Gospel-Grace-Glory: An Examination of G3 Ministries

I appreciate the research and summary here. I had noticed a while back that RAM was wrapping up and saw a reference to G3, but other than that, knew nothing about it.

As our context changes and we face different battles than the “fundamentalists” of the 20th century faced (though with some overlap), faithfulness will result in changes in emphasis, alignments, partnerships, etc.

This side of Christ’s return, there are not going to be any perfect fellowships, perfect institutions, or perfect leaders. We’re enormously blessed that God gives any of us the opportunity to serve Him.

Edit to add: I have to say, though, that the reaction to SBC’s Resolution 9 on CRT etc. has been disappointingly knee-jerk. From the Resolution…

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

All it really does is point out the obvious. Nobody’s wrong 100% of the time, and “can aid” is way, way less than an endorsement. But in keeping with the spirit of our age, if you don’t loudly declare a completely un-nuanced rejection of the correct targets, you are automatically “supporting” everything about them.

So, speaking of changing context requiring new emphases: We need a new emphasis on thoughtful debate vs. proving Christian authenticity by our degree of vehemence in response to the target du jour.

I have followed G3 Ministries from a distance since its inception, especially in regards to their views about Social Justice, Racial Issues/Justice, Wokeness, and Critical Race Theory. I've read many of their articles, listened to several of their podcasts, and watched several of their conference videos, including Voddie Baucham, Darrell Harrison, Virgil Walker, Owen Scrachan, Tom Ascol, and etc... Sadly, their attempts to educate and equip leaders of local churches about social justice, racial issues and justice, CRT, and Intersectionality are shaped much more from a reactionary hyper-individualist conservatism (and a secular classical Liberalism influenced by atheist James Lindsay) that is influenced more by the enlightenment than by Scripture or Natural Law. Also, so many of their arguments are laced with informal fallacies, including strawmen, cherry-picking, hasty-generalizations, assuming motives, false dillemas, poisoning the well, and appeal to fear....leading to the sin of slander because they've misrepresented the positions and people of those whom they attack. What I've realized is that they know the Bible, but have demonstrated they do not do the hard grunt work of careful scholarship in dealing with Critical Race Theorists and Political and Social Theorists. In these crazy times, its so much easier to stoke the conservative Christian's fear of Marxism (which sells a lot of books) the way Voddie Baucham did in Fault Lines that turns out to be a giant strawman than form a thoroughly Biblical Critique of CRT that properly defines CRT, that doesn't distort the history of CRT, that doesn't dismiss it as Marxism (especially when parts of CRT is critiquing several types of Marxism (i.e. Vulger Marxism) even though some of its proponents have been influenced by other forms of Marxism (i.e. black Marxism), that doesn't butcher statistical analysis, and doesn't continually use about 10-15 logical fallacies per chapter to make their points.

We need a fully-orbed critique that can point out several different secular/non-Biblical ideologies that are present in many of the different stripes of CRT without the FaultLine book slander.

I found it quite interesting that the author mentions former SBC president's Litton's plagarism of Sermons when Baucham actually plagarized James Lindsay in FaultLines, the book that so many G3 folks look to when it comes to CRT, Social Justice, or Racial Issues.

Last, I take issue with the arrogance of G3 leaders when there is pushback on their views on CRT, Social Justice, and Racial Justice. From Twitter interactions that I've seen, they would rather hunker down and defend lies and slanders that they've believed and spread than ever admit something they've written or spoken that wasn't the truth about CRT, Social and Racial Justice, and/or the SBC whom they believe have become progressive/liberal by what they believe is compromise. I find the almost all the folks on Sharper Iron (many of which I disagree on several social and racial issues with) to have way more humility than what I see among the G3 folks because I've watched from a distance many of you admit when you're wrong or apologize on a thread or post.

It seems to be a widespread problem: pastors tend to be educated too narrowly. Maybe that’s not “the problem,” just a factor. But it’s certainly a factor. There’s a feeling that if you know the Bible well, that’s all you need.

But pastors and teachers are called to apply Scripture. For that, you need to be able to “exegete the culture” as well as the Word.

That wouldn’t solve everything. It’s human nature to judge others by much higher standards than we judge ourselves, and to judge other groups (aka tribe) by much higher standards than we judge whatever we see as our own people.

We all do it. Some more than others, for sure.

Given how widespread this problem is right now in our culture—aka, to many, “the world,”—you’d think that a passion to be not conformed this world would drive conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists to be more rigorous and hold themselves to higher standards.

But we don’t see intellectual laziness, or even intellectual dishonesty as “worldly.” That only applies to sexual ethics, apparently… or entertainments/dress that are seen as sensual, which is, I guess, still in that ballpark.

How did we come to see worldliness—or sin in general—so narrowly?

I don’t know what the solution is. We live in very contentious times, and the first thing to die in ideological war is nuance/complexity, followed closely by truth itself. How does the church triumph over that tendency rather than joining the world in it?

Part of the problem is that there is only so much time in a day. I have a job (which ends tomorrow) which allows me to read or listen to books/sermons/podcasts almost all day. Add to that a very long commute and I can get through a lot of material. If I do mostly books I can do 100/year. That being said, there is no way that I could ever read enough to keep abreast of everything that is unfolding in culture. It’s just not possible.

So I see your point Aaron but a pastor also needs to know his limitations. He should work as hard as possible but he has to direct his work to the most beneficial area. I believe it was John Piper that suggested that a pastor should take up one particular area of study and try to master it. I believe that is generally good advice. Speaking for myself, I will never master critical theories. But with that I need to have enough humility to not vociferously engage on it unless there are clear areas that are unbiblical.

The other problem is that with issues this complex, it’s hard to know what to recommend for church members seeking answers. Pastors need resources that are at the popular level but, unfortunately, those often lack the nuance needed for accuracy.

I agree with Josh. We can’t know everything, so we need to concentrate where we can, and avoid speaking as an expert where we are not.

I don’t need to have an academic understanding of CRT and similar ideas/theories to understand that, according to the scripture:

1. No race is better than any other, or more or less worthy to God, and indeed “race” is mostly a made-up concept since we all come from Adam.
2. No race or group of people is purely an oppressor or a victim.
3. Judging with partiality is wrong, period, whether it’s to do wrong in the present or supposedly to make up for previous bad judgments made with partiality.
4. Even though people can bear the consequences of those who did wrong who came before them, they bear absolutely no guilt for the sins of others, only their own.

These are basically the core of what I need to evaluate the theories and actions of others in this department. I don’t need to read Kendi or Crenshaw to make judgments on what to accept or approve. The biblical principles are quite sufficient.

josh p wrote: So I see your point Aaron but a pastor also needs to know his limitations. He should work as hard as possible but he has to direct his work to the most beneficial area. I believe it was John Piper that suggested that a pastor should take up one particular area of study and try to master it.

dcbii wrote: I agree with Josh. We can’t know everything, so we need to concentrate where we can, and avoid speaking as an expert where we are not.

I don’t disagree with these observations, other than Piper’s advice. Academics should specialize. Pastors need to be theological generalists.

But I think I may have been unclear. I’m not talking about knowing everything or mastering CRT. I’m talking mainly about two things, probably:

1. Skill and discipline in spotting bad arguments and testing one’s own. If a source is full of bad reasoning like assuming what needs to be proved, selective appeal to facts, leaping to conclusions, alleging irrelevant motives, assuming sequence = causation, etc., you don’t have to be an expert to know this is not a reliable analysis. [Edit to add: plagiarism is also a huge clue, as Joel noted!]
2. Full orbed worldview. This one is hard to explain… so I’m not sure I can be clear yet. I’ve been thinking a lot about it for a good while, but more and more the last 6 or 8 yrs. We have some worldview gaps we can close in pastoral education—or self-education. Some examples: If we’re disrespectful and broadly dismissive of the hard work of historians, social scientists, and psychologists—to name a few that come quickly to mind—that exposes some gaps in how we understand our place in the world as humans created in God’s image. It exposes gaps in our understanding of how the glory of God is served, how neighbor is loved, how the image of God is expressed through work and creation, how common grace flows through the efforts of both the redeemed and the lost.

So, a nutshell version, is that from where I sit, it looks like an awful lot of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist ministry leaders have severe tunnel vision. They’re just too out of touch with how the 99.9% of Christians who aren’t pastors actually live and find meaning and joy in their work, their play, their learning, and their relationships.

Not that you “make theology out of experience,” so to speak, but if you have first hand connections with people who are social scientists or chemists, biologists, historians, justice advocates, etc., or just read more broadly on the issues, it helps you get out of the box and “make theological application out of experience.”

A lot of the rhetoric on CRT and LGBTQ and other things going on culturally is application. But to do that faithfully you have to frame it right (worldview) and think straight with what information you have (the reasoning tools).

It seems to be a widespread problem: pastors tend to be educated too narrowly. Maybe that’s not “the problem,” just a factor. But it’s certainly a factor. There’s a feeling that if you know the Bible well, that’s all you need.

But pastors and teachers are called to apply Scripture. For that, you need to be able to “exegete the culture” as well as the Word.

So True, especially as a Post-Christian culture dominates America's landscape. Even recent evangelical movements that attempted to exegete culture such as the missional movement (and they did better than most of evangelicalism exegeting culture) have failed because making disciples was no longer the engine that drove the car, but rather the shiny body of the car.

Given how widespread this problem is right now in our culture—aka, to many, “the world,”—you’d think that a passion to be not conformed this world would drive conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists to be more rigorous and hold themselves to higher standards.

Again, very true. But if conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have only been trained in knowing the Word of God, but did not receive any training in basic ethics, logic, or that in their Christian and/or homeschool training, the history they were brought up with was basically embellished propaganda especially when telling the story of the black experience in America, It doesn't surprise me one bit. Thus, most conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists don't realize how worldly they are in making moral choices in determining what is right or wrong. They often say they are living by the moral standard of Scripture, but in reality they often determine what is right or wrong based on what they believe is the best outcome or consequence, making them functional consequentialists with their ethical framework. But if one hasn't been trained in ethics to understand how the secular culture makes moral decisions, one doesn't realize that they are doing it and embracing worldliness.

And most conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are woefully ignorant about black history in America, just like most of America. Conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are a reflection of secular/Agnostic conservative America. Which is why the 1619 project came about. Of course progressives who contributed to the 1619 project were woefully wrong on two main things (and several minor things) (1) That Slavery was the primary reason for our country's founding and (2) their treatment on Free Markets and Capitalism in America and its relationship to Slavery.

The other problem is that with issues this complex, it’s hard to know what to recommend for church members seeking answers. Pastors need resources that are at the popular level but, unfortunately, those often lack the nuance needed for accuracy.

Josh, I've been educating conservative churches and its pastors/leaders in West Michigan on racial and cultural issues (including Racial Reconciliation, Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, and etc...) for the past two decades. I've done workshop formats and 3 hour zoom calls with conservative Christians all over Michigan. And I break it down to the popular level. Although I had to add an additional workshop teaching people how to discern what is true in a brave new (post-modern) world. As a sample, here are the slides I used at the workshop I taught at a church ministries conference to 40+ people from GARBC and IFCA churches in West Michigan. Check it out if you're interested in knowing more.

https://joelashaffer.substack.com/p/discerning-what-is-true-in-a-brave

Joel Shaffer wrote: Josh, I’ve been educating conservative churches and its pastors/leaders in West Michigan on racial and cultural issues (including Racial Reconciliation, Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, and etc…) for the past two decades. […. ] Check it out if you’re interested in knowing more.

Thanks for sharing that!

I don’t need to have an academic understanding of CRT and similar ideas/theories to understand that, according to the scripture:

1. No race is better than any other, or more or less worthy to God, and indeed “race” is mostly a made-up concept since we all come from Adam.
2. No race or group of people is purely an oppressor or a victim.
3. Judging with partiality is wrong, period, whether it’s to do wrong in the present or supposedly to make up for previous bad judgments made with partiality.
4. Even though people can bear the consequences of those who did wrong who came before them, they bear absolutely no guilt for the sins of others, only their own.

These are basically the core of what I need to evaluate the theories and actions of others in this department. I don’t need to read Kendi or Crenshaw to make judgments on what to accept or approve. The biblical principles are quite sufficient.

Dave, the problem with this response is that these 4 items have little to do with CRT, except for your first point. And you might be surprised that one of the main tenants of CRT is that "race" is a social construct. While most of the main leaders (except for the founder of CRT-Derek Bell) would not trace race coming from Adam because none of these leaders are/were Christians (except for CRT's founder Derek Bell), you actually agree with CRT when it comes to race as a social construct.

Also, Kendi is not a Critical Race Theorist, but rather an activist historian. Now he may have been influenced by a few of CRT's elements but he does not use Critical Race Theory tools or a framework in his writings. On a side-note, having read a lot of Kendi lately, he might be the biggest die-hard cultural relativist I've ever read, which leads to some pretty awful consequentialist ethics.

So, while true, that none of us need CRT's analytical tools to have an understanding of race in our day-to-day lives as Christians, we probably should know basic facts of what it is and who its leaders are so that we aren't parroting secular/atheistic conservatives (the main ones fighting CRT) who regularly get basic facts about CRT wrong.

A book I'd encourage everyone to read is Black Liberation Through the Marketplace: Hope, Heartbreak and the Promise of America written by Rachel Ferguson and Marcus Wilcher. They approach black history and legal issues and economics through a classical liberal framework (and a non-Critical Race Theory framework) proving you don't need CRT to understand the black experience in America. It is one of the best books I've read in the past decade. I hope to finish a review of it for Sharper Iron once my work schedule slows down a bit.

Aaron,

I think you make a valid point about having a fully-orbed worldview. I stopped using "Worldview" language and switched to a Christian Ethical Framework because so many conservative Christians I know have distorted the Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation worldview into a anemic, reductionistic version instead of its initial robustness that the Kuyperians originally framed it to be. By the way, I'm not a Kuyperian, but I do recognize the significant contribution they made to interpreting culture from a Biblical standpoint.

The ones who abused Worldview language the most are those who have been Bible-college or Seminary trained in Apologetics as well as some who were trained in worldview from certain homeschool and Christian school curriculum. You've touched on one of my biggest soapboxes. And usually the apologetics trained folks come across as most arrogant because they think they're equipped to tackle secular theories such as CRT when they aren't.

I agree with all that you said other than the specialist part. I don’t think I made myself clear. A pastor should be broadly educated but the time requirement for keeping up with all cultural development is basically untenable. You simply have to focus more narrowly. I had a young man ask me deep questions about Baur’s theories a while back. I would rather know more about the things I’m likely to encounter in my church than in the world. Although maybe that’s a false disjunction. Of course a pastor should know at least the basics about his cultural context but it would be difficult to go far beyond that.

I read Trueman’s excellent “Strange New World” last year. It was great but it also reminded me how far out of my depth I am in those topics. When people who make their living studying these issues are saying that he taught them things, I’m not likely to keep up.

Thanks for the resource! I’ll check it out.

The Trueman book was “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.”

Joel Shaffer wrote: Dave, the problem with this response is that these 4 items have little to do with CRT, except for your first point.

Joel, you would be correct. I wasn’t trying to respond point-by-point to any tenets of CRT. These are just the scriptural principles I use when dealing with applications of the popular view of Critical Race Theory, which of course, isn’t exactly the same as the actual theory. I’m not particularly interested in the theory itself, but on the practical outworking of it (which you may see as a sort of consequentialism). For example, CRT theorists generally hold that racism is inherent in the laws and legal institutions of the U.S., in spite of the fact that the U.S. system of justice was founded on and tries to adhere to the idea of being blind (not just colorblind), even though it may at times have been misused or written wrongly to the detriment of certain groups and/or “races.” Even so, that history doesn’t justify distorting the administration of justice today to make up for past wrongs.

Even though CRT itself may have absolutely nothing to do with with reparations, being lax on crime from certain races or groups, falsification of history, emphasizing victimhood and oppression of particular races, or discriminative programs like affirmative action, it seems that the roads lead to these results, nonetheless. While CRT theory itself does indeed think of race as a social construct, somehow everything is still expressed in terms of race (or other “intersectional” attributes), when the solution would include the idea of learning to ignore physical differences like skin color (dare I say colorblindness?), and rather treat each person as human, not black, white, Asian, etc.

Joel Shaffer wrote: Also, Kendi is not a Critical Race Theorist, but rather an activist historian. Now he may have been influenced by a few of CRT’s elements but he does not use Critical Race Theory tools or a framework in his writings.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was aware that unlike Crenshaw, Kendi is not considered one of the authors of CRT, but even though I haven’t read Kendi at all, I’ve heard enough (perhaps distorted in the telling), so that I figured that much of what he wrote and said were influenced by principles of CRT. Since you have read him and say he is not, I stand corrected.

Joel Shaffer wrote: book I’d encourage everyone to read is Black Liberation Through the Marketplace: Hope, Heartbreak and the Promise of America written by Rachel Ferguson and Marcus Wilcher.

Thank you for this suggestion. If I get an opportunity to spend the time, I’ll check this out.