Two Kingdoms and the issue of "Social Justice"

In certain segments of supposedly apolitical American Reformed Christianity, there is a push to deal with social issues under the heading of "social justice." These organizations supposedly hold to Two Kingdoms theory, which calls for the church to be apolitical. The strange thing, however, is how they claim to reject the social and political activism of the "Religious Right" because it confuses politics with the Gospel. Yet, if they are to be consistent, they ought to reject social and political activism of all kinds, because all kinds of social and political activism, according to this version of Two Kingdoms theory, would confuse politics with the Gospel.

Positions and activities under the heading of "Social justice," whatever they may be, are in fact rather political issues. That this is the case is seen in the reality that they are not held to be true by most people in the same way the concrete findings of the natural sciences tend to be. Almost all conservatives reject "social justice" in some form or another, based upon conservative social and political theories, which they hold sincerely to be true. It is absolutely irrelevant that left liberals think those theories are nonsense, because right-wingers would say the same about left-wing theories as well. In other words, what is seen here is a real disagreement over the interpretation of facts and socio-political theories. To attempt to delegitimize right-wing theories is to take a socio-political stance, i.e. some kind of left-wing liberalism.

Thus, when organizations distance themselves from the "religious right," yet take up issues such as "social justice," such organizations are being political, politically left-wing. If any organization desire to be totally apolitical, as their version of "Two Kingdoms" supposedly informs their ministry praxis, then they ought not to take any side on any disputed social and political issue. Therefore, the final question to such organizations is: "Why are you not practicing what you preach on the supposed apolitical nature of your organization?"

S377A and the challenge to Singapore Christianity

Section S377A of the Penal Code of the Singapore Constitution, which criminalizes homosexuality, is back in the news, as various liberals have (again) renewed their call to repeal what they perceive to be an archaic and "discriminatory" law. As times changed, and society have become more liberal, so perhaps the liberals think that now is the time to attempt a repeal of this law. Liberals are liberals, and thus, as much as we can put forward a case from natural law and from science as to why S377A should be kept, the liberals are not my main concern here.

More worrying however is the weakening response from Christians in Singapore. This is not to say that many Christians do not stridently support this law, but rather, that it is not at all clear to me that the younger generation is both able and willing to support it. I am of course open to evidence to the contrary, but at least from my limited point of view, I perceive that many younger Christians have been exposed to various aspects of liberal thought and are not as strong in their views on biblical law and biblical sexuality as the older generation, who have built their opposition from both traditional culture and Christianity. This is not to say that traditional cultures are definitely true and to be accepted uncritically, because I myself do not do so. But rather, without tradition, and with little knowledge of Christianity, it is unclear what is capable of grounding their support of S377A. After all, just because the Bible says homosexuality is sin does not necessarily in itself lead one to think that S377A should be upheld, or at least that is what a simplistic understanding of Scripture seems to indicate.

There are two issues here that Christians should think about: (1) Does society owe God anything? (2) What is the nature and goal of societal censure? Firstly, does society owe God anything? Here, I would like to remind believers that according to Scripture, this world is made by God and God is sovereign over everything on this earth, including Singapore. If you do not believe that, you do not believe in the Christian God. But if God is sovereign over all the nations of the world as their Creator, then that means that the nations owe God homage and obedience to His law. However, now is the time of the New Covenant whereby God is building His Kingdom through the Church. The Church proclaims the Gospel message of salvation, and therefore in all matters concerning spiritual things, the nations are temporarily "exempted" from paying God homage, in the sense that God is not dealing with them on this issue right now. Concerning spiritual things, due to the Noahic Covenant, the nations are left to their own devices for the moment, only to be dealt with at the final judgment (Acts 17:30-31; Rev. 19:15).

That said, God is not absent from the world and only present at church. Rather, God continues to demand the ethical demands of His law (what is called the Second Table of the Ten Commandments - Commandments 5-10). We notice in for example the Old Testament that God judged the pagan nations for gross violations of these laws. Besides the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, whereby not even ten outwardly righteous people could be found in Sodom, God judged the Canaanites only when their iniquities are full (Gen. 15:16). During the time of the exile of the Jews, God judged the various other countries around Israel for their cruelty towards Israel (Amos 1-2). These judgments are not just meted out because the victim is Israel, as we can see in the strange case of God judging Moab for what seemed to be a minor sin (to us) of desecrating the bones of the king of Edom (Amos 2:1), who is definitely not an Israelite neither a friend of Israel.

As we see in Scripture, God deals with the secular nations by overlooking their idolatry while inflicting punishments when their moral iniquities are too great. This restraint of judgment is not because God's law does not apply to them, but rather that this age is not the time of judgment. But just because God is gracious now in not immediately wiping sinners out does not mean that His law can be disregarded in society. All nations are obligated to obey God's ethical commands, because God is Creator. It matters not whether they will or will not acknowledge God and His sovereignty, for God is sovereign and all will answer to him one day whether they like it or not.

So society, even secular societies, owes God obedience to His ethical commands. Society therefore is obligated to pass laws that restrains sins and promote the ethical commands of God. Any society that does not do that, or that passes laws contrary to God's commands, is a wicked society, and will incur the wrath of God, which will come on all regardless of whether that society believes in Him or not.

Secondly, what is the nature and goal of societal censure? "Discrimination" is one of the few sins that postmodern society acknowledges. However, "discrimination" in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. All laws discriminate, against criminals. The law that states that stealing is a sin discriminates against the thief. The law that states that drug trafficking is wrong discriminates against drug traffickers. So what if something is "discriminatory"? The question is not whether a law is discriminatory, but rather whether what is discriminated against deserves to be discriminated against. Wrongful discrimination is wrong because it discriminates against what is morally good or neutral. But right discrimination discriminates against what is evil and wicked. Similarly, the word "stigma" or the phrase "social stigma" does not necessarily mean that the stigmatizing itself is wrong. Theft should be stigmatized. Murder should be stigmatized. And murderers should bear the opprobrium of their wicked deeds. Therefore, societal censure is correct if it is directed at that which is wicked, and wrong if directed at that which is not evil. Just because societal censure exists does not mean that it is wrong. Societal censure is meant to guide people to avoid that which is wrong and to do what is right, imperfectly yet truly.

Therefore, in the case of S377A, Christians who are grounded in Scripture should know that Singapore being a secular society is no excuse for thinking that biblical morality is irrelevant. Furthermore, since we live in a democracy, we have the right as citizens to ask our government to keep that statute, and indeed to seek to make our country's law as moral and just as it is possible. What is wrong is if the church as an institution act as a lobbying group, because that would violate the secular nature of our country. But calling on the government to have just laws that conform to God's moral standards is not "fundamentist," "bringing religion into a secular state" or whatever slurs opponents of S377A can come up with. In fact, as long as we remain a democracy, Christians can make their views known on the subject and push for our laws to be moral.

Moreover, Christians should be mature enough to see past the rhetoric of the wicked (which is what they are). This has nothing to do with allowing homosexuals to live in sin, because they can do so without punishment, for who is such a busybody to go around asking everyone whether they are engaging in homosexual sex acts in their homes?! Rather, this is all about the LGBTQ+++ lobby seeking social acceptance for their wickedness. In other words, they want US to approve of their actions. That this is the end game can be seen in the Western nations, where decades of moral decay and retreat have shown us that the LGBTQIA+++ lobby is not interested in just committing sin in private, but they want everyone to approve of their sin, or they will seek to destroy our livelihoods. Do not be swayed by their appeal to mercy and pity, because they are hiding their claws in kids' gloves. Or to use a biblical metaphor, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Do NOT believe anything they say, for they know that if we know what their end game is, almost nobody will support them as "allies."

The challenge to Singapore Christianity is that few have a understanding of how society relates to God, as Christianity is just seen to be about "spiritual things" only, and that, due to the imbibing of liberalism-lite in the Singapore education system, many young people have no idea how to deal with accusations of "discimination" and "stigmatization." The problem with Singapore Christianity for the young is that they do not have even an inkling of the intellectual tradition that stands parallel to Christianity, which is found within the Western Classical liberal arts tradition. We are ignorant, and we do not know it. We have no idea what "human rights" are as they were originally based upon Scripture, and how secular humanism has distorted the concept into a monstrousity. We have no idea of the amount of de-programming we would need to do to our own minds from the lies our society has taught us. And even if we do, we are just too afraid of the world's opinions, too afraid to rock the boat, too afraid of controversy. As an example, when I did a private post concerning how homosexuality is an abomination, a Christian called me out on it! Not an unbeliever, but someone who professes Christ! Think about that for a moment! Who should we fear more: God or Man?

For Singapore Christianity, it is ultimately insufficient to just deal with LGBTQ and S377A. If we really want to have a robust response to this issue, we need to have solid Christian education, on the Bible but also on Christian worldview, philosophy and theology. It is manifestly insufficient to just "read the Bible," not because the Bible is insufficient, but because the Bible was never meant to be read as a mere devotional text on only spiritual matters. For Singapore Christianity to truly thrive, we need a reformation and a renaissance of learning, of the heart and of the mind.

Sermon: The Sacrifices of Ministry (1 Cor 9)

Here is the sermon I had preached on 1 Corinthians 9, on Aug 19th 2018, entitled The Sacrifices of Ministry.

The Statement on Social Justice

The Statement on Social Justice has came out recently, and it is a great statement on the topic of "Social Justice" and racial issues, especially in its rejection of Critical Race Racism. One of the initial signers, Dr. James White, has posted on the background and exegesis behind the statement here:

And in response to criticism:

I fully support this statement, but I deplore the low ecclesiology that it stems from. It is much more preferable that Reformed denominations would draft and pass a similar statement in church assemblies.

Dr. James White against CRT Racism

Dr. James White interacted with Brad Mason's racism in the second part of his Dividing Line podcast here. Here is a great quote against those who redefine terms like "racism" on behalf of the cause of "social justice."

Thanks for transcribing that statement from the Dividing Line today. Much appreciated. https://t.co/4cbe8PCR72

— James White (@DrOakley1689) August 22, 2018

The strength and weakness of Evangelicalism

The strength of evangelicalism is its minimalism. … [This] has afforded not only a wide berth for cooperation but also a laser focus on contested points. The weakness of evangelicalism is also its minimalism. Doctrinal minimalism in one generation can be a way of focusing the fight; in another, the path to doctrinal indifference. [Michael Horton, “Prologue: What are We Celebrating?,” in Matthew Barrett, ed., Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 15-6]

North Florida Presbytery (PCA) objects to using sin as identifier marker

The PCA North Florida Presbytery has produced an interesting study committee report on the recent issue, as seen in the Revoice conference, where sin was used as an identifier marker amidst a demand for inclusion. You can read the committee report here.

[HT: Heidelblog]

On Reformed Piety

Earlier this year I started a series on Reformed piety, in contrast to Evangelical piety. I had then decided to take the project offline and finish it first, so here is the completed document. Two excerpts, one from the introduction:

What is Reformed piety? Or is there such a thing as Reformed piety, as distinct from Evangelical piety? For those of us who do not identify as "Evangelicals," and that even before the term has become politicized during and after the election of US President Donald Trump, we do see a difference between Reformed piety and Evangelical piety. We do this, not out of a blind following of tradition, but because of what we see as being taught in Scripture and in light of the implications of Scripture.

And another from the conclusion:

Reformed piety stems from Reformed theology, while Evangelical piety stems from the social settings of Evangelicalism. The distinctives of being Reformed is to be confessional, orthodox, reverent and orderly, while the distinctives of being Evangelical is to be conversionist, activist, Biblicist, and crucicentrist. ...

You can access the entire document here.

Robert Letham on the Trinity and so-called subordinationism

[In rejecting Kevin Giles' accusation of ESS as subordinationism] Giles is right that all three persons are engaged in all of God's works and ways. However, only the Son—not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit— entered into hypostatic union with our humanity, and he did so forever. ...

His [the Son's -DHC] sending preceded his incarnation, and so his incarnate life and ministry can (as appropriate) reveal something of his eternal relations. If this were not so, we would be left with agnosticism, in flat contradiction to Jesus' own words that he who has seen him (in his lowliness) has seen the Father (John 14:9 et al.). ... [Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), 494]

Giles even cites one of his heroes, Athanasius, to the effect that the divine Son willingly subordinated himself in the Incarnation (p. 37). But, we may ask, if he did so in the Incarnation without jeopardy to his deity, why is this not so in eternity? Since he has permanently united to himself the assumed human nature, does it not follow as something appropriate for the Son in his exaltation as well as in his humiliation, not as a slave to a master, but in the loving and willing communion of coequals? [Ibid., 495]

Quick, someone tell the "confessionalist" "pro-Nicene" crowd to take out their torches and pitchforks and start an inquisition of the "proto-Arian subordinationist heretic" Robert Letham...

On Multiculturalism

What is "Multiculturalism"? Many countries today hold to "multiculturalism," but it is not so easy to get a precise definition of the term from them. The term simply means "a theory of many cultures," but besides this it is unclear exactly what it means. In some circles, multiculturalism is extolled as a sign of an enlightened and tolerant society. In other circles, it is demonized as an evil leading to the destruction of Western culture(s). Which is it, exactly? I would suggest that when one actually looks at the term and how it is used, it is both. There are two basic definitions of "multiculturalism," and the two are often confused and conflated by both those for and against multiculturalism. If we are to achieve clarity on the topic, we will need to understand the two different definitions, following which we can then understand how we ought to understand "multiculturalism."

Among those who extol multiculturalism, "multiculturalism" is taken to mean a celebration of cultural diversity. Different peoples from different backgrounds, cultures and ethnicities come together and mix freely with each other. The various peoples do not have to give up their own specific cultures but rather each diverse culture is celebrated as contributing to the overall richness of society. Whether it is in terms of dress, food or even ethnic festivals, everyone is free to live according to their own culture, without being coerced to change, to conform to another culture.

On the other side, "multiculturalism" is seen as an evil that has resulted in the destruction of their own [Western] culture(s). Particularly in Europe, their view of "multiculturalism" is slanted from watching how "multiculturalism" works out in real life in their towns, their cities and their countries. Welcoming people from diverse cultures has resulted in many immigrants who do not assimilate into the host country, with some not even speaking the native language well. They watch as some of these foreigners come in and violate the social norms of their country, take money in welfare, and do not contribute to society. Also, while not all migrants do so, a sizable minority of migrants commit heinous crimes against the native populace, like mass rape, while the police ignore their plight out of a fear not to appear racist. They watch as their own cultures are belittled in their own country, Christianity denigrated, while it seems that the professed religion of those who commit acts of terrorism is extolled while the terrorists are treated with kids' gloves. Note here: We are not at this moment claiming whether their perception is right or wrong, but merely to note what they have perceived (whether rightly or wrongly). The rejection of "multiculturalism" by the hoi polloi in many Western societies stems from what they have seen first-hand happening in their own societies.

As with anyone who is committed to searching for the truth, and genuinely desiring to understand both the issues being discussed and people being affected by social ideologies, it is imperative to understand what is happening on the ground. It seems obvious, except it is a glaring fault of the elites of the world where they do not really know or care about what is actually happening on the ground. That is why the elites were blindsided and shocked when Brexit or the election of Donald Trump as the American President happened. The elites somehow managed to insulate themselves from the ground, despite appearing to be knowledgeable about many things. And throwing epithets like "racist," "white supremacist," etc etc only produce heat but not light, fomenting enmity instead of understanding.

The first definition of "multiculturalism," extolled by the elites and idealized as a most perfect social good, I would term "social multiculturalism." It might be the "multiculturalism" seen by the elites, because they get to walk around and enjoy the diverse foods, clothes and other such cultural products, while remaining safe in their gated enclaves. In other words, the elites get to enjoy the positives of multiculturalism without any of the negative consequences. No, it is left to the hoi polloi to suffer any negative consequences. If some of the migrants are criminals, the elites will generally be protected from them since they do not stay in the same neighborhood and walk the same streets at night. "Social multiculturalism," as limited to the social sphere, is the belief that diversity of cultures is to be celebrated as a social good.

Alongside this "social multiculturalism" is "philosophical multiculturalism," which is a philosophical value claim about both the diverse cultures and the lifestyle that allows for the celebration of diverse cultures. The liberal elites move smoothly from one (social multiculturalism) to the other (philosophical multiculturalism) without much thought. Philosophical multiculturalism is the value judgment that all cultures and all cultural values are equally good as each other. Also, as a celebration of all cultures, it must relativize all cultures as equally false, in the sense that any truth claims of any culture is to be rejected as being false. All cultures are to be treated as experiences not as actual claimants to how things ought to be. Therefore, in actual fact, "multiculturalism" has become THE culture by which all other traditional cultures must kowtow to. Since it is primarily Western culture that the Western liberals faced, and which they reject, Western culture(s) is regularly denigrated and Christianity incessantly mocked.

Reality however has a way to ruin false ideologies, and nowhere more so than philosophical multiculturalism. Logically, if all cultures are equally true, or equally false, then upon what basis can liberals impose their "multiculturalism" culture on us? In reality, thanks to misbehaving immoral adherents of some cultures, the liberals are placed in a bind whether to condemn the immoral parts of certain cultures, or to allow immorality to thrive. In the case of Europe, the epidemic of mass rape has falsified philosophical multiculturalism, if only liberals had brains to think it through.

The fact is that not all cultures are equal. There is good in all cultures, but some cultures have certain aspects that are just evil. Toleration and celebration of all cultures comes from a Pelagian view of Man and of culture. Since Man is fallen, there is evil in all cultures. But since Man is created in the image of God, there is also good in all cultures. By virtue of how the world develops, some cultures will be more moral than others, and other cultures will be so depraved, like the Aztecs with their practice of human sacrifices, that it almost seem that there is nothing good in them. Will any of the liberals defend the notion that offering human sacrifices to the gods is morally right, and that the Spanish were evil in eradicating human sacrifices? I sincerely doubt so, but then, who knows?

Philosophical multiculturalism is false, but what about social multiculturalism? If one were to reject the immoral aspects of various cultures, social multiculturalism by itself is morally neutral. Liberals place value in diversity, but diversity in itself has no inherent virtue. Diversity might be good because of a richer life experience, but then diversity is good here only subjectively, and in service of what one perceives as a richer life, which is itself subjective. Social multiculturalism can however be a positive good if utilized in the service of allowing people from different backgrounds and cultures to coexist peacefully. It is therefore not a surprise when multi-ethnic countries promote multiculturalism. In this, however, we must differentiate between the two senses of "multiculturalism" and reject its philosophical sense, as it is self-contradictory and contrary to the facts on the ground.

Response: On Emergentism and Consciousness

On Creation.com, Paul Price wrote an article arguing that consciousness cannot be a property that emerges from matter. According to Price, consciousness has the property of freedom of choice, while emergent properties are solely derived from laws of nature, and therefore do not have real freedom. Therefore, consciousness cannot emerged out of nature. Since that is the case, the more sophisticated atheism that utilizes emergentism is left without an explanation for human consciousness. But is this actually an argument that we should use, and is it sound?

With the failure of Neo-Darwinian materialism to account for higher level immaterial things like the mind, as demonstrated by Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos, emergentism is the current theory in vogue. In Nagel's emergentism, matter itself has inbuilt mental properties which, when constituted in for example a human being, will give rise to consciousness. This does not mean that everything has consciousness, for the whole point of Nagel's emergentism is not that all matter has consciousness, but that all matter has the potential when properly constituted to produce consciousness.

If we assume Nagel's theory of panpsychism to be correct (for the sake of argument), would Price's argument actually hold true? I would suggest not. If matter in itself has mental properties, then it would stand to reason that the emerging consciousness would have true freedom of choice. Yes, things that emerge emerge in a manner consistent with laws, but that does not mean that the thing that emerged is therefore constrained by laws. [Otherwise we would commit the logical fallacy of composition.] Since Nagel would presumably hold that one of the metal properties [of matter] is the freedom of choice, therefore the individual consciousness that emerged will also have and will express freedom of choice. The beauty of emergentism is that matter itself, since it has not been properly constituted, does not express mental properties since consciousness has not emerged, and it is therefore for all intents and purposes without consciousness or cognition, but it can [sortof] explain how an individual person can come to possess consciousness, cognition and value.

Now, one may disagree with Nagel's emergentism, which I do. But it cannot be denied that Nagel's emergentism has produced answers that are somewhat plausible to account for many immaterial things from an atheistic point of view. The problem with Nagel's emergentism is that his emergentism is actually a form of pantheism more than atheism, with all its attendant problems. But as an explanation of consciousness, I think Nagel has done a decent job of explaining it while remaining (nominally) an atheist. It is for this reason that I think that Price's argument fails, because his argument is formulated against pure materialism, which is not what emergentist philosophers like Nagel actually hold to and believe.

On Reformed Piety: Defining Evangelicalism (Part 2)

Defining Evangelicalism [cont'd]

The second pillar of the Bebbington Quadrilateral, Activism, seems to be something that does not actually distinguish Evangelicalism as a separate movement, but rather it is meant to emphasize one major focus of Evangelicalism. In that sense, it seems that Evangelicals of any kind are merely obeying the command of Scripture, which calls us to do good works (Eph. 2:10), at it states that "faith without works is dead" (c.f. Jas. 2:20). Also, Evangelicals note the Great Commission given for sharing of the Gospel in Acts 1:8, where we are all called to be a witness for Christ wherever we are, spreading the message of salvation to all and sundry. Thus, this pillar of the Bebbington Quadrilateral does not seem to be a particular distinctive of Evangelicalism, or does it?

We would all certainly agree that the Scriptures teach that good works are necessary for Christian living (not for salvation), and that a "faith" that works wickedness is not really faith. But in the translation of good intentions to its application to society, to what extent should the church be actively taking a stand on various social ills? Here we see how activism has shifted every so slightly the focus concerning good works. Historically, the teaching of good works and its application to society has always been rather specific. No doubt the largely agrarian nature of much of medieval and early modern European societies aided the direct application of Israel's civil laws to the context of their times. With the advent of the Industrial Age however, the rapid changes in society have made Israel's civil laws less applicable. As Evangelicalism began with the First Great Awakening, along with the revival came a renewed interest in dealing with the problems of society. Unfortunately, there is no obvious blueprint in Scripture for how that is to be done in a modern context. Christians were left with a text that seemed dated, and many did not really wrestle with how to derive sound general principles that are both biblical and applicable to their times. Instead, Christianity intellectual thought became focused on the "spiritual," while Enlightenment philosophy permeates all other fields.

Evangelical Activism thus become tied with expressing the biblical command to do good and to witness for the Gospel. (We will discuss the Gospel witness as we discuss the fourth pillar). And in this command to do good, the failure to adequately wrestle with all that is to be translated to the modern context has resulted in an Activism that is very much informed by the world and her ideas (Zeitgeist). Therefore, in the modern era, Evangelical Activism has been typically split into left-wing and right-wing movements, depending on which movement is currently in vogue among Evangelicals. In a politicized era like 21st century America, that means that Evangelical Activism becomes highly political, either on the right or on the left, as opposed to a faith that will only speak where the Scriptures speak and keep silent where the Scriptures are silent. Therefore, we have both the "Moral Majority" in late 20th century America (right), and the "Evangelical Left" of which Jim Wallies of Sojourners was one such prominent figures, both of them Evangelicals. And in the early 21st century, we have the nationalist Trump supporters on the "right" and the Social Justice Warriors and Critical Race Theorists on the Left.

Bebbington's pillar of Activism, in light of the social history of Evangelicalism, therefore needs to be modified. Bebbington had defined it as "a commitment to participate with God in his saving mission in the world." But in light of Evangelicalism's history, activism should be modified to be "a commitment to participate with God in doing good according to the world's current social notions of doing good, and to witness for God in a way that focuses on the spiritual alone." The latter point we will pick up again as we discuss the last 2 pillars of the Bebbington Quadrilateral, which are where the most obvious differences between Evangelicalism and the Reformed Church are.

[to be continued]

"Woke Christianity," and the "intersection" of theology and sociology

In the beginning, before all the "woke" activism began in the ostensibly orthodox Reformed circles, there was some measure of unity within the American Reformed churches. Sure, it cannot be denied that racism was present here and there, an evil lurking in the shadows ready to erupt when the right conditions were to manifest themselves. But the solution was to call people to the unity of the one human race, that all Man whether white or black, "Asian" or Hispanic, were all one in Adam by virtue of creation, and are remade one in Christ by virtue of regeneration. The solution to racism was to promote "color-blindness," the theory that all should be treated alike without discrimination due to skin color. But all that has changed in recent times, and appalling filth under the guise of "social justice" and "racial justice" has infiltrated the church, promoting dissension and division within her ranks. Everywhere the new "woke" gospel went, it has provoked outrage, [actual] racism, animosity and schism. The apostles of this new "Christianity" strenuously insist that they are merely bringing the true Gospel to bear on the sin of racism, never realizing that they have imbibed of the zeitgiest, and have swallowed the redefinitions of the world hook, line, and sinker.

When I had first protested against the mission creep of the Core Christianity team, one of the responses was to claim that I was bringing politics into the picture. The accusation implicitly claims the moral high ground that they were upholding Scripture, while I was bringing in politics. More specifically, I was bringing in right-wing politics! Despite the fact that I wasn't an American, neither was I part of any "Moral Majority," nevertheless the same tarring was used against me in my initial protests. Therein lies one of the major problems with "woke Christianity": It assumes that what it holds to be true are mere unbiased and dispassionate scientific truth. It assumes that the concepts of "privilege," "justice," "equality," and so on and so forth are facts, on the same practical level as the fact that the world is round. Critical Race Theory is taken to be like Newton's Laws of Motion, and one must be a moron or a malicious racist to actually dispute these "facts."

But when one actually gets out of the liberal echo chamber and assume an attitude of objectivity, one can discern that both sides are "political," in the sense that both sides are analyzing the issues using different frames of view. The "woke Christian" is no less political than his opponent. What he claims to be axiomatic are not really axiomatic but heavily disputed interpretations.

If one therefore truly desires to be absolutely apolitical, then by all means stick purely to the Bible. But that means that one cannot apply what the Bible says specifically to one's situation, because in application one must have an understanding of the social environment where the biblical truths are to be applied. But the rot extends back even further to the hermeneutics of the Left as they distort the Bible's teaching about Israel's social polity. Ancient Israel of course was no modern socialist state, but that does not stop liberals from reading their socialist fantasies into the biblical text, with the Jubilee being one such example. I have previously did a short exegesis on the event of the Jubilee, but suffice it is to say here that the Jubilee was neither a capitalist nor a socialist institution. Reading ancient Israel as a capitalist society would be just an egregious an error as reading ancient Israel as a socialist country, but only the latter extreme has been attempted (to my knowledge) in church history.

In light of all this, the "intersection" of theology and sociology requires careful navigation of Scripture and the application of Scripture. Since politics will be involved in any specific application to society, the Church ought to make the application purely general and in Scriptural terms, which is that racism is to be rejected through focusing on teaching the unity of all Man as equal in Adam, and of the new Man in Christ. Once one thinks that bringing in other concepts such as "privilege," "equality," "equity" etc. are helpful to the discussion, one has immediately taken a political stand, not a biblical stand, and in my opinion a wrong one at that. The "Core Christianity" team therefore is supremely political, and therefore they have not been honest about what they stand for, which was supposed to be CORE Christianity. Once they have brought politics into the discussion, then they have no moral high ground for attacking others as being "political."

"Woke Christianity" thus at best is one of the many political applications of the Gospel. At worst, it is a subversion of the biblical Gospel, since it claims to make a certain sociological viewpoint part of the Gospel. Therefore, even if one were to reject right-wing ideas, one should not embrace woke "Christianity" as anything but poison to the health and well-being of the Church.

On "privilege" and the new gospel of woke activism

Here are two interesting articles on the topic:

No, I Won't Check My Privilege: The Left's Latest Pejorative is racist, sexist, and stifling of honest debate
Atonement as Activism: The Great Awokening

[RT: R Scott Clark on the Heidelblog]

Sermon: Charity and Liberty (1 Cor. 8)

Here is the sermon I had preached on May 6 2018 at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, continuing my series on the book of 1 Corinthians, entitled "Charity and Liberty."