Montana Church Pledges to Leave SBC Over ERLC's Promotion of Social Justice at MLK Conference

We are certainly never to encourage evils like racism, etc. However, do we, as believers in Christ, “link arms” with theological heretics in order to prove a point? Todd Friel, like this church in Montana, does not think so. He has an interesting segment on YouTube titled “John Piper Questions MLK’s Theology at MLK Event.”

I’m listening to the church’s sermon about the matter, and the simple fact is that the preacher is not working from much evidence. He is rather assuming his conclusion, that the concepts of social justice require an abandonment of the Gospel.

Now this much is true; at the conference, the SBC does in fact partner with a number of pastors and leaders that they might not ordinarily partner with. I don’t see clear names of heretics like T.D. Jakes there (prosperity theology and modalism), but I would guess that if I looked deeply into each church’s doctrine, I’d see some things that would contradict SBC doctrine.

If this didn’t have anything to do with the SBC’s past actions, I’d say “OK, just separate from them.” But the simple fact here is that the reasons blacks live and worship (for the most part) separately from whites have everything to do with white churches, especially the SBC. Being on the wrong side of the argument for over three centuries is going to leave a mark, and problems in predominantly black churches often have an unmistakable mark going back to the SBC, the Southern Methodists, the Southern Presbyterians, and so on.

And as such, it becomes important for the SBC to reach out across some of these lines and make amends—it’s the Biblical tradition of atonement, repeated in Micah 6:8. So while certainly those arguing for social justice can and do make errors, I think history tells us on the “pigmentally impaired” side of the equation that we have an obligation to reach out. Not carte blanche for “the other side”, but we are required to reach out.

Churches would do better to just focus on preaching and proclaiming the Gospel in their communities, and leave the virtue signaling to the celebrities. Just preach the Gospel to everybody, no matter who they are, where they come from, or what their ethnicity is, and let Christ handle the reconciliation. That’s the beauty of the body of Christ; we’re all brothers and sisters. We ought to look through that lens; not a lens of culturally infected, time-bound racial and ethic tinted glasses.

I am personally convinced that the political left obsesses over identity politics. It concerns me to see Russell Moore doing the same. Our church and school are just a few miles north of Detroit. I grew up as a boy on the Southside of Chicago. We have all ethnicities in our church and school. They get along great. We do not obsess about race and I think it is unwise to do so. Such obsession only breeds division and hatred. Tyler’s comment is very helpful. The Gospel will do more to end racial tension than all the social engineering advocated by various left-wing groups. What all ethnic groups need in America socially is a strengthening of the nuclear family and advocating for fathers to get married before they become fathers, stay in the home, and raise their sons and daughters with dignity and respect. The gospel will help with this social need more than anything. Social engineering which makes it easier for fathers to abandon their families causes great harm. This has been going on for 60 years and we see the horrific results.

I guessed that it was Hall’s church, then I clicked to the article and was not surprised!

The pastor of this church, Jordan Hall was getting all emotional for nothing over his misunderstanding of the MLK50 conference and the SBC. No one was adding racial justice to the gospel, even when they say that racial justice is a gospel issue. The apostle Paul apparently viewed racial issues as a gospel issue (“not acting lin line with the truth of the gospel) in his letter to the Galatians. In Gal 2:11-14 Paul confronts Peter when Peter refuses to eat with the Gentiles so that he does not offend certain Jewish Christians, which led many other Jewish Christians to do the same. I’ve read and heard several of the speakers at the conference and all of them, including Moore, work out of the assumption that racial justice is a vital implication of the gospel, rather than part of the gospel. Pastor Hall is aiming his apostasy guns at the wrong evangelical target. Unfortunately his misunderstanding leads to slander.

Churches would do better to just focus on preaching and proclaiming the Gospel in their communities, and leave the virtue signaling to the celebrities. Just preach the Gospel to everybody, no matter who they are, where they come from, or what their ethnicity is, and let Christ handle the reconciliation. That’s the beauty of the body of Christ; we’re all brothers and sisters. We ought to look through that lens; not a lens of culturally infected, time-bound racial and ethic tinted glasses.

Its a good thing that Paul didn’t just preach the gospel and let Christ handle the reconciliation (Gal 2:11-14). No, he called out a racial sin that had to be confronted because ultimately it was a gospel issue. Unfortunately, certain Christians are often blind to racial sin and when Christians actually look to confront it, they are criticized for advocating a social gospel or embracing identity politics or Christian leftist politics.

[JohnBrian]

I guessed that it was Hall’s church, then I clicked to the article and was not surprised!

I have nothing to repent for, when it comes to racial injustice. Nothing. Thabiti Anyabwile’s article is irresponsible, as are his follow-up ones. This is a worldview divide, Joel. I just don’t agree with you.

Paul rebuked Peter for his racist attitude towards Gentiles, which was characteristic of the version of Judaism the Pharisees were pushing during that time. However, he rebuked Peter specifically, in response to a specifically sinful attitude he had. I have nothing to repent for, regarding racial injustice. To be sure, some people do, and they ought to repent. There is nothing in the NT which calls people to repent of things they haven’t done.

The only true reconciliation comes in the body of Christ, where people from any tribe, tongue, people and nation can come for perfect forgiveness, reconciliation, atonement and adoption into God’s family. There is no black, white, brown, yellow, slave, free, Greek or Jew in the body of Christ - there are only brothers and sisters. The Gospel frees us from the chains of sin, and provides us with the life-giving message to proclaim to others, so they can be free, too. So, in summary:

I look at the MLK conference, and I see little but virtue signaling by evangelical celebrities who wish to be seen as “woke” by an increasingly confused, rudderless, ideologically bankrupt, biblically illiterate and culturally compromised constituency.

How’s that for a controversial statement? I suggest folks read Doug Wilson’s recent article on this matter. I preached this past Sunday from Leviticus 1, and worshipped the Lord with white people, brown people, and people of all sorts of colors. The color and ethnicity is meaningless to me - all I see are Christians. That’s the narrative we ought to push; freedom and identity in Christ, not the color of your skin. The Apostle Peter learned his lesson well, and told us what our true self-identity is (1 Pet 2:4-10). We ought to listen.

Did you listen to the sermons and the panel discussions from the conference? If not, how can you judge the motive that it is “virtue signaling by evangelical celebrities who wish to be seen as “woke” by an increasingly confused, rudderless, ideologically bankrupt, biblically illiterate and culturally compromised constituency?”

Regarding Anyabile’s column, it’s mirrored in this column by my great uncle, Kenneth L. Dixon, who was at Ole Miss when it was forcibly integrated. Here’s a bit more on Uncle Kenny. Another historical reference about him is that into the 1950s and 1960s, his native Colchester IL—way north of the Mason-Dixon—had street signs warning blacks to leave before dark.

As you read this, do not forget for a minute that this kind of thing is remembered deeply by our black neighbors. If we want to undo the damage that was done by no less than three close to four centuries of being on the wrong side of the race issue—remember that BJU only ended its interracial dating policy 18 years ago—we cannot be ignorant of this kind of thing. As Joel notes, Paul came down hard on Jewish-Gentile hostility for a very good reason, and we ought to do the same for our society’s besetting sins.

Kenneth L. Dixon, “Courthouse Square Is Authentic Picture of Occupied Town.”The Meridian (Mississippi) Star, October 2, 1962.

IN OCCUPIED OXFORD, Miss.-This dateline is no joke.

Oxford is occupied—as thoroughly as any occupied town I saw on foreign soil in World War II.

By dawn today, the campus at Ole Miss appeared to contain more soldiers than students. A huge bivouac stretched from the grove in the Lyceum building on down toward the main entrance.

Out at the Oxford-University airport a much larger encampment was stretched out along the ground lining both sides of the single strip runway.

Already an Army field kitchen was set up, starting to serve breakfast to the troops. It had come in during the night, along with the hundreds of other military units that poured steady streams into this town that has become the center of the nation’s and the world’s attention.

When the sun came up, the campus had been almost cleared of the skeletons of burned cars and trucks, but the broken glass and stones still remained to remind all of the terror of the night before last.

A vagrant breeze still brought traces of tear gas—some of which was exploded last night when the troops saw any sign of a crowd gathering in the area of Baxter Hall where Negro James Meredith became the first member of his race to officially spend the night on the Ole Miss campus as a student.

He spent the night there—but whether he slept or not is anybody’s guess.

And Wilson? Let’s just say that I’m pretty much done with him after he more or less used brass knuckles on Rachael Denhollander and Boz Tchividjian when she recommended Boz as an independent examiner for the SGM issues. Calling Boz an “ambulance chaser” when he is in fact one of the Church’s foremost experts on child sexual abuse is just way out of line. This is especially the case when we consider several years after the wedding in dispute, court documents indicated the groom still had sexual urges for children. No amount of self-defense by Wilson (“the court encouraged it”) can hide the fact that Boz nailed it in that case.

Never mind Wilson’s publication of a plagiarized document, Southern Slavery; as it was, ahem. If you want a demonstration that we in the North need to come to grips with this stuff, look at the copyright date. Look around your church for BJU grads who attended while the interracial dating ban was still in place. Relatively young people observed this in person, not through reading history books.

I disagree with the way the entire conference was framed. I see its stated purpose …

The 50th anniversary of King’s tragic death marks an opportunity for Christians to reflect on the state of racial unity in the church and the culture. It creates the occasion to reflect on where Christians have been and look ahead to where we must go as we pursue racial unity in the midst of tremendous tension.

… as amorphous, vague, subjective and too non-specific to mean much of anything. What, exactly, does this mean? What do people want? What, specifically, must be done? When will this be accomplished? How will it be accomplished? What’s the endgame? The truth is there is no endgame. There is only identity politics, employed in the body of Christ for no real purpose.

Two points to remember, then I’ll bow out of this one:

1. Self-identity is rooted in Christ, not race. The Apostle Peter assured Christians that they all, whoever they are and wherever they come from, all part of His holy nation, a chosen people; His royal priests (see 1 Pet 2:9-10). That’s our self-identity.
2. We’re responsible for our own individual sins. We cannot repent for things we didn’t specifically do. I have nothing to apologize for, and no fences to mend when it comes to racial conflict. Perhaps someone, way back in my family tree, does. If so, I hope he did repent. That has nothing to do with me. We’re responsible for our own sins, not our ancestor’s sins, or our secular nation’s errors in days gone by.

This is why I believe anyone who agrees with the way the way the MLK conference framed this issue is, basically, out of line. This conference, and its aftermath, is virtue signaling. It accomplishes nothing for ordinary people. It does nothing for ordinary Christians.

I’d rather preach the Gospel, proclaim the reconciliation Christ brings to anyone who comes to Him, and leave the secular identity politics to the celebrities. Life is too short.

As I read that statement, a simple question comes into my mind. Are racial and ethnic minorities in my town being attracted to my church? If they are not, there may be reasons that we can deal with. Is the past behavior of my church a stumbling block for these groups? If so, public repentance might be wise.

No argument that our true identity is in Christ, and that our perceived identity ought to be primarily as the same. That noted, Paul did not need to rebuke Peter because Peter’s perceived identity in Christ always trumped his identity as a Jew. Paul did not need to say that there was no Jew nor Greek in Christ in Galatians 3:28 because the early church could simply assume the racial divide was automatically healed.

Really, it’s a simple question of whether the groups—tribes, nations—in your town (Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:10) are being offended by the Gospel, or whether they are being offended, or have been offended, by us. If there is evidence they’ve been offended by us—nearly four centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, interracial dating bans and the like qualifies, don’t you think?—then a fairly open-ended investigation of what went wrong and how we can overcome it is in order. We cannot simply assume that because the minorities that are already with us are not complaining, that nothing is wrong.

Tyler, you have made several accusations of identity politics about the racial reconciliation movement within evangelicalism as if this strand of conservative evangelicalism created another copycat of secular thinking and applied it to race issues. Fortunately, this was not at all the case. First, racial reconciliation is a complete foreign term among those who advocate identity politics. I know this because of the nature of my work dealing with social workers, educators, and community organizers, I’ve had several arguments with those believe in identity politics and I have been attacked for using the term along with its goal of unity between blacks and whites. They are on two completely different tracks.

To give you a history lesson, the term Racial Reconciliation was born out of the life and ministry of a black evangelical evangelist/civil rights leader by the name of John M. Perkins. At the height of a boycott that he was leading in a rural Mississippi town in 1970, Perkins was thrown in jail and brutally attacked and tortured by White Police officers It took him a couple years to recover and during that time he reflected on what had happened. The white police officers that brutalized him were all faithful attenders/members in the local Baptist and Presbyterian churches and the gospel that was preached to them may have reconciled them to God, but ethically did nothing to reconcile them to their black brothers and sisters in Christ. The concept of Racial Reconciliation was born out of love that Perkins began to show towards “the white enemy” that almost killed him. Before the beating, his ministry and gospel preaching was entirely focused on poor black Mississippians. But in the early 1970’s he began to advocate the unity we have in Christ based on the reconciling work of Jesus and the need for black and white believers to develop deep, intentional relationships of love in demonstrating that reconciliation. Within developing these relationships between blacks and whites, Perkins recognized the need for repentance (both individual and corporate) in this process. From the early 1970’s and on, Perkins became one of the leading Christian voices in evangelicalism speaking on race issues and the gospel, especially when he began to write books. Tyler, you may not believe that the concept of corporate repentance is Biblical based on your understanding of scripture (which I get) but it is grossly mistaken to mistake Perkins and others for somehow using it as an identity politics tool to manufacture white guilt, especially since the racial reconciliation movement among evangelical Christians preceded the growth of Identity Politics movement by at least a decade. Perkins is a man of the Bible. When he read the book of Lamentations, along with the prophets of the OT, and Nehemiah, he applied the model of corporate repentance to the racial issues at hand (I get it that you probably don’t agree with his hermeneutics) By the way, Perkins sees repentance as a two-way street. Perkins’ books and many other evangelicals’ books by other authors such as Breaking Down Walls and More than Equals have not fallen into the lie that identity politics crafted that somehow black people can never be racists The book Breaking down Walls attacked that secular thinking in the early 1990’s.

By the way, Dr. Perkins and many others within the Racial Reconciliation movement would wholeheartedly agree with you that our self-identity is rooted in Christ and not race. In fact, Dr. Perkins has mentioned this throughout many of his books. His newest book (and probably his last because he is 87 years old now) is called “One Blood: Parting Words to the Church on Race.” he lays the foundation of Racial Reconciliation by deconstructing the concept of “Race” because there is only a single human race. According to one reviewer, “Perkins explains that we are descendants of Adam—all nations were created of “one blood”—and the church as a redeemed people who stand on level ground because of the “one blood” of Christ. Again and again, Perkins calls the church back to this “one blood” identity as the foundation for biblical reconciliation. As he does so, an important message emerges: The church must reckon with its past. For many, reconciliation seems needlessly mired in yesterday’s mistakes and troubles; according to Perkins, there is no other way. “We must go back before we can go forward.” Which is why he insists that we revisit the notion of “race” itself. Citing relevant passages of Scripture (Gen. 1:26; Mal. 2:10; Acts 17:26) as well as the research of Dave Unander, professor of biology at Eastern University (and author of Shattering the Myth of Race: Genetic Realities and Biblical Truths), Perkins argues that race as commonly understood does not exist. From the unified perspective of biology, history, and Scripture, there is only one human race. Indeed, “race as we know it today is mostly a social theory that was devised and refined over the centuries to serve the economic and religious goals of a majority culture, first in European territory, then later in America.”(although I would also argue that it has been co-opted by many within the minority culture in order to leverage power) Our job, then, is to discern ways the American church has “color-coded” Christianity on the basis of the myth of “race” and allowed cultural prejudices to creep into our understanding of the Bible.”

Why am I sharing the story of Dr. Perkins? Because he was one of the main participants in the MLK 50 conference. He laid the foundation for Biblical Racial Reconciliation. He is the one Russell Moore and others from Gospel Coalition looks to rather than identity politics. If you want to see Christians actually using and abusing identity politics, go check out the Red Letter Christians website. Check out Sojourners!. There are plenty of articles from both progressive evangelical groups that show how deep the secular thinking has penetrated their worldviews (especially as they advocate for sexual minorities). My question for you and others who so quickly agree with your shallow assessment is what have you read from different evangelical authors about Biblical Racial Reconciliation? If you haven’t done any of the research and haven’t interacted with authors such as Perkins you are not really equipped to make such harsh judgments because all they really add up to is an identity politics/white guilt strawman argument. Which brings me to what I will be addressing in Part 2 (that you used Anyabile’s column as an umbrella representation of the MLK 50 conference, when he wasn’t even a speaker there).

I am behind on a few projects so I probably won’t get to part 2 response until tomorrow.