into an unconstitutional Leftist One-Party State should they gain the White House and the Senate.  Combine statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, open borders, and amnesty and eventual citizenship for illegals, and the electorate would be so changed that Democrats would control the White House and the Senate for decades to come.  Again, you can kiss America and the Constitution good-bye if that happens.

Really these two reality checks alone make voting for Biden and the Democrats either grossly disloyal to this country or grossly ignorant, hardly acceptable in a Christian citizen.  I mean, really, if a “Christian” hates America that much, they should do the right thing and leave.  (Or if they are that ignorant, they either should not vote or should get informed before voting.)  One doesn’t have to love America to be a Christian.  But a Christian should not vote to destroy the society and the Rule of Law that gives him the freedom to be a Christian in relative peace.

But that’s not all.

3. It is now quite obvious that Biden and his family have sold influence to China, Russia, the Ukraine and God knows who else.  Biden literally sold us out to China.  It is criminal and beyond.  If you haven’t seen the details, then may I suggest reading the New York Post or watching Tucker Carlson rather than the New York Times, CNN, and the rest of the Democrat Fake News media.

I could give many more reality checks, but most would pertain to policy.  I will give one obvious one.

4. Biden and Kamala Harris (spit) are baby killers.  They want open season on the unborn for all nine months of pregnancy, no doubt paid for by taxpayers.  Yes, I am well aware that such despicable “Christian” prevaricators such as the AND Campaign are trying to justify Christians voting for baby killers.  They and the baby killers will have a lot to answer for in the Judgement.  

But even if it wasn’t for reality check 4, for Christians who wish to be good American citizens, a vote for Biden or for most Democrats for that matter is not a viable choice.  Democrats are pretty open now about what they have secretly wanted to do for some time - trash the Constitution, turn the Supreme Court into their rubber stamp, import an un-American electorate, and turn America into a Leftist One-Party State.  Under these circumstances, voting for Democrats is profoundly disloyal and destructive.  

(No, you don’t have to vote for Trump although I have.  If you find both major choices unacceptable, a vote for a Third Party sends that message honorably and well.)

Again, if you hate America so much as to vote to destroy America, then instead do the right thing and leave or at least remove yourself from politics.  But cut it out with using the name of Christ to support such evil or to deceive the sheep like the AND Campaign or to muddy the waters like the ACNA Diocese of Christ Our Hope.  You are harming both church and country.

Christianity Today Spreads the Poison of “White Fragility”

At the beginning I will concede one good thing about Ed Stetzer’s introduction to CT’s series on White Fragility: it is a good summary of that book by Robin DiAngelo.

And the book is the usual Cultural Marxist poison, such as: Blacks can’t be racist because they lack power, so reverse racism doesn’t exist; America is founded upon evil; white privilege; “I judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin” is racist.  And, of course, like a good Marxist, DiAngelo blames white people if they don’t respond positively to this rubbish.  Such have “white fragility.”

The proper role of a Christian publication if it decides to address such a book is to thoroughly debunk such poison, not promote it.  But not Stetzer and Christianity Today:

Let me encourage you to get the book, [Yes, help DiAngelo make money off her poison! –Ed.] read it, and then we will think it through together in this series.

Now that we are all familiar with the basic premises of DiAngelo’s argument, I am pleased to introduce the other authors who will join us in discussing White Fragility over the next several weeks. As previously mentioned, the second round of authors will be responding to the book and the initial five articles. I am pleased that George Yancey, a contributor for part one, will be contributing to the second round of articles as well.

And as I look over the nine contributors, I notice a number of woke ones.  I notice only one likely to push back against DiAngelo – Neil Shenvi.  (Granted, I am not familiar with every contributor.)

This promotion and what will surely be a stacked discussion of this poisonous book is appalling.  But such is what happens eventually when you have an Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now eager to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. (Ephesians 4:14)

George Conger Goes Yard on Wokeness and ACNA

I nearly titled this post “And You Thought I’m Hard on ACNA.”  For during Anglican Unscripted 611, Fr. George Conger pulled few punches in going after wokeness, ACNA, and wokeness in ACNA.

Using his working class parishioners as examples, he pushes back against the notion that racism is America’s biggest problem, beginning around 5 minutes in.  Then after about 8 minutes in, he gets around to woke clergy in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).  Wow, did he get around to woke clergy in ACNA.  See for yourself.

Both George and Kevin rightly see that the “so woke” clergy “nuts and kooks” in ACNA need to be “roped in” lest they drag ACNA down to Episcopalian levels in 20 years.  George said part of the problem is that much of ACNA is more “The Church of What’s Happening Now” than Anglican.

Hmm, who else has been concerned about The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now?

He also said ACNA bishops need to step up and lead against wokeness.  He is right.  

Anyway, this video is a must see for all in ACNA.

The Big Smear From The Woke Church and Christianity Today

It is almost a creed with the Woke Church crowd that the founding of America was profoundly racist and that America continues profoundly racist to this day.  The Woke Church smears the church in America as well.  

From the Woke Church, Jemar Tisby being perhaps the most prominent example today, you hear a litany of sins committed against Black people by America and the church, some concocted (particularly in that much they call “racism” is hardly that) or exaggerated, but much of which are indeed awful and to be regretted.   We certainly should not ignore the history of racism in this country nor pretend that we and our forebears are without sin. 

The problem is the following baggage is attached to said accusatory confession:

The blithe ignoring of the almost universal nature of racism in the past.  

Go back 200 years or more.  Will you find any society that was not racist or at least tribal?  Why then is America singled out as peculiarly racist?  And are we to then reject everything good from American and British past and be good totalitarian Taliban and Jacobins and topple it all?

Chronological Hubris. 

As C. S. Lewis well pointed out, we have a tendency to look down on the past and think ourselves so superior to it.  That certainly includes confessing their sins – a species of that favorite LibChurch activity of confessing other people’s sins – while overlooking or downplaying our own.  Those with unenlightened views of race in the past were in the wrong.  But they would be appalled by the prevalent sins of society today and would be right to be appalled.  Every age and society has its prevalent sins, and that includes us.  (No I do not consider white-on-black racism a prevalent sin today, but a dying one.  Anti-white racism on the other hand….)  Should we then smear and reject the good that our forebears have passed down to us because we are so arrogant as to consider their sins worse than ours?  Again, that’s what totalitarians do.

Downplaying progress. 

There has been astounding progress in the area of race in America even in my lifetime and marked by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States in 2008. . . .   Oh, I hope I didn’t make you faint there.  Yes, I did and do see good in the election of Obama; it made clear that skin color is no longer much of a barrier in America.  At the time, I actually hoped it ushered in a post-racial America.  Sadly, Obama and now the woke crowd decided to pick and tear at old wounds of racial division and make them bleed afresh.  Yes, I think wokeness is a much bigger factor behind today’s divisions than “whiteness.”  If the woke crowd is really that concerned about racism and division in America, they need to take a good long look in the mirror.  We were making very good progress until they came along.

Trust that I could say more.

Oft times, the Woke Church is more Satanic than Christian.  Like Satan, they twist and weaponize history to accuse the brethren while practically ignoring the brethren’s repentance, forgiveness and ongoing sanctification. 

(And, no, I do not think Americans are a whole are being sanctified as American Christians hopefully are.  I certainly do not conflate being an American and being a faithful Christian. But the accusatory pattern of smearing one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen goes hand in hand with smearing the church.)

As many of you perceptive readers have already noticed, Christianity Today has joined the Woke Chorus of accusation.  Like much of the rest of The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now, they practically jump up and down and squeak, “Me, too! Me, too!  I’m woke, too!”   An op-ed by CT’s president and CEO Thomas Dalrymple is the latest example.  It is certainly in the Woke Big Smear genre, using very selective and regrettable history (And, again, what country or church does not have regrettable history?) and a warped interpretation of it to smear country and church. I found this passage especially slanderous and vile:

The name of Phalaris is not much remembered in the 21st century, but in classical antiquity it was infamous. The tyrant of Agrigentum on the island of Sicily, Phalaris is known for a gruesome instrument of torture: a hulking bronze bull, hollowed on the inside, set over a fire. As victims were forced into the bull and roasted alive, the nostrils of the bull rendered the screams of the dying into a sonorous groaning that filled the palace with music. You might be a guest at the feast, unaware that your entertainment came through the agony of others.

Today’s generations may say we did not invent the bull of racial injustice. But we have benefited from it. The resiliency, creativity, industry, and indomitable faith of African Americans in spite of all they have suffered is nothing short of miraculous. We have all benefited not only from their labor but also from their innovations and entrepreneurialism, their art and music, their films and poetry and books, their hymns and preaching. The transformation of black suffering into economic abundance for America, as well as art and passion and brilliance, has enriched our feast in the palace. Perhaps we can honestly say we did not know what our brothers and sisters were suffering. Now we do. So there’s only one thing to do: put down our forks and get our brothers and sisters out of the belly of the bull.

It disgusts me to see a once excellent Christian publication be the accuser of the brethren like that. 

Yes, for those concerned about how wokeness has infiltrated the Anglican Church in North America, there are any number of clergy that approve of the Big Smear and at least one diocesan Canon who publicly approves of this article.  I am not mentioning her by name because I do not want to single her out when it is a much wider problem in ACNA and other church bodies.   

The Woke Big Smear must be rejected by both Christians and non-Christians before it further poisons and divides our churches and our country.

The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now VIII: Summarized

Phil Johnson gave his address at the Social Justice and the Gospel conference more than a year ago, and I do not think I agree with all of it.  But a statement early on so well summarizes The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now (TECoWHaN) that I have to revive this series to quote it:

The Western Evangelical obsession with winning the world’s admiration is incompatible with God’s strategy for winning the lost. Every decade or so trendy evangelicals adopt some new idea about how we might get the world to be more impressed with the church. 

Sounds like what is happening now, does it not?  As I said when discussing the “emergent” church:

A recurring pattern of The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now is to urge, for the sake of being “missional,” becoming more relevant to aspects of contemporary cultures. And there is certainly a needful place for that within limits.  But also part of the pattern is that, before long, it becomes clear that so being missional and relevant is a cloak for injecting said culture’s false teachings into the church.

Yes, again, all too familiar.  Evangelicals have long had a problem distinguishing being worldly and seeking to win the world to Christ.  They need to read less Tisby and more of St. Paul in Athens and Corinth….

That’s it.  That’s the best I’ve got today.  Go read closely of St. Paul in Athens and Corinth.  Go.

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 AND Campaign: “Seamless Garment” Redux?

When I first heard of the AND campaign, I was immediately reminded of the “Seamless Garment” pushed by the late Cardinal Bernardin.

An old Crisis article by Michael Pakaluk goes through the history of Bernardin’s Seamless Garment and the problems with it very well.  A key moment was when the Cardinal brought together liberal Democrats talking points under a “pro-life” umbrella in a 1983 address at Fordham:

If one contends as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways: We cannot urge rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.

As Pakaluk notes, “this controversial passage, never withdrawn or repudiated by Bernardin, links regard for life with regard for the ‘quality of life’ in a highly dubious moral equation.”  And it is dubious. Say, letting illegals right on in and helping them stay, as the Roman Catholic hierarchy has long advocated and Catholic Charities has long enabled, is in the same category as protecting the unborn? No.  It is not.

For all I know, Bernardin may have had the best of motives. But the timing of the address and how the U. S. Roman Catholic bishops pushed the Seamless Garment is suspicious in light of the politics of abortion, Democrats, and Roman Catholics at the time.  

Democrats used to be a mixed lot on abortion.  Even Ted Kennedy once opposed abortion.  But by 1983, Democrat pols were becoming more and more pro-abortion under deceptive rhetoric such as “pro-choice” and “personally opposed but…”  And more than a few of these pro-abortion Democrats were Roman Catholics, such as Kennedy and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.  Most U. S. Roman bishops were Democrats, of course, and liberal on social welfare issues while still opposed to abortion.  But with the Democrat Party becoming increasingly pro-abortion, continuing support for them was getting harder to justify.

In addition, Ronald Reagan was recovering well from his 1982 mid-term election setback.  Thanks to a robust economic revival and his social conservatism, he was popular among Roman Catholics and was well on the way to a landslide 1984 victory.  And he was pro-life. On the other hand, all but the gullible were not buying the “personally opposed” bit of Democrats.

This presented U. S. Roman bishops with some quandaries. How to get Roman Catholics to return to the Democrat fold?  How to justify voting for Democrats when they had become more and more pro-abortion?  And how could the bishops justify their own usual support for Democrats or even justify giving pro-abortion Democrat pols communion?

The Seamless Garment came to the rescue, doing far more for Democrats and for the bishops than for the unborn.  Now one could be “pro-life” by being for food stamps for illegals or by being for a “Nuclear Freeze,” a trendy stance back then, or by supporting Democrats on liberal quality of life issues as whole.  Abortion was relegated to one issue among many if even that.

By thereby supporting Democrats, efforts to protect the unborn were undermined. For the days of Democrats embracing the unborn under their liberalism were ending if not already over.  The Seamless Garment gave an excuse to put Democrat political and policy priorities above the lives of the unborn.  Oh, the pro-life rhetoric continued from the U. S. RCC, at least for a time.  But their political actions usually undermined efforts to protect the unborn. The Seamless Garment was a compassionate appearing fig leaf over that.

Obviously, this is a very condensed overview.  But discerning readers may already notice parallels between the Seamless Garment and what AND is promoting.  I see the AND Campaign, particularly their 2020 Presidential Election Statement, and I see Democrat priorities dubbed pro-life. I see an effort to undermine a pro-life Republican President (Reagan then. Trump now.) while wanting still to appear pro-life and non-partisan.  I see an effort to justify voting Democrat to pro-life evangelicals being driven away by Democrat extremism on abortion (and today on many more issues than in the 80’s).  I see once again the “highly dubious moral equation” between quality of life issues with the right to life.  And if AND comes close to succeeding in attracting Evangelical voters to Democrats as well as the Seamless Garment blessed Roman Catholic support of Democrats, I see the unborn as the losers in the end, along with church and country as well.

I see Seamless Garment Redux in the Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now.

Again, the AND Campaign may be well meaning, but it repeats the errors of the Seamless Garment.  May it not repeat its influence.

How Should ACNA Deal With Critical Race Theory?

Lately I’ve been wrestling inside about what I and my church (the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)) should do about Critical Race Theory (CRT).  It is far more than a matter of my personally disagreeing with it; it is divisive, toxic, and not compatible with orthodox Christianity.

But I should take a breath and slow down.  There are a number of ideas that may be wrong, perhaps very wrong, but the church wisely does not directly denounce all of these.  Many are secondary issues we can agree to disagree on and hope that good teaching from Scripture accompanied by spiritual formation and learning leads us as a church to become more and more conformed to the Truth of Christ.

Also, time can take care of some errors.  Time has taken care of some excesses mentioned in my Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now series.  Remember The Late Great Planet Earth and the eschatological excesses of the 1970’s?  Time has largely discredited those, and such extreme eschatology is less of a problem now.

Also, at first glance, CRT may seem a secondary issue, more touching politics and academics than the Gospel.  And, yes, one can be an orthodox Christian and buy CRT.  Christians can be faithful on core doctrines yet hold other views which are just wrong. We can be very fallible and inconsistent that way.  I remember having a few very off notions as a young Christian.  We should give space for Christians to work through such with the Holy Spirit and learning working on them. 

But CRT does dilute and even contradict core Christian doctrines.  As I’ve noted before, believing that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” but thinking only white people can be racist is inconsistent to put it very mildly.  To justify blatant racism against white people as CRT also does is worse. If we clearly oppose White Supremacist views in the church (And we should.), we should oppose CRT in the church, too.  To do otherwise is noxious sin against the dignity all have from being created in God’s image.  Why should whites or anyone put up with bigotry against white people?  Racism is racism and should be given no place in the church.

Really CRT baptizes woke sin.  At the same time, it calls sinful or racist or white supremacist thoughts and deeds which are not sinful and are good.  What is that verse about calling good evil and evil good? Rightly disagreeing with these woke people or even just wanting to avoid disagreement by being quiet is racist or at least complicity with racism in the CRT view.  But, hey, if you agree with the woke crowd and support them and you are white, you are just trying to puff up your status as a “good white.” Instead of “victory in Jesus,” if you’re white, you just can’t win!

(By the way, this excellent video just out from Sovereign Nations on CRT notes this repeatedly.  I highly recommend the video for a good summary of CRT.)

And that gets into another way CRT contradicts key Christian doctrine.  If you are White, CRT lays burdens on you no man can carry instead of freeing you from sin and forgiving you through Jesus Christ. When I first heard that there is no redemption or forgiveness under CRT, I did not understand that.  But the more I watch CRT in action the more I get it.  I see far more grievance from CRT church people than forgiveness.  I guess one can hold to the Gospel and to CRT.  But to do so is to be a walking contradiction.

As mentioned, CRT is highly divisive.  A look at recent years in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) or the Presbyterian Church in America illustrates that well.  And conflict is increasing in ACNA.  That is to be expected; for to divide people up into various “protected classes” that are supposedly oppressed by whites, especially those straight white males, is inherently divisive.  CRT is not just a philosophical or theological error about which academics argue.  It is tearing churches apart.  The departure of churches from the SBC has already begun.

But will time take care of CRT?  If we look the other way, focus on “making the main thing the main thing,” will CRT eventually fade away? Who knows.  But it is well embedded in academics.  Many/most universities practically brainwash their students in it.  It pretty much owns the social sciences. Opposing it can be bad for a career in a number of fields. And it seems to be becoming more influential, even (especially?) in the church.

But a better question to ask is do we have time?  CRT is dividing the church now.  Really it is dividing society and then importing those divisions into the church, which goes against so many things St. Paul wrote and even got in St. Peter’s face about. (Galatians 2:11-14)  If we just let CRT play itself out, a very possible result will be church splits.  A certain result will be good people dealing with it by walking out.  I am certainly among those who will put up with CRT in the church for only so long.  In ACNA, we have enough issues that make keeping good people and parishes and even a diocese or two difficult already without CRT.  So if we want to retain them, we must deal with CRT soon.

Having said all that (in admittedly very summarized form), opposing Critical Race Theory in the church is easier said than done.  I intend to say more about that, but will leave off for now.

Jemar Tisby Thinks You Crackers Are Bad for Mental Health

I think I should say right away that this is not satire:

You know I am with Jemar on this.  Some white people drive me crazy.  Darn crackers.  But then so do people of various colors.  Heck people of all ethnicities annoy me.  I am very multiethnic and multicultural that way.

But in all seriousness, flip the colors, and Tisby’s tweet is racist.  Because Tisby’s tweet is racist.  If some white guy told me he doesn’t like working around black people, and it makes him uncomfortable, I would tell him I appreciate his honesty, but he needs to get his mind right.  I would not coddle his racism.  Nor would I advise his employers pay for therapy for his attitude.

But the nice thing about critical race theory is you can be as prejudiced as all get out, and it’s not racism . . . as long as you’re not white and your prejudice is against whites.  Heck, if you are a black racist, it’s Whitey’s fault, and you’re not racist. Critical race theory says so.

Yes, critical race theory enables racism.

Anyway if you think this nonsense is just a LibChurch thing, think again.  Tisby is the bee’s knees among The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now, including in ACNA’s – and, you guessed it, Esau McCaulley’s – Anglican Multi-Ethnic Network (AMEN).  AMEN ran a glowing review, practically a promotion, of Tisby’s big book, The Color of Compromise.  As most of you know, the book is a critical race theory grievancefest.

So laugh if you want – and it is absurd.  But then wake up.  Because this critical race theory madness has probably infected your church. And it is toxic.

Now you honkies leave me alone.  You bother me.

---

A hat tip to Reformation Charlotte, even the crackers there.

The Gospel and Culture II – Paul on the Offense of the Gospel

We have seen from Acts 17 that St. Paul made a winsome effort to reach the Greek culture of Athens.  At the same time he would not dilute the Gospel even when it cut against the culture to the point that his audience laughed and cut his message short. 

Early in his first epistle to the Corinthians, we see more of his approach to proclaiming the Gospel to a decidedly non-Christian culture. The Greeks valued philosophical wisdom, yet Paul made a point not to go too far in preaching “with words of eloquent wisdom….”  Why?  “…Lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (I Corinth. 1:17)  We should be aware of the audience culture, but we should beware of distorting and diluting the Gospel in order to reach the audience culture.

And we should prepare ourselves for rejection by recognizing that the prevailing culture and most people for that matter do not like the Gospel. Paul is downright blunt in recognizing that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing…” (1:18)  And he does not let up in asserting that the Gospel transcends human cultures and should not be dragged down by what said cultures consider wisdom:

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1: 20-25)

So Paul was very much aware of prevailing cultures but was all the more determined to preach the pure Gospel, undiluted by hostile cultures, in the midst of them whether they liked it or not.

Now my exegesis is not profound.  But reminders of Paul’s determination are needed today. For The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now is dead set on repeating the mistakes of deadline denominations by catering to “woke” culture.  Never mind that trying to be hip and with it and liberal or whatever you call past versions of “woke” has been a slow motion disaster for The Episcopal Church, the mainline Presbyterian Church and so on.

We are to preach right, worship right, and live right.  And if prevailing cultures don’t like it, then they don’t like it.

But the funny thing is “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” has a way of breaking into hostile cultures and saving people in the midst of them anyway.  God does not need us to make Christ and his Gospel woke or American or modern or post-modern or whatever, thank you very much.

Why are American churches such blockheads that this lesson needs to be repeated . . . and repeated the hard way? Why do so many evangelical churches not know better?

The Gospel and Culture: Paul in Athens and Corinth

At my church we’ve been slowly going through 1 Corinthians in Sunday School.  And on my own time I have been reading, listening and thinking about the divisions among evangelicals and among Anglicans on issues concerning social justice – and on how The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now (TECoWHaN) is handling said issues poorly.  So when we got to 1 Corinthians 1:17, I saw that it might have some application to these issues.  Writing to Greeks, who greatly valued philosophy and wisdom, Paul wrote, “For Christ [sent me] to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”  And he went on to more or less repeat his commitment to this approach and explained why he took it.  We shall attempt to return to that in due time.

As I was reflecting, it occurred to me that his activity and address in Athens, found in Acts 17:16-34, also reveals much about Paul’s approach to preaching the gospel in the Greek culture.  Even better, the passage shows him in action.  He at first glance appears more sympathetic to Greek culture with its emphasis on philosophical wisdom than he appears in his first letter to Corinth.  But a closer examination reveals a consistent approach that gives important principles in preaching and ministering to a non-Christian (or post-Christian) culture.

We could begin our examination in either city, but since Paul visited Athens first, let’s start there.

While in Athens, “his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.” (Acts 17:16) Paul made himself aware of the cultural landscape of Athens.  But he did not allow it unduly to shape his Christian worldview (as TECoWHaN is so prone to do).  Instead his Christian worldview shaped his response.  Part of that response was to see the idolatry of Athenian culture as wrong and offensive.

St. Paul was no multiculturalist.

But his further response was not to withdraw from the culture but to engage it.

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.  And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” (17:17-19)

Paul learned enough about Greek culture not just to oppose it but to engage it and to do so in such a winsome way that the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were among those who wanted to converse with him.  Paul made his listeners want to hear more. But note that although he spoke to Athenian culture, he did not conform to it.  His gospel message was still “strange” to them.  And it continued strange to them as we shall see.

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.(17: 22, 23)

Paul began with common ground in order to gain further the openness and interest of his listeners.  But then he immediately pointed out areas relevant to the Gospel where the prevailing culture was mistaken.  He told them God was not who they thought He was.

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. (17: 24, 25)

In other words, God is not needy like pagan gods.  Today, Paul might have pointed out that God is not a social justice warrior revolutionary, nor a flag-waving super-patriot. God is not of man’s making; nor does he conform to cultural whims.

Paul then again utilizes common ground followed by again criticizing the prevailing culture’s views about God.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for [And now he quotes two Greek poets, the first likely Epimenides of Crete, the second Aratus.]

          “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

 as even some of your own poets have said,

          “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’”

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.(17:26-29_

And now Paul proclaims that man and his culture must get in line with the truth of God, the Gospel, and notthe other way around.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”(17:30-31)

And on this Gospel, St. Paul will not compromise.  But there is a problem.  For reasons I will not get into here, the resurrection of the dead struck the Greek mindset as absurd and not something for which to hope. (And the same could be said for much of increasingly secular Western culture today.)  Paul, a learned man, surely knew this.  But he did not back down. He communicated to Greek culture as winsomely as he could, but he would not compromise the truth of God to please anyone.

Therefore he got a mixed response which brought his discourse to an end.

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. (17:32-34)

God brought fruit out of the faithful preaching of His truth even if it did clash with the prevailing culture.

And thus we should not follow the chameleon ways of The Church of What’s Happening Now, but follow the godly example of St. Paul.  We should become aware of the culture around us.  We should communicate and relate to it as best we can.  

But we should not compromise God’s truth.  We do not allow the culture to erode or twist our faithful holding to the truth and our communication of it.  We communicate the truth of God clearly and call men of whatever culture to get in line with it.  And if the culture doesn’t like it, then the culture doesn’t like it.  Jesus is Lord, not any culture of man.  We do not compromise or twist the truth of Jesus.  

Yes, that may result in unpleasantness.  Remember all the Apostles, save St. John, were martyred. But nonetheless the Gospel of Christ is to be preached to all cultures; it is to appease none of them.

The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now VII: The “Emergent Church”

A recurring pattern of The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now (TECoWHaN) is to urge, for the sake of being “missional,” becoming more relevant to aspects of contemporary cultures. And there is certainly a needful place for that within limits.  But also part of the pattern is that, before long, it becomes clear that so being missional and relevant is a cloak for injecting said culture’s false teachings into the church.

A classic example of that pattern is the “Emergent Church,” which was particularly active and influential in evangelical circles just before and after the turn of the millennium. I know.  In my pre-Anglican days I was influenced by it and active in it, even contributing an article or two. (Apologies to any who spit coffee or fainted just now.)  I wrote one for The Ooze before it went full LibChurch and then disappeared. I was also active in and wrote for Youth Specialties, which was very much influenced by Emerging Church people.

Around 2000, Emergent types urged that the church become more aware of how postmodernism affected how younger generations think and adjust their ministries accordingly.  I agreed.  For example, I read Tony Jones’ Postmodern Youth Ministry, in which he argues as much, with approval.  (Again this was in my pre-Anglican days.  I suspect my opinion would be different if I reread it today.) 

But later it became more clear that many/most of the Emergent leaders not only wanted more relevant ministry to a culture affected by postmodernism; they had bought into postmodernism and accompanying liberalism.  For example, the aforesaid Tony Jones has gone full LibChurch even delaying the legal contract of his second marriage until gay marriage was legal.  He also encouraged Minnesota clergy not to perform legal marriages.

Now whether Jones’ views evolved into apostasy or whether he was an apostate all along, I do not presume to know but I would guess the former with sadness.  I do think in the more famous case of Brian McLaren, Mr. “Generous Orthodoxy” was an apostate all along and simply let that become more evident when he felt comfortable doing so. In the meantime, he had a lot of people snowed. (But I personally smelled a rat all along in his case.)

Most of the “Emergent Church” followed a similar course, of gaining influence by cloaking or delaying apostasy and letting it all hang out later.  With some, the deception surely was not intentional; becoming too influenced by the culture you are trying to reach is an occupational hazard we must all guard against.  But, whether by evolution or deception or both, the Emergent Church pretty much went full apostate. And the non-apostates, including me, walked away.

Now I am greatly oversimplifying a lot of convoluted history.  But seeing this pattern of culturally relevant mission used as a cover for false teaching sooner or later is one reason us more experienced traditional Christians tend to be skeptical of things “missional.”  Yes and again, we should be aware of the cultures of those we are trying to reach. (And I intend to say more on that at a later time.)  But buying into aspects of a culture that are flat wrong is another matter.  And those being “missional” too often do just that.

Yes, this may sound all too familiar. 

Marty Sampson and the Shallowness of The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now (VI)

Yes, I am a bit slow to comment on Hillsong’s Marty Sampson losing his faith.  But it speaks (sings?) volumes about The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now (TECoWHaN) so I am compelled to comment even if this is no longer a hot topic.

First, I must say to Sampson’s credit – and likewise to Josh Harris’s credit – that he is open and honest about his no longer being a Christian.  That is a much more honorable course than that taken by, say, Spong, Brian McLaren, RHE, and any number of other misleaders: of denying the basics of the faith while still pretending to be not only a Christian but to speak and teach publicly as such.  I can have a beer and a chat with a Sampson or a Harris.  I really can’t with a Spong or a McLaren (And I think scripture teaches I should not, but that’s a whole ‘nother subject.)

At the same time, it is appalling how Sampson is ditching Christianity on the most shallow grounds. In his own words:

---

Time for some real talk…I’m genuinely losing my faith…and it doesn’t bother me…like, what bothers me now is nothing…I am so happy now, so at peace with the world…it’s crazy/this is a soapbox moment so here I go xx how many preachers fall? Many. No one talks about it. How many miracles happen. Not many. No one talks about it. Why is the Bible full of contradictions? No one talks about it. How can God be love yet send 4 billion people to a place, all coz they don’t believe? No one talks about it. Christians can be the most judgmental people on the planet-they can also be some of the most beautiful and loving people…but it’s not for me. I am not in anymore. I want genuine truth. Not the “I just  believe it” kind of truth. Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion. Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God. Got so much more to say, but for me, I keeping it real. Unfollow if you want, I’ve never been about living my life for others. All I know is what’s true to me right now, and Christianity just seems to me like another religion at this point…I could go on, but I won’t. Love and forgive absolutely. Be kind absolutely. Be generous and do good to others absolutely. Some things are good no matter what you believe. Let the rain fall, the sun will come up tomorrow.

---

Hmm, that last sentence sounds like a song lyric. But anyway, this is the sort of reasoning I would expect from a 14 year old trying to make a sophisticated rationale for not being a Christian. Actually, that’s not fair . . . to 14 year olds.  I’ve heard much better questions and reasoning from 14 year olds and younger.

For someone who is very young or very new to investigating Christianity to have the issues Sampson mentions is one thing. But this man was a leader in Hillsong for years.  Who taught him the faith?  Who put him forth as a leader? My intent is not to bash him but to point out that it takes a profoundly shallow, short-sighted, and negligent church or parachurch to produce a leader like Sampson.  But that is exactly how shallow Hillsong and the rest of The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now can be.  Hillsong, TECoWHaN and “faith” without substance is what you get when you are grounded in trendy “faith” instead of traditional faith.  

God help those raised under such lightweight leadership.  If you are grounded in air, falling is likely.  As Rod Dreher recalls:

I think about what an Evangelical college professor told me in 2017 about the kids in his university: that 99 percent of them carry in their hearts a Christianity that is entirely based on youth-group emotionalism, and that has no serious theological foundation. 

There has been much alarm about how many youth ditch the faith once they leave home and their home church to go off into the world.  The shallowness of TECoWHaN is one big reason why.

It is past time to ditch TECoWHaN evangalatainment and bring back traditional catechesis. That is not a cure-all – there will always be apostates as scripture makes clear – but it is necessary. 

But most in TECoWHaN do not even know what catechesis is and might guess that it’s an infectious disease spread by too much exposure to incense in church.  If so, that would still be better than the shallowness being spread by The Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now.

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.