Not All Black Christians Agree with TGC's MLK50 Narrative

Photo Credit: Baptistmessage.com

Though I do not agree with every little point Mrs. Spratt makes her perspective needs to be heard.  It's not just conservative "white" evangelicals who believe that certain well-intentioned believers are needlessly dividing the Christian Church.  Before you swallow the social justice gospel search the Scriptures, read a few articles from the other side, and pray!  Here is an article posted at baptistmessage.com just today. 

Russell Moore does not represent me, a Black Christian.  From the desk of Lorine Spratt (posted by Will Hall). QUOTE

"From the desk of Lorine Spratt

To SBC Pastors & Dr. Russell Moore:

I am a born-again Christian, Conservative, Black attender of a White, Southern Baptist, Evangelical Church in Louisiana. In fact, I not only attend, I also work there and I am very concerned about the narrative that I’m hearing from our ERLC leadership. I am absolutely appalled by the comments made by Dr. Russell Moore concerning racism within the White Evangelical churches.

I, and many other Black congregants, attend a predominately White, Southern Baptist Evangelical Church. We attend there because we are free to do so, we’ve been welcomed, and we’re seen and treated as brothers and sisters in Christ. I truly believe that I could attend any White Evangelical church and be welcomed. However, there are born again Black believers who choose to attend Black evangelical churches and worship within their culture and they are free to do so. We are exercising our freedom to choose. We are not commodities to be bargained with or exploited or used to promote an agenda or boost quotas.

White churches are not advocating racism but Dr. Moore is. He is fueling racial tensions. I view his comments as divisive and antagonistic. His words do not promote unity!

The Gospel Coalition's (selective demonizing) Problem

Forthcoming "GOSPEL Coalition" Conference

The Gospel Coalition's (selective demonizing) Problem.
I personally have no issue with celebrating the Civil Right's achievements of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  As a public school student my K-12 educators took a week each school year teaching us about the Civil Right's movement in American history.  Dr. King was always presented as a hero.  In speech class I remember choosing King's historic, "I Have a Dream" monologue. 

Providentially, the Lord used Dr. King's courage and God-given oratory skills to help root out deep racial prejudices and evils within our nation, (particularly down South).  Having said that, if the Gospel Coalition/Desiring God ministry is going to scold and/or condemn Christians for voting for Donald Trump (over and against Hillary Clinton) or Roy Moore (over and against Doug Jones) you have a serious consistency problem.  Dr. Robert Gagnon has expressed this same concern repeatedly the past few months.  In the interest of time, and because Gagnon is a more skilled communicator, I post this article from the pen of my (Facebook) friend Dr. Robert Gagnon:

"I would actually like this publicly explained by Joe Carter (a senior editor at The Gospel Coalition) and other friends of mine from the TGC who agree with his TGC editorial "The Nonpartisan Solution to Our Roy Moore Problem," that on the one hand it is "a prime example of hypocrisy" and "the opposite of integrity" (Carter) for Christians to vote for Roy Moore as an effective vote against pro-abortion, pro-transgender, pro-"gay marriage," anti-religious-liberty Doug Jones but on the other hand perfectly acceptable for TGC to put on a "MKL50" conference in April 2018 celebrating the life of Martin Luther King Jr., a man who engaged in incredibly profligate sexual behavior throughout his years as a civil rights leader?

This is a genuine question. If it is a question that I have, I'm sure many others will be puzzled as well.

Don't get me wrong: I'm glad that TGC is having the conference. Racial harmony and rooting out racial prejudice is important for the church. Yet it seems like a gross inconsistency with the stance taken against fellow Christians who, while disturbed by the allegations made about Moore's four-decades-old behavior, prefer to cast an effective vote against Jones. Perhaps I'm missing something.

I'm sure the response would be something like: This conference doesn't endorse MLK's immoral sexual life but rather seeks to build on the positive legacy of his civil rights work in promoting racial justice and harmony. Sounds good to me. Now why not apply the same reasoning to voting for Moore: Those who do so are not condoning sexual assault but rather acting out of concern for the immorality of abortion and the "LGBT" agenda as well as concern for protecting religious liberty.

A Biblical Critique of Keller's 'Center Church' (pt. 2)

Evaluation of Center Church

There are three areas where I consider CC to be unbiblical/lacking:

      1) Contextualization—this immediately shapes our view on the methods of evangelism and equipping, how the church is built, who gets the credit for building the church, and how we evaluate ministry efforts

·        2)Common Grace—this immediately shapes our view on the cultural mandate of the church and the goal of the church in the world

·        3) The Church—the definition of who makes up the church has an immediate impact on how the gospel is manifested to the world

Contextualization- Keller promotes a contextualization that takes the transcendent truth of the gospel and adapts it to the culture so that the culture can understand it and find it attractive.  The pursuit of clarity with the gospel is necessary, but the idea that the way the gospel is packaged can make it attractive to the world is theologically aberrant.  For Keller, the effectiveness of one’s theological vision is based on how well a church leader adapts himself to culture.  This type of contextualization empties the cross of its power (1 Cor. 1:17b) and gives the credit for fruitfulness to the power of man (1 Cor. 2:4-5).  The Lord calls His servants to reject the attractive methodology of the world (1 Cor. 1:17a; 2:2) in order that the fruit might be based on divinely-given faith (1 Cor. 2:5).

The American church seems to be going through a mid-life crisis.  Instead of being confident in the allure of her bridegroom to woo the world, the church often sounds like a middle-aged wife, perversely adorning herself for other suitors.  Let me say it this way—the power of the gospel is entirely and only in the Spirit’s working through the proclamation of Christ and His cross.  However, to read CC would make one think that the greatest danger threatening the church is that we would fail to be attractive to unbelievers.  For instance, phrases like “The most important way to gain a hearing from postmodern people…” (66), “making this distinction may be the only way to reach them” (66), “They will be turned off if…” (178), “If you care about having an influence on society, evangelism is not enough,” (185), and “New churches… attract and harness many people in the city whose gifts wouldn’t otherwise be used in the body’s ministry,” (360) occur regularly throughout the book.

In fact, for Keller, what is at stake in our ability to impress the world is the very foundation of our being heard.  He says, “Yet we could also argue that the greatest problem for the church today is our inability to connect with nonbelievers in a way that they understand” (224).  Of course every true Christian is concerned about gospel clarity so that nonbelievers can understand the gospel.  However, Keller says we are losing our voice with unbelievers, and the solution lies in our ability to adapt to their tastes and preferences.  Note the focus on attraction and appeal to the world in the following quotes:

Those who lean toward a conservative theology may say (as I would) that while the mission of the church qua church (the institutional church) is to evangelize and make disciples, individual Christians must be well-known for their sacrificial service to the poor and common good if a society is going to give the gospel a hearing. (263, fn. 37)  

This church’s worship is missional in that it makes sense to nonbelievers in that culture…  The members of a missional church also know how to contextualize the gospel, carefully challenging yet also appealing to the baseline cultural narratives of the society around them. (265)

A Biblical Critique of Tim Keller's "Center Church" (pt. 1)

"Timothy Keller’s recent work, Center Church (CC), is a substantive book on ecclesiology and philosophy of ministry.  It has received a lot of attention since it was released last September.  With its graphic, glossy hardcover, and double columns throughout, the 395-page volume has the look and feel of a textbook.  I believe that is what it was intended to be—a textbook for pastors (particularly the urban ones) to maximize their fruitfulness for the sake of the gospel.  Keller’s popularity and acceptance within mainstream evangelicalism have positioned this book to hold significant influence on the American church for some time to come. 

After thoughtfully considering this book and weighing it against Scripture, I have a few concerns.  In spite of areas of agreement, I found the heart and soul of the book to be biblically off-center.  I fear that the theological vision of CC will cause more harm than good in American churches.  I don’t regard the differences that I see between CC and the Bible as minor or preferential.  In fact, I’m convinced that with nothing but the sufficient Word of God, no one would arrive at this theological vision.  Where CC falls short of the biblical ideal will not be of minor consequence.  Regardless of what this evaluation may appear to be, my primary reason for writing it is that I’m convinced that this vision is unbiblical.  I am sure that Keller wrote this book with sincere motives.  I offer this critique with the sincere motive of love for Tim Keller, pastors at large, the people of God, and the unbelievers in every community where they serve.  I desire to edify and highlight a biblical vision that must not be lost or else the church will suffer impotence and lose even more influence than it already has.  I write out of sincere desire for the church of God to rest firmly on the Word of God, and think discerningly about the way that Christ is building His church.  I am convinced that we can’t improve on God’s ways, and I consider it a step backward for the church to go in any direction, theologically and methodologically, except that laid out in Scripture.

If you haven’t read CC, please read the synopsis of the book below.  If you have read the book, feel free to skip ahead to the evaluation.

Synopsis of Center Church

Keller lays out what he calls a ‘theological vision’ for doing ministry in the city. 

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND (pt. 7)

This is part 7 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions"
by two veteran missionaries from Africa.
Specific Biblical Concerns (to the social action trend in evangelicalism)-

7. A Misunderstanding of Jesus’ Ministry and Miracles:

Those who hope to make social action and gospel proclamation two wings of the same bird claim that they are imitating the earthly ministry of Jesus. Jesus, they contend, not only preached repentance, He also focused on relieving the physical needs and the oppression of the economically downtrodden in Palestine. He healed their sicknesses, filled their stomachs, and dropped a coin in the outstretched hands of the poor.

While the Scripture implies that Jesus did express mercy to the poor on a personal level (Matt 26:9; John 13:29), it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus started no orphanages, established no poverty relief funds, no low-cost housing schemes, no well-digging programs, and set no prisoners free (not even John the Baptist). Neither did Jesus instruct or train His disciples to do so. That doesn’t mean that it’s intrinsically wrong for Christians to be involved in such work. But it certainly makes suspect the argument that, based on Jesus’ example, the church should make social action central to her mission. Personal expressions of mercy and church-organized social action programs are not the same thing: Jesus exemplified one, not the other. In fact, the purpose statements of Jesus’ earthly ministry always focused on proclamation and on His substitutionary death for sinners: “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for” (Mark 1:38). “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).

"Social-Justice" Evangelical Pastors: An Evaluation

I don't know about you but most weeks my news feed is quite predictable.  The stories change but the responses from the left-leaning, political wing of evangelicalism and the (social) "Gospel" Coalition are unsurprising. 

The big story that garnered all the media coverage last week was "Did our (presumed racist) Commander in Chief call corrupt, third world nations and/or impoverished people" a 4-letter word?"  When this story broke it quickly became "the same song, different tune."  In short, a pattern of rush to judgment, pro "social-justice," pro "illegal immigration" fueled commentary  pieces from evangelical leaders- such as Russell Moore and Thabiti Anyabwile- and from evangelical ministries such as "Desiring God: and "the Gospel Coalition"- has become par for the course.  More on this in a moment.

Back in 2016 the Tim Keller-led Gospel Coalition failed to convince enough professing evangelicals that it was unwise and/or unbiblical to vote against the pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, pro-globalization agenda of Hillary Clinton.  As the polarizing presidential election of 2016 played out many evangelical "Never-Trumpers" warned Christian voters that "the Donald" was a liar, a narcissist, a sexist, and that he would run the country as a "closet Democrat" anyways.  "He's only telling socially-conservative voters that he will protect your religious liberties because he wants to win."  "He'll appoint a liberal-leaning Supreme Court justice" (which was perhaps the most important issue on the 2016 ballot).   Plus, "if you vote for Trump/Pence, for any reason, it will ruin our Christian testimony in the world," etc.

For a number of reasons Donald J. Trump was NOT our first, second, or third choice during the Republican primary.  However, my wife and I agreed with the collective wisdom of Robert Gagnon, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul and voted against the far-left, anti-religious freedom, hyper-Feminist candidate Hillary Clinton.  Despite Trump's loose tongue and his unsavory personal baggage it was an easy decision to vote for Trump/Pence (when the only viable alternative was Clinton/Kaine).  After 8 years of far-left governance we came to see exactly what President Obama meant when he talked about"fundamentally transforming" our nation.  If nothing else, Andrea and I hoped to prevent the pro-SCOTUS Clinton/Kaine ticket from winning the White House/Supreme Court-but now I digress.

After his unexpected victory, Trump kept many of his campaign promises to "the religious right," such as appointing Judge Neil Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee (in addition to appointing many other social conservatives to key leadership positions).