Why Churches Go Woke: They Deny the Sufficiency of Scripture
“However, it is increasingly rare to find in the aforementioned issues of race-relations, LGTBQ+ narratives of identity, gender roles, etc., that the various systems of thought in place are under the domain of darkness. What I mean by that is the simple truth the apostle John expresses so clearly when he speaks to a present love of this world being incompatible with genuine faith (1 Jn. 2).” - Grayson Gilbert
The critique here is mostly true but reveals an important blind spot. What about the ideologically driven narratives on the right that are “under the domain of darkness”? Unbiblical “cultural dogma” is not unique to liberals and progressives. The ideological diseases on the right are a greater threat to conservatives.
The Left is not “the world” of 1 John 2:15 or 3:13. “The world” doesn’t fit into that box.
Also, as is often the pattern, “sufficiency of Scripture” is a convenient catch-all, but misses the point. The point—as the article does note in places—is that various claims of cultural dogma are contrary to the teaching of Scripture. This is where our focus should be, and sufficiency arguments aren’t a substitute for showing how biblical teaching rejects these ideas.
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 strikes me that Grayson Gilbert more or less lumps everything together, which is the classic “painting with a broad brush” fallacy. Sometimes if one believes a specific movement in theology is wrong, one ought to….say….address that specific movement and not try to tar it with other, unrelated issues. Also see “slippery slope fallacy.”
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The trouble with not lumping everything together is that more work is required. One of the main reasons I’m on a bit of a soap box about abuse of sufficiency arguments is that it’s often a way of saying “we don’t have to engage with actual claims.” So, “sufficiency” becomes a way of saying “we don’t need to look at any information other than the Bible.” This is not a flavor of sufficiency that Scripture claims for itself or encourages us to embrace… and it too easily becomes a way to avoid looking at what the “cultural orthodoxy” claims actually are, why they’re being made, and what Scripture says in response.
We’re called to be “harmless as doves”… but also “wise as serpents.” The many calls in the NT to be “sober” and “vigilant” and “beware” etc. also reference alertness to what’s really going on, not just to what is represented to be going on—represented by people who are in opposition at the group/tribe level.
There’s a need to get past the clash of tribes and look at the actual ideas. “What claims of Scripture are under assault and in what form?” is a completely different question from “What groups are we against?”
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.
Discussion