Why Southern Baptists’ Social Justice Spat Is Actually About the Sufficiency of Scripture
“The Founders documentary trailer uncovers a larger disagreement over how to approach secular theories around race and gender.” - Christianity Today
- 8 views
Does anyone on SI disagree with Ascol’s statements regarding the necessity to personally experience certain cultural identities before being qualified to declare the Bible’s teaching on race or gender roles?
G. N. Barkman
No, nobody disagrees with that.
That has never been been the problem with the Founders trailer. Anyone that tells you otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about or is deceived / lying. Period.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
is about Rachel Denhollander…
It’s not that simple, but yes, that’s part of it.
The meta-issue is the juxtaposition of handling of sexual abuse/rape with the rise and use of critical race theory and intersectionality within the SBC. Everyone I’ve seen or spoken with opposes CRT/I in varying degrees, as I do. All of us are horrified at what this trailer did.
Matt Chandler was also misrepresented when his discussion about ‘outside authorities’ was used to indicate powers outside of the church; those powers and principalities were identified with Denhollander. Akin and Mohler both asked that the footage they granted for the cine-doc be completely removed from the project, so there’s something going on there. Dwight McKissic has repeatedly asked that they remove him and his comments, but Founders has so far refused to do so or even respond to him (the last I knew). It’s a real mess.
CrossPolitic has made it very clear that they consider Denhollander a part of Satanic “principalities and powers”, and James White confirmed that when he spoke with Chocolate Knox (David Shannon, one of the trailer editors) on the phone last Monday. You can listen to that conversation starting at the 1:10:54 mark of his podcast (actual discussion is somewhere around 1:14).
The bottom line is that the people at CrossPolitic decided to explictly link sexual abuse reporting and other accompanying issues to the threat of CRT/Intersectionality within the SBC. They’ve been exceedingly clear that was what they intended to do. Doug Wilson has also come out and defended it as well, linking RD to Demonic “powers and principalities”. All of this is coming out of Moscow, ID, and they have been very clear about it.
That’s why this is a big deal. It’s also very disturbing that so much of the media coverage whether in the Federalist article or this article from Christianity Today really doesn’t talk about that. Instead, they represent it as something that it’s not (like the sufficiency of Scripture).
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The point of the movie, i suspect, is that SBC is drifting in the direction of using “authorities” other than Scripture to rule over the church. For example, using Critical Race Theory as an analytical tool. More challenging, using outside “abuse counsel” in how to handle abuse in the church. Chandler said we need outside experts, Founders disagree. That is why what he said is germane.
Should it be shocking if we say we might want to understand a culture in order to contextualize it for the hearers? Let’s be blunt here; there are numerous places in the New Testament where Jewish practices are explained for the Gentile readers. We’ve all, when being taught about the Pauline response to meat sacrificed to idols, had it explained that for anyone who wasn’t rich in the Roman era, the main source of meat was the leftovers from idol sacrifices. No? Reality is that the doctrine of Biblical authority and sufficiency is not contradictory to the use of historical and other sources to better understand Scripture; it is, rather, two sides of the same coin. Or have you put white-out on all the translators’ notes and commentary in your Bible, and have you ripped out the concordance and maps? We all use outside authorities, and the question is simply which ones we use.
Regarding the kerfuffle, of course it has something to do with flashing a picture of Rachael Denhollander while noting “principalities and powers” are opposed to us. Do we need to spell this out in big bold letters so people will understand the dig at her and others who think fundagelicalism needs to get some perspective?
We might also note that taking cheap shots like this—I don’t believe it’s an “accident” for a moment, as these guys have been pretty clear in their other communications—is generally a confession that one’s arguments are not very strong. I agree with them in this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
So here is the Resolution that Founders says is leading towards the Social Gospel.
ON CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND INTERSECTIONALITY
WHEREAS, Concerns have been raised by some evangelicals over the use of frameworks such as critical race theory and intersectionality; and
WHEREAS, Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience; and
WHEREAS, Critical race theory and intersectionality have been appropriated by individuals with worldviews that are contrary to the Christian faith, resulting in ideologies and methods that contradict Scripture; and
WHEREAS, Evangelical scholars who affirm the authority and sufficiency of Scripture have employed selective insights from critical race theory and intersectionality to understand multifaceted social dynamics; and
WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith and Message states, “[A] ll Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” (Article I); and
WHEREAS, General revelation accounts for truthful insights found in human ideas that do not explicitly emerge from Scripture and reflects what some may term “common grace”; and
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
WHEREAS, Scripture contains categories and principles by which to deal with racism, poverty, sexism, injustice, and abuse that are not rooted in secular ideologies; and
WHEREAS, Humanity is primarily identified in Scripture as image bearers of God, even as biblical authors address various audiences according to characteristics such as male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free; and
WHEREAS, The New Covenant further unites image bearers by creating a new humanity that will one day inhabit the new creation, and that the people of this new humanity, though descended from every nation, tribe, tongue, and people, are all one through the gospel of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:16; Revelation 21:1–4, 9–14); and
WHEREAS, Christian citizenship is not based on our differences but instead on our common salvation in Christ—the source of our truest and ultimate identity; and
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention is committed to racial reconciliation built upon biblical presuppositions and is committed to seeking biblical justice through biblical means; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, June 11–12, 2019, affirm Scripture as the first, last, and sufficient authority with regard to how the Church seeks to redress social ills, and we reject any conduct, creeds, and religious opinions which contradict Scripture; and be it further
RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the gospel of Jesus Christ alone grants the power to change people and society because “he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:6); and be it further
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists will carefully analyze how the information gleaned from these tools are employed to address social dynamics; and be it further
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches and institutions repudiate the misuse of insights gained from critical race theory, intersectionality, and any unbiblical ideologies that can emerge from their use when absolutized as a worldview; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we deny any philosophy or theology that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified as sinful in Scripture rather than the transcendent reality shared by every image bearer and divinely affirmed distinctions; and be it further
RESOLVED, That while we denounce the misuse of critical race theory and intersectionality, we do not deny that ethnic, gender, and cultural distinctions exist and are a gift from God that will give Him absolute glory when all humanity gathers around His throne in worship because of the redemption accomplished by our resurrected Lord; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptist churches seek to exhibit this eschatological promise in our churches in the present by focusing on unity in Christ amid image bearers and rightly celebrate our differences as determined by God in the new creation.
More challenging, using outside “abuse counsel” in how to handle abuse in the church. Chandler said we need outside experts, Founders disagree. That is why what he said is germane.
It is not germane if Chandler is talking about experts on abuse and Founders made it appear as though he’s talking about the use of liberal theology like CRT/I, which is what they did. They did not provide the context for Chandler’s discussion - others found the full discussion and noted the disparity.
Founders didn’t put the video together. CrossPolitic did, and they’ve publicly defended the juxtaposition.
When you refer to ‘outside experts’, what are you referring to? I think there’s some cross-talk going here.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
knew the context who was paying attention!
This isn’t about theological liberalism. It is about using authorities other than the church. The video isn’t just about CRT/I. It is about the broader movement of the Powers that Be in the SBC drifting towards using the guidelines of socially and culturally liberal groups to control it. A cultural liberal and a theological liberal are two different animals.
It continues to fascinate me how many Christians are OK with lying and slander because of incipient liberalism.
It is about the broader movement of the Powers that Be in the SBC drifting towards using the guidelines of socially and culturally liberal groups to control it.
So then answer my questions:
- Was what Cross Politic did acceptable to Rachael Denhollander, Matt Chandler, and others?
- Is your position actually what CrossPolitic / Wilson said - that the use of the police and courts in reporting sex abuse part of demonic “Powers and Principalities”?
- How would you handle a report of domestic violence or rape?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
What does any of this have to do with CRT, and aren’t there better things for Christians to do than follow a social media train-wreck like so many groupies at a Stones concert?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
What does any of this have to do with CRT, and aren’t there better things for Christians to do than follow a social media train-wreck like so many groupies at a Stones concert?
The whole fury is about Founders’ trailer, which said that CRT/I and the handling of sexual abuse is part of an evil world system / liberalism that is creeping into the SBC.
Doug Wilson seems to be the only person defending this idea in writing (Cross Politic did a podcast), so I’ll link to him:
But in an unbelieving law order, when the principalities and powers are allowed to have it their way, guilt and innocence is assigned on the basis of an assumed status. If you are in the approved class, then evidence is not necessary. If you are in the disapproved class, then evidence won’t help you.
This is the heart and soul of identity politics. You already know who the good guys are, and you already know who the bad guys are, and you are in a position to dispense with fussy little things like trials, evidence, and the rule of law.
In a Christian system, justification and condemnation follow the trial and are assigned on the basis of evidence. In identity politics, justification is granted to certain classes of people. This is why they know who the victims before any evidence has been presented in open court. They already know. And this is what befuddles Christians who think like Christians. Sure, we say. We ought to rally behind the victims, but don’t we have to find out who the real victim is?
No. In a Christian system, the trial tells you who the actual victim is. In an unbelieving system, the principalities and powers tell you who the victim is. A woman accuses a man of rape. If the accusation is true, then she is the victim. If the accusation is false, then he is. Christian await the outcome of the trial. But in our current climate, she is the designated victim, which is why their rallying cry can be something like “believe the woman.”
This is not a trifle. We are standing at a crossroads, and the two roads lead to two completely different kinds of civilization. In one of them, the Lordship of Christ is acknowledged. In the other, the principalities and powers already know who the culprits are. And if I might be so bold, if you are white, heterosexual and male, I would urge you to think twice about going that way. And, lest anybody pounce on that, I would also urge everybody else to follow their example.
Conclusion
So I have no problem with Rachael Denhollander being removed from the trailer, because that commotion really was a distraction. But I hope and pray that she and her misguided approach are going to be in the full documentary. And why?
Because she has been urging people to utilize the resources of GRACE, headed up by Boz, who is now part of the legal team suing Village Church. Who is Boz appealing to? What court is he resorting to? He is appealing to the principalities and powers.
And Rachael contributed to (and endorses) a book Becoming a Church That Cares Well, and in that book we find the sheer authority of the principalities and powers affirmed. You believe the victim because the powers that be have kindly informed us beforehand who the designated and approved victims are.
Here it is:
“Regardless of whether the victim wants to take steps to pursue safety, there are two powerful things you can do as a ministry leader. First you can believe the victim. ‘Innocence until proven guilty’ is the appropriate legal standard, but you are a ministry leader, not a judge or investigator” - Cares Well, p. 87
And so in conclusion, Joel McDurmon is not paying close enough attention to the real game. Of course real men apologize when they are wrong. Of course it is not effeminate to seek restoration of a relationship when you have damaged it. But it is unmanly to get woke. It is unmanly to try to give back to the principalities and powers what the Lord Jesus wrested from them in His resurrection.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay, What part of Wilson’s argument is wrong or misleading? That’s what I keep trying to understand from you.
[Jay]It continues to fascinate me how many Christians are OK with lying and slander because of incipient liberalism.
It is about the broader movement of the Powers that Be in the SBC drifting towards using the guidelines of socially and culturally liberal groups to control it.
So then answer my questions:
- Was what Cross Politic did acceptable to Rachael Denhollander, Matt Chandler, and others?
- Is your position actually what CrossPolitic / Wilson said - that the use of the police and courts in reporting sex abuse part of demonic “Powers and Principalities”?
- How would you handle a report of domestic violence or rape?
0. I don’t appreciate being called a liar and a slanderer. Not right of you at all, sir.
1. CrossPolitic… don’t know them from Adam. If you want to know why they did something, ask them. You are deliberately being obtuse, Jay, so that you can complain and criticize. Why did the video bring up Denhollander? Because she is an outside force trying to influence the church. Why Chandler? Because in the linked video he said the church isn’t good enough to handle certain situations. The point of the video is that the church is equipped to handle any situation. Agree/Disagree with that conclusion, but at least acknowledge that is their position. That is why the video is called “By What Standard.”
2. Honestly, I think they are using the term “powers and principalities” in a metaphorical way to mean something akin to “the establishment”. But, hey, what do I know. Now, the FOUNDERS ARE NOT SAYING do not report abuse. Come on….
3. The nanosecond I hear about rape/abuse I report it to the police or to child services, etc. Period.
over who controls the convention. There is a new group of leaders running the SBC right now. Some things they are doing right, imho. Other things they are relying on worldly opinions and worldviews. I have written some on various threads here are SI. For example, the official SBC leadership response to sexual abuse is odd, imho. They say that sexual abuse is widespread. That is the word they used. Now to me widespread means something like “common” or “everywhere.” The fix, they say, is education. They are playing the “we know you didn’t know what abuse was, so here we are telling you.” This is patently ridiculous and is 100% self-serving of the leadership. EVERYONE KNOWS what abuse is. A 15 year old cannot be a youth pastor’s “girlfriend.” A pastor doesn’t just “make a mistake” with a counselee. On the flip side, why do too many of our youth think being a girlfriend/boyfriend includes sexual activity? The entire system is broken, and an entire generation of leadership supervised it. IF ABUSE IS THAT WIDESPREAD then heads need to role from pastor, deacon, elder all the way up to president. But they didn’t call for that. It is nonsense what they are claiming.
Continuing with sex abuse, several high profile lawsuits involving suing the church for coverups. When you look into them I am not sure that is what happened.
When it comes to CRT, one seminary in particular, though the presidents of the others seem accepting, is promoting the use if CRT to analyze the American church. This is going nowhere good, and it is quite frankly shocking that otherwise solid theological leaders would fall for this.
All of these topics are why the FOUNDERS made the video.
Discussion