Condemning Racial Nationalism and the Alt-Right

If you don’t know, the Southern Baptist Convention is voting on a resolution to condemn White Supremacy. The vote was delayed because of the question of whether there should be a general condemnation of white supremacy or whether there should be a specific mention of the Alt-Right. The resolution that will be passed tonight will specifically mention the Alt-Right. I’m generally in favor of condemning both white supremacy and the Alt-Right. It’s a non-binding resolution and good PR. And once you raise the subject, one has to follow through.

My only criticism is that the Alt-Right is more of a White Nationalist movement than a White Supremacy movement. Most of the people who subscribe to the Alt-Right are concerned with protecting so-called “white identity” than elevating whites above other races. In this way, it’s no different from Black Nationalism. And just as Black Nationalism was a reaction to anti-black racism, White Nationalism is a reaction by a few to perceived anti-white racism. Both should be condemned.

The answer to perceived injustice is not to lurch together into racial or ethnic sectarianism. The Gospel message is about bringing the world together into one family under the Lordship of Jesus, in which differences exist but their value is equal and intermingling and appropriation is encouraged. As Paul taught in Galatians, we are to find our identity in Christ, not in our sectarianism.

N.T. Wright’s The Day the Revolution Began: A Review

The other day I finished reading N.T. Wright’s latest book, The Day the Revolution Began. It‘s about the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross and how God used it to transform the world. I was glad that Wright came out with this book; I’ve been struggling in the past few years to work out my understanding of the atonement. While at seminary I had abandoned the older theories, finding that they did not fully conform to Scripture. Since then I have been building up a more Scripture-conforming model, though, admittedly, there are different pieces that have yet to be connected. My hope was that Wright might help in the process. Being a long time reader of his, I always felt that his work on the atonement was the least formed and least articulated of his subjects.  Having read The Day the Revolution Began, I must admit that I found parts of the book confusing. I attempted to read several reviews of the book to see if these parts could be explained. Instead, I found that the reviewers were just as confused as I was about these parts. This made me feel better. But then I noticed that these same reviewers were confused by parts that I found perfectly clear. I’ll be honest: when I read his massive two-volume work on Paul and the Faithfulness of God, I made extensive notes and read the chapters on Romans numerous times. In fact, I actually had to read Wright’s two-volume Romans for Beginners (twice!) and several of his online lectures on the subject to begin to grasp what he was trying to say. Even then, it significantly helped that I already understood much of Wright’s theology. But when I did finally grasp the coherency of his argument, I found it quite compelling. Okay, I thought, I better reread this current book. So I did.

Just a few bits of Wright’s argument:

·         When Jesus was crucified something occurred that fundamentally changed the world.

·         The Fall of Man was more about the loss of humanity’s vocation in creation than a moral failure to a set of divine rules.

·         Sin is a specific result of idolatry.

·         When humans sin they give up the power of their God-given vocation and give it to the evils of the world.

·         The crucifixion of Jesus was what God had in mind to deal with sin and evil from the beginning when he called Abraham and made a covenant with him.

·         The sacrifice found in the Old Testament law was neither about the transfer of sin or guilt to the sacrifice nor the transfer of punishment to the sacrifice.

·         God used the Law (Torah) to draw sin and evil to Israel and ultimately to Christ. Sin/evil/darkness then did its worse upon Jesus, exhausting itself upon him.

·         When Jesus was crucified, God was punishing Sin, not Jesus.

·         Jesus’ death was an expression of loving self-sacrifice and obedience and an extension of the ethic he taught and practiced.

·         The result of the crucifixion was the forgiveness of sins.

·         The followers of Jesus got their atonement theology predominately from Jesus’ own interpretation of his death at the Last Supper where he combined it with the Passover/Exodus, the coming of the Kingdom of God, and the prophecies Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 24. When God raised Jesus from the dead it was proof that God had verified Jesus’ claims. The followers also added to this their understanding of what the prophecies predicted would happen when God returned to his people and began to consummate the age to come.

A few criticisms:

Wright still wants to use the traditional language of penal substitutionary atonement though he radically redefines it. While the radical redefinition of old concepts is an approach Wright has frequently noted in Jesus and in Paul I’m not sure if such an approach is valid today. It seems almost too misleading.

The application chapters at the end were a bit of a disappointment. But they always are. Wright is a brilliant theologian, scholar, and theologian but 1) he doesn’t understand economics, 2) he doesn’t understand American society very well, and 3) he plays it too safe in areas in which he could be more critical.  I blame BBC News.

Though considered a writing for a wide, popular audience I think this book is far more advanced that some of his other similar, popular works, and only those with a more advanced Scriptural understanding are going to appreciate the theology here. For those intrepid enough to try, I would recommend watching a number of N.T. Wright lectures on the subject of the Cross and the Atonement on Youtube.

Here are three short pieces to get you started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfnV69nIOrw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb8vSngZ-bg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8CY5iC_ww

“A Time to Heal …” (Ecclesiastes 3:3)

The Bible talks quite a bit both implicitly and explicitly about the subject of healing. We can read through its numerous stories, oracles, and poems about physical and mental healing, relational healing, the healing of the earth, healing humanity - all this and more, and then all ultimately accomplished in the death of Christ (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 1:24). Often you hear about Spiritual healing either from a preacher or other Christian individual. What do they mean by it? At the very least, spiritual healing involves a combination of the emotional, the mental, and the relational aspects of our selves. A case can be made that the spiritual (healing or otherwise) is more than this, but it certainly is not less. In terms of the relational, that can mean our relationship with God, with others, or with ourselves. But how is such healing accomplished?

It shouldn’t surprise us that God, the author of all things, works healing in similar ways through his creation. Consider some examples. Medical physicians will tell you that a wound cannot heal while there is still an infection. It’s the infection itself that prevents the healing. Professional counselors will tell you that the healing of an emotional wound in a relationship cannot begin while abusive behavior continues. In the same way, spiritual healing cannot occur until the cause of the spiritual wound has been dealt with. That cause is sin, bad behavior. And there are only two ways to deal with sin.

The first way is repentance, a turning away from bad, wounding behavior. There are many places in the Bible where God promises such healing if people turn from the behavior that is causing the wounding (2 Kings 20:5; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 19:22; Jeremiah 3:2; Hosea 6:1; 14:1, 4). Here are two examples:

“’AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM’” (Matthew 13:5, 15, cf. John 12:40; Acts 28:27).

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much” (James 5:16). Repentance brings healing. You can’t heal if what’s causing the wounds is still active. You can’t heal a situation if the same behavior continues. The person or persons who have inflicted the wound must turn away from their behavior. Any attempt at healing without repentance only draws attention to the unresolved, unrepentant behavior. In a relationship, whether the wounding party is a significant other, family member, friend, co-worker, church member, or pastor, he or she must admit that they have erred and seek to turn away from their error. If possible, they should make amends in order to show that they are serious about repenting. If such sin has become a pattern of behavior over a long period of time, he needs to go above and beyond to make amends in order to heal the relationship.

The second way is to remove the wounding person from the relationship. If the guilty party refuses to repent from their behavior, then one of the parties, either the victim or the abuser, needs to leave. This means either the abuser being removed or the victim leaving. This, again, is about stopping the wounding behavior so that healing can begin. And the practice of church discipline is a great model for dealing with unrepentant behavior (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13).

Healing is a wonderful thing. It redeems our lives. It makes us whole. God wants it. God expects it. And there is a practical process by which to bring it about.  If you want healing in your life, in a relationship, or in a church, someone either needs to repent or be separated.

Crisis in the Pot: Twelve Years Later

Crisis in the Pot: Twelve Years Later

In the late 70s and early 80s, when the SBC was still growing, conservatives claimed that a Conservative Resurgence and an expulsion of “moderates” would not only avoid a presumed decline but that an “evangelical harvest” would follow (the SBC leadership was to blame). In 1995, Thomas Ascol noted some disturbing underpinnings and raised the issue of a possible decline (Troubling Waters of Baptism) but incorrectly said Southern Baptists needed to adopt more conservative theology (the SBC seminaries and agencies were to blame). Thom Rainer claimed a crisis in 2005 but was defensive and at pains to try and prove it wasn’t the Conservative Resurgence that caused the problem (the SBC pastors and churches were to blame). On May 27, 2005, I wrote an article rejecting all of the previous theories about the decline, refuting the idea that the problem was principally a matter of doctrinal fidelity. I also predicted that the next level of blame would be that of individual Southern Baptists in the pews. Twelve years later …

The reason for the decline is there in the data. It was there 12 years ago, 22 years ago, 35 years ago, and it’s there today. I think Thom Rainer knows. The truth was on the edge of his report in 2005 and then on subsequent reports since.

Really, you can look at the data of a nation, a denomination, a church, and even an individual ministry, and not only identify growth patterns but determine the cause. However, the truth can be awkward.