Gospel-Grace-Glory: An Examination of G3 Ministries
Image
By Jonathan W. Peters
Conferences
Josh Buice, pastor of Pray’s Mill Baptist Church in Douglasville, GA, started the G3 (Gospel-Grace-Glory) Conference in 2013 to assist local church pastors. Buice intended this theology conference to “focus on God’s Word as opposed to the pragmatism and techniques that are so often the focus of evangelical conferences.”
Speakers at G3 Conferences generally come from the Reformed evangelical world, and include Buice, Steven Lawson (OnePassion Ministries), Voddie Baucham (African Christian University), Joel Beeke (Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary), Tim Challies, Paul Washer (HeartCry Missionary Society), Conrad Mbewe (ACU), David Miller, James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries), Phil Johnson (Grace to You Ministries), Tom Ascol (Founders Ministries), Mike Riccardi, Owen Strachan (Grace Bible Theological Seminary), Tom Buck, and Scott Aniol. Some of these have also spoken at Together for the Gospel conferences, but as T4G was coming apart (disbanded eventually in 2022), they have coalesced around G3 and John MacArthur’s ministries. These combined networks (mostly of a Baptist stripe) might be considered the largest, most conservative branch of the old New Calvinist movement (Buice, incidentally, edited a book on New Calvinism in 2017, with contributions by Washer, Lawson, Mbewe, and Challies).
Worship music at G3 Conferences has ranged from traditional hymnody to modern pop hymns, such as those composed by the Gettys, Jordan Kauflin, Stuart Townend, Matt Boswell, and Matt Merker. Bob Kauflin (Director of Sovereign Grace Music) has led the worship (just as he did at T4G), and at least for the 2021 National Conference, has also had a pop-rock band with him. Kauflin moreover moderated a discussion on congregational singing at a G3 pre-conference (2020). The Q&A panel also included Aniol, Devon Kauflin, Keith Getty, Phillip Webb, and Chris Anderson.
Ministries
In 2020, G3 “transitioned into a 501(c)(3) organization under the name G3 Ministries.” Its “purpose is to educate, encourage, and equip local churches with sound biblical theology for the glory of God.” The following year, G3 released their application for the G3 Church Network. As the network website states:
The goal of the G3 Church Network is to be a ministry connection point for pastors and local churches. Our aim is to engage in joyful ministry together for the glory of God. However, our goal is not to become a denomination, nor is it our desire to encourage others to separate from all other networks in order to join the G3 Church Network. We are not mutually exclusive to other networks and denominations.
In order to become a member of this network, pastors must affirm The London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Dallas Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel (G3 does allow some exceptions), and also give $500 per year for their churches to be members.
Also during 2021, G3 took on the Just Thinking Podcast by Darrell Harrison and Virgil Walker (now the Executive Director of Operations), and Aniol joined G3 Ministries as the Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief. Aniol was formerly of Religious Affections Ministries and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and he wrote the following on RAM on September 1, 2021:
With my move to G3 Ministries, we will be ceasing any further development of Religious Affections Ministries. In many ways the objective of the two ministries are the same, and so I will continue with the same goals at G3, though with a broader platform and support. We are going to leave the current website content available for the foreseeable future so that it can continue to be a helpful resource. And as G3 Press gets started, we may move some of the Religious Affections Publications under that umbrella, including the hymnal. I will be blogging over at www.g3min.org/blogs/scott-aniol, and I will continue my By the Waters of Babylon podcast as well. You can expect to see many of the authors who have contributed to the Religious Affections site contributing as guest authors at G3 Ministries in the future, too, I’m sure.
As Aniol predicted, there are now a number of former RAM authors who post articles on G3, including Kevin Bauder (Central Baptist Theological Seminary), Jason Parker, David Huffstutler, Michael Riley, Ryan Martin, Taigen Joos (Vice Chairman of the Foundations Baptist Fellowship International), and David de Bruyn. Aniol, Joos, and de Bruyn have also published or sold books through G3 on conservative worship. Titles include Rejoicing in Christ, The Conservative Church, A Conservative Christian Declaration, Sound Worship, Worship in Song, and Hymns to the Living God.
Other books published by G3 Press include Just Thinking about the State (Harrison and Walker), Why Are You Afraid? (Harrison and Walker), Measuring the Music: Another Look at the Contemporary Christian Music Debate (John Makujina), The Word Matters: Defending Biblical Authority Against the Spirit of the Age (Dave Jenkins), and Stand: Christianity vs. Social Justice (Jon Benzinger). A number of these publications include endorsements from professing Christians, but the latter book also includes a published endorsement from atheist James Lindsay (founder of New Discourses and co-author of Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody; also interviewed by Buice in a 2021 G3 podcast). G3 also began an evangelical theological journal in 2022, titled Gloria Deo Journal of Theology.
As was referenced above, G3 Ministries also produces blogs and podcasts. The main G3 bloggers are Buice, Buck, Scott and Becky Aniol, Harrison, Walker, Chip Thornton, and Ben Zeisloft (The Daily Wire and Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia), who, beginning in May 2022, has published a G3 Weekly on “top news stories on Christianity and the public square,” similar to Al Mohler’s The Briefing. G3 has also published a handful of articles by Layton Talbert (Bob Jones University Seminary professor), and one article by Kevin Schaal (FBFI’s President and CEO). G3 podcasts mainly feature Buice, Aniol, Walker, and Harrison.
G3 books, articles, podcasts, and conference messages generally tackle issues confronting the modern Church from a conservative, Protestant worldview. Topics include worship, charismaticism, revival, social justice, critical race theory and the Black Lives Matter organization, abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, abuse, complementarianism, women preachers (such as Beth Moore), deconstructionism, education, COVID-19 and vaccinations, statism and totalitarianism (a number of G3 authors/speakers are also signers of The Frankfurt Declaration of Christian & Civil Liberties), The Chosen TV series, expositional preaching, and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Fundamentalism
Speaking of the SBC, Buice announced on January 4, 2022 that his church decided to leave the denomination. The church’s decision came due to “once trusted voices and institutions accept[ing] the ideologies of the social justice movement and platform notable voices within their hallways, classrooms, and conference circuits.” Buice noted that the SBC accepted Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality as legitimate “analytical tools” in 2019, and failed to “openly renounce” it in 2021. Buice also bemoaned that Danny Akin (president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Adam Greenway (president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) both supported Ed Litton for the SBC presidency (Litton has been accused of preaching with his wife and plagiarizing in the pulpit).
Since his departure from the SBC, Buice has published a series of articles on ecclesiastical associations and fundamentalism. In an article on “Your Associations and Partnerships Matter,” Buice said:
In my role as president of G3 Ministries, I have had to make the call to decline requests for specific ministries and educational institutions to be included in our exhibit hall at our national conference. We have had men speak in our conference in the past who are not invited back to the pulpit in our conferences for various reasons. If we welcome ministries into our exhibit hall or preachers to our pulpit, at some level it is perceived as us platforming those ministries and placing our seal of approval upon them. Due to these major fault lines, we have had to separate ourselves from specific ministries as a result of ongoing capitulation …
[W]e can partner with individuals with various differences of eschatology. If we are planting churches through a network, the level of agreement must be much closer in nature. In such cases, Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians will likely not be working together for church planting projects. However, if we are coming together in a conference setting, Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians who disagree on significant matters of doctrine can work together to preach the gospel and encourage local churches.
On October 11, 2022, Buice published another article, this time responding to critics who were using the word “fundamentalist” to “marginalize” opponents of social justice:
If such voices are left unchecked, it will mainstream the narrative that such groups are irrelevant or irrational in our present era of church history. An improper use of the term fundamentalism will create a false narrative that anyone who is opposed to critical race theory, intersectionality, or views Marxism as a threat to the church is merely an unlearned and overzealous right-winged Christian Nationalist who gleans theology from Tucker Carlson rather than Jesus Christ …
Depending upon the way the word is used, the label fundamentalist could actually be received as a compliment rather than a critique. If those who cast stones of criticism by using the term fundamentalist are referring to a steady opposition to theological error and a defense of the faith once delivered to the saints—I want to be called a fundamentalist.
If voices of criticism use fundamentalist as a descriptor of a person who opposes wokeness as an ideology that is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ—I will embrace the term with a glad heart. If critics employ the term fundamentalist to describe a person who is willing to divide from teachers, preachers, schools, conferences, and denominations over doctrines that pervert the church of Jesus Christ—I will gladly embrace the term fundamentalist.
Seven days later, Buice followed up with another post on “Discerning the Difference Between Theological Error and Heresy,” in which he discussed secondary issue and secondary separation:
While all heresy demands separation from God’s church, not all error demands the same type of separation. At every G3 National Conference, we enjoy rich fellowship between both Baptists and Presbyterians. In fact, there is an array of various traditions in attendance at the G3 Conference. We maintain a healthy fellowship as we come together under the grand banner of the gospel. Although we assemble in conferences together we remain separated on the Lord’s Day as we gather in the context of our local churches. This is what we refer to as secondary issue separation.
Secondary issue separation is not to be confused with “secondary separation” which is the general practice of separating from people who do not separate themselves from individuals or groups who have been classified as heretics or engaging in unrepentant sin.
Within the sphere of evangelicalism as a whole, there are voices that will critique you for not separating enough and other voices that will critique you for separating at any level. In recent years, G3 has been forced to separate from certain individuals and organizations who have chosen to take a different approach to social justice. In some cases, that has resulted in open critique of me personally (since I’m the president of G3). Some critics have labeled me as a purist or separatist or as I wrote in a recent post—a fundamentalist. Sometimes separation is a good thing, but it doesn’t always mean that by such separation we are anathematizing the person or organization. It’s a decision based on wisdom and the care of the local churches that we aim to serve.
Aniol followed a few days later with an article, “Is It Wrong to Separate from other Christians?”
Responses
1) Responses to G3 Ministries vary. There are a number of people who are quite pleased with the organization, as can be seen in the number of conference attendees, network churches, Facebook likes, and ministry partners. The first G3 conference in 2013 had about 750, and it grew to 5,600 people by 2020. By February 2023, the G3 network listed about 100 churches. Depending on the post, G3 has received over 600 likes on their Facebook page. To date, G3 Ministries also has five ministry partners: HeartCry Missionary Society, SolaSites, The Master’s Seminary and University, and BMA Seminary.
2) On the progressive side of things, SBC pastor Dwight McKissic has opposed Buice for leaving the SBC, saying: “I grieve over false accusations. I remain SBC for the reasons JB says he’s leaving. Jesus is liberal in his grace, generosity, & giving. We are to be like Him. The SBC is nowhere close to being liberal in a classical theological sense.” During a debate of CRT-lite in early 2021, Charlie Dates and McKissic both showed their contempt for Walker. The former said: “The Boondock had Uncle Ruckus. Now we have you [Walker].” McKissic applauded Dates by saying: “He’s [Dates] now being falsely accused by a Black man [Walker] who’s on a White man’s [Buice] payroll, of supporting a ‘godless philosophy.’” McKissic also broke fellowship with Buck in January 2021 after he (Buck) likened Vice President Kamala Harris to Jezebel for her “godless character.” Lastly, after the Dallas Statement came out in 2018, Jemar Tisby (author of The Color of Compromise) recommended that people should “avoid” the authors and the signers.
3) Some on the opposite side of the spectrum have voiced opposition to G3. J. D. Hall (the disqualified former head of Pulpit & Pen) critiqued G3 in 2019 for planning to share platforms with those who were purportedly denounced in the Dallas Statement for embracing social justice ideology. Hall was particularly distraught at Buice and Johnson planning to speak alongside David Platt, John Piper, and Mark Dever (who have, since then, not been invited back to G3).
4) As was noted above, some fundamentalists (Bauder, Huffstutler, Joos, Riley, Schaal, Talbert, etc.) have published articles/books through G3 Ministries, and some of these men will also appear with Aniol or Buice at upcoming fundamentalist conferences (The Conference on the Church for God’s Glory and the 2024 Worship Conference). This group of fundamentalists may not be comfortable with some of the other G3 conference speakers, book endorsers, etc., but they may believe that the leadership is moving in a positive direction, especially considering Buice’s break from the SBC and G3’s stand against CRT and egalitarianism. These fundamentalists therefore may want to assist G3 in any way that they can, and over time, maybe encourage it to embrace a more conservative position on worship and ecclesiastical associations.
Jonathan W. Peters is an administrative assistant at Reformation Bible Church and Harford Christian School in Darlington, MD.
- 3291 views
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.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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:
- 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.
- No race or group of people is purely an oppressor or a victim.
- 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.
- 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 Barnhart
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:
- 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!]
- 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).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t need to have an academic understanding of CRT and similar ideas/theories to understand that, according to the scripture:
- 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.
- No race or group of people is purely an oppressor or a victim.
- 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.
- 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.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion