To get an overview of the discussion initiated by MacArthur et al., one only needs to read the introduction and the statement on the Scriptures to ascertain their main concern. In that introduction, MacArthur and friends write the following:
Specifically, we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality. The Bible’s teaching on each of these subjects is being challenged under the broad and somewhat nebulous rubric of concern for “social justice.” If the doctrines of God’s Word are not uncompromisingly reasserted and defended at these points, there is every reason to anticipate that these dangerous ideas and corrupted moral values will spread their influence into other realms of biblical doctrines and principles.
We submit these affirmations and denials for public consideration, not with any pretense of ecclesiastical authority, but with an urgency that is mixed with deep joy and sincere sorrow. The rapidity with which these deadly ideas have spread from the culture at large into churches and Christian organizations—including some that are evangelical and Reformed—necessitates the issuing of this statement now.
Note that the concern expressed by MacArthur and others is over the impact that new cultural influences have had on the even religiously conservative Christians in America. Now when we add the following statement from the part on the Scriptures, we get a fuller idea of their concern, and even fear, MacArthur and friends are existentially experiencing:
WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching.
When we put these two quotes together, the first part of a broad picture becomes clearer. MacArthur et al. are worried about any impact that today's new cultural influences will have on the Church because these new influences can only act as a detriment the Church and the Gospel. In other words, MacArthur & friend are employing an all-or-nothing approach to their analysis of Post Modern ideologies. Thus, nothing from the new set of cultural values are to be accepted since they can only poison the minds of Christians first and all others second. What MacArthur and others are saying is that we already have all that we need to clearly see ourselves, our society, and our civilization.
What we should note from a Christian perspective is this: it's not that we should totally accept these new cultural influences, it is that we should not disagree with everything taught by these ideologies when these ideologies point out injustices being forced on people. For we know that the last of the Scriptures were written in the 1st century AD. Therefore, we have no specific authoritative teaching on how we should interpret Western Civilization, American History, and today's society. Instead, we have general principles that teach us how to see and react to the present and past worlds. But Romans 2 teaches us that some unbelievers can perform acts that are more righteous than what some believers are doing. So how is MacArthur biblically correct in rejecting everything that comes from Post Modernism and its social justice warriors?
Here it might be wise to adapt a Martin Luther King, Jr. statement made when he spoke against the Vietnam War when evaluating the approach taken by MacArthur and his brothers in arms (click here for the source):
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.Now what if we replaced the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank. We could then play a multi-way game in which we put each group to the same test. Do those writing Post Modern ideologies believe that they have everything to teach today's traditionalists and those from those traditionalists or the past? Do MacArthur and his writing partners believe that they have everything to teach Post Modernists and social justice warriors while having nothing to learn from them? And if the answer to this last question is 'yes,' how should MacArthur and friends react to Post Modernists who oppose racism, imperialism, colonialism, and sexism? Should they say that Post Modernists have no clue to what oppression and exploitation are, or should they carefully pay attention to see where Post Modernists might be making valid observations even if they disagree with the solutions they put forth.
If we believe in the Scriptures, then why not use the Scriptures to find where we can agree as well as disagree with points made by Post Modernists and social justice warriors?
The next thing we should note is that while many of the concerns expressed by MacArthur and associates have to do with the definition of a Christian, a Christian's salvation, and life in the Church, Post Modern ideologies are talking about the life we share with unbelievers in society. For MacArthur and others write the following in the part on Salvation we have:
WE DENY that salvation can be received in any other way. We also deny that salvation renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life. We further deny that ethnicity excludes anyone from understanding the gospel, nor does anyone’s ethnic or cultural heritage mitigate or remove the duty to repent and believe.
And in the part on the Church they wrote:
WE DENY that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.
And finally, from the part on heresy we have:
WE DENY that the charge of heresy can be legitimately brought against every failure to achieve perfect conformity to all that is implied in sincere faith in the gospel.
For the most part, not completely, MacArthur is dealing with an eternal setting as seen in our salvation or the overall message of the Gospel. But Post Modernism's social justice concerns have to do with how we act in the here and now as well as how our anscestors did the same--which is minimally addressed by MacArthur and his comrades when they talk about sin:
WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins.
When we read this last quote, isn't the main difference between MacArthur's and Post Modernism's views on collective guilt about the stopping point of collective guilt. And thus MacArthur and social justice warriors share areas of agreement on collective guilt.
But we also need to challenge MacArthur's scope of collective guilt here. For doesn't the person who is silent and thus complicit with the sins of past and present generations share guilt with those who 'embrace' corporate sins of the past or present. Doesn't the person who could have learned about the sins of their government and/or society also share some guilt with those who were deliberately silent? The answers to those questions are 'yes' according to a talk given by a Reformed and fellow evangelical theologian of MacArthur, Tim Keller. He illustrated why the answer to those questions were 'yes' when he talked about selected passages from the Scriptures along with how General Eisenhower reacted to the discovery of German extermination and slave camps during WW II.
However temporal social justice issues are, they can also become spiritual issues for the Christian. Why? It is because treating others justly is a part of our sanctification whether we act as individuals or whether we go along as members of a group. Here we should note that murder is murder whether it is committed by an individual or by groups as large as the state. In addition, social justice issues can can also become spiritual issues when we consider that part of being a social justice warrior can include calling the oppressor to repent.
More could be written, such as MacArthur's apparent obliviousness to the privilege enjoyed by some and the marginalization suffered by others, but I am going to close on the following. There seems to be either a lack of awareness of the corrupting impact of old cultural values on the Church. Yes, MacArthur writes against racism. But he never says that the embracing of Jim Crow, White Supremacy, and slavery by many of our Christian ancestors was the result of cultural corrupting influence on the Church. And if we include imperialism and colonialism, we have covered most of Post Modernism's critique of times past. So where is MacArthur's admission that he could partially agree with what Post Modern social justice warriors are saying and crusading against? And where is MacArthur's total rejection of sets of past cultural values?
Neglecting to mention the past corruption of the Church by older cultural influences suggests to me that MacArthur's fear that the Church is being corrupted by a new world with its own set of cultural values is not the only burr in his seat. In addition, my guess is that MacArthur & Friends are just as upset about the changes that this new world is bringing. Those who enjoyed privilege in the old war, can only see the new world a threat. They have no connection with those who were marginalized in the old world who can only react to the new world with hope. Thus MacArthur and those who agree with him are reacting in a similar way in which other privileged people have been reacting. And that MacArthur and others are being dragged kicking and screaming into a new world should not be a surprise. What is a surprise is that with the oppression and exploitation that the old world practiced, why are MacArthur and others so upset about change besides the fact that the change has more than its share of imperfections?
No comments:
Post a Comment