It seems that Bryan Crawford Loritts has decided to write a hit piece in the Christian Post attacking those who continue to insist that Jakes is a modalist heretic. Very conveniently it seems for him, Loritts plays the race card to attack the critics, as he wrote:
Loritts also advised the "middle aged white Reformed guys" to be extremely careful of the messages they sent, both implicit and explicit.
Though he was not accusing anyone of racism, he found that the "Reformed crowd's" actions (refusing to come to the Elephant Room event or having an honest dialogue) sent an implicit message to the public – "theological bigotry."
This is very disturbing. Dr. White responds as follows:
5) I was unaware when I first read this blog that Loritts is a black man. I was shocked that the race card had been played here. It is absolutely, positively disgusting to me that this canard, so common from the left in political arenas, would be inserted into the discussion of Jakes' long-time standing as a modalist. I DON'T CARE WHAT COLOR THE MAN IS. It is pure distraction and absurdity to make reference to "middle aged white Reformed guys," and if there needs to be a call to repentance for Mr. Loritts, it is right there. And don't think that adding the obligatory "Oh, I'm not accusing anyone of racism" statement changes anything. He introduced race, period. THEOLOGY AND HERESY KNOWS NO RACIAL BOUNDARIES. Jakes' race is irrelevant to his modalism. Modalism was defined long before any white guys had a say in it. Period.
I absolute agree. To add: I as a non-white non-American non-middle aged Chinese stand with my white brethren in this regard. The use of the race card is disgraceful especially in the context of theological discussion. In fact, it is blatantly racist, as if to say that "middle-aged white Reformed guys" are racist in their rejection of Jakes as being orthodox.
As a non-white non-American, I hereby call upon Bryan Crawford Loritts to repent of (1) his racism and (2) his arrogance in taking to himself the authority of a church council/synod/general assembly which he does not possess.
5 comments:
At the crux of this misunderstanding lie cultural differences that rarely get discussed in churches. If you are not American, or do not have a foundational, or cultural reference for sociological issues in America then I too would take your stance. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Tim Keller, is one of the rare pastors who's willing to tackle this Elephant in the Room.
@sojourner:
perhaps. But the issue still remains that this isuse has never been about race. Heresy and orthodoxy is color-blind.
Agree. However orthodoxy and orthopraxy are both important. Both sides of isle, whether culturally based or belief based need to hear each other out. Both are needed and that's where I can agree with where Loritts was attempting to go, he just could have left the race thing out.
What of Anyabwile, Baucham, Carter, & Jones? They're Black Reformed, anti-modalist Americans.
Or does false unity trump truth?
Is Mr Loritts is Arminian &/or charismatic? Now THOSE are issues. Skin color & nat'l origin are not the issues.
@Hughuenot:
I guess Loritts think these guys are not truly black. See this: (http://apprising.org/2012/01/31/james-macdonald-elephant-room-2-and-the-race-card/).
Disgusting.
Post a Comment