The apostle gives us a glimpse into the radical nature of Christian freedom.  In Christ, he is “free from all.”  Or, as the NIV ’84 renders it, the apostle says I “belong to no man.”  No human being has any controlling or constraining authority over his life.  This is the apostle’s declaration in response to the question of verse 1, “Am I not free?”  He thunders, “I am free from all, bound to no man.”  No one reduces me to slavery with their opinions, their requirements, their rights, or anything else.  I am free.

Can we declare this with the apostle?  We should.  For freedom Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1).  We’re free from the Law, free from sin, free from guilt, free from the judgment of men, and free to worship God.  But here’s the question: Do we feel free?  Do we experience this freedom?  Do we delight to be free?  Or do we give our freedom away, sell it for something else, or just plain forget it?  Let us remind ourselves: We are free.

Now, two remarkable things follow Paul’s declaration of freedom.  First, being free from all men and bound by none, he voluntarily puts himself in slavery to others.  When most men would declare, “I’m free therefore I can do whatever I want.”  Paul says, “I’m free, but I make myself a slave.”  He tells us why: “that I might win more of them.”  Paul’s freedom counts very little in light of man’s need for salvation.  Paul’s freedom becomes the instrument for pursuing man’s redemption.  The freest man in all the world is the only one who can truly give himself in service to others.  One wonders how much evangelism and mission goes undone because God’s people, having been set free, jealously cling to the freedom above all things.

But there is a second radical and remarkable aspect of Paul’s freedom.  He is free even from himself.  He’s free from his own desires to live for others.  And he’s also free from his own ethnic background for the same purpose.  ”To the Jews I became as a Jew,” he says.  Notice the preposition “as.”

What’s Paul talking about?  He is, in fact, a Jew “according to the flesh.”  If he boasts in his flesh, he has to say, “I am a Hebrew of the Hebrews.”  In other words, “I’m a Jew’s Jew.”  If there were magazines in Paul’s day, he would appear on the cover of Jewish Home Journal and Jewish Times as ‘man of the year.’  But such a boast the apostle regards as foolish (2 Cor. 11:16-23) and so he no longer boasts in the flesh (Gal. 6:13).

Yet, the insertion of the two-letter word “as” tips us off to something amazing.  The freedom Paul finds in Christ frees him from bondage to ethnic identity.  He could not only say, “I belong to no man,” but also “I belong to no ethnicity.”  He may appear “as a Jew,” but he remains something else.  He may participate in Jewish culture, custom, and identity, but he remains fundamentally a man from another country.  His freedom in Christ is so radical–so down to the root of his being–that he becomes a member of a third “race.”  He’s no longer Jew.  He’s not a Gentile.  He’s a Christian, a member of a new spiritual ethnicity.  He no longer puts confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3-6) or regards himself or any man according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16).  Rather, he’s a new creation and the old of ethnic loyalty and ethnic self-reference has gone.  The new man has come.

What gives Paul this remarkable freedom to pick up and lay aside his Jewishness as it fits the gospel occasion?  Jesus.  Jesus is Paul’s identity.  Christ is His all.  Because that’s true, Paul lives as a free man.

Here’s my suspicion: People who feel themselves a part of the ethnic majority rarely feel any need to abandon their ethnic selves the way Paul did; and people who feel themselves a part of the ethnic minority almost always feel that abandoning the ethnic self to be suicidal betrayal.  Or, to state things more plainly: White majorities in the U.S., for example, have the privilege of rarely having to think of what it means to be ethnically “White” and so run the risk of never questioning or abandoning their ethnic selves for the sake of effective gospel mission to Whites and non-whites, while Black minorities are so constantly aware of and negotiating what it means to be “Black” that they never actively reject “blackness” as an identity for the sake of effective gospel mission to Blacks and non-Blacks.  One group never thinks about it and so never rejects it; another group always thinks about it and never rejects it.  One assumes the normalcy of their ethnic identity; another defends the normalcy of their ethnic identity.  One group pays insufficient attention to ethnicity; another group pays inordinate attention to ethnicity.

But there is a third way.  We may live more fully in the freedom we have in Christ.  Paul remains free from both traps and therefore nimble enough to move in and out of these categories as it suits the gospel.

Are we this free?  Are we enjoying our freedom in Christ?  If not, fight for it.  Celebrate it.  Use it for the gospel!

The Third Way, The Way to Freedom

A few weeks ago, I was asked to write a blog post for Black History Month. “Sure!” I replied. But when I sat down to write, the immensity of the task struck home. It’s such a huge topic to cover in a post . . . for sure, many would appreciate the information, but would there be those who would question why we even have black history month? The following is my heartfelt attempt to answer this question.

I grew up in Kansas in the late 50s and 60s. My sister and I were each the only African-American students in our elementary school classes. When we opened our textbooks, there was no mention of contributions of African-Americans to the advancement of this country. As we turned the pages of our history books, there were no pictures of people that looked like us, no scientists, no noteworthy doctors, no educators . . . So we began early on to internalize a sense of inferiority and “less than.” We had to make a concerted effort to rise above the expectations of our teachers and to excel.

A lot has changed since my sister and I were in elementary school. In my granddaughter’s sixth grade text books, much attention is given to the valuable contributions that African-Americans have made to this country. The newer textbooks record the election of the first black President of the United States, and many other firsts. It’s undeniable that much progress has been made.  So, all is well, right?

Check out the entire post.

Why Do We Even Have Black History Month?

A couple of days ago my wife posed a question to me.  Standing over the kitchen counter she asked, “Do you think anyone has really illustrated what the problem is with Jakes’ teaching?”  She explained that she was quite aware of the many theological discussions at work.  But she was looking for someone to actually illustrate the problems stemming from the teaching of Jakes and others like him.  I pondered that for a moment and realized she was correct.  We didn’t have a picture of Jakes’ effect on real lives.  That’s why I call her “Kristie the Wise.”

So, perhaps it would be wise for us to stop for a moment to remember the very real people who sit under the false teaching of people like T.D. Jakes.  We need to put a face on the destruction caused by heterodoxy (“prosperity gospel”) and heresy (modalism).  To that end, I want to share with you an email I received from a brother after ER2.  He wrote with a concern very similar to my wife’s.  He wanted to share his story as an illustration.  I offered to share it anonymously, but he wanted to leave his name in it–Sean.  In his words, he wanted to “put a face to it.”

Here’s Sean’s brief account:

I am, to be really honest here, very upset by the passé attitudes [towards Jakes] of these brothers (and pastors, I might add). I’m upset for a few reasons, but If I’m being honest, the main reason why I’m so disturbed by this is because the prosperity gospel nearly killed me. Literally. I was so sick I was on the verge of death. I was lying in a hot bath with a temperature of 96 degrees, way beyond dehydrated, and literally dying with mercury poisoning. My mother was crying over my naked body, begging me to go to the hospital for treatment. “NO!” I insisted. How could I put faith in a doctor? “God is my ultimate healer! In him alone will I place my faith!”

I did eventually receive treatment, but I was still being ravished by this heresy. When I married my beautiful wife, Amber, I taught her (with the Bible of course), that there would be no taking of medicine in MY HOUSE! We would be faithful. When we were dead broke I refused to get a job because “God had promised me (through Canton Jones, no less) that I would be a buisness CEO, fortune 500, of course. How could I not have faith in that word of prophesy?

And there were a hundred other things that nearly destroyed my life and marriage. Would you care to guess who my MAIN teacher was? Who I followed as if he himself were Jesus? Who I tithed to regularly? Who’s books I read faithfully? Who’s sermons I purchased? Who’s dress I imitated?

Yes, you guessed it. TD Jakes.

My brother, this man is not merely confused, he is a wolf. God’s gracious staff saved me from him.  But don’t get it twisted.  Under my fur I still bear many scars that he gave to me with his powerful bite.

Sean is a 20-something, tattooed, urban type.  He has a beautiful young family and wants to now devote his life to the mission field.  He’s sitting under sound teaching of God’s word, building community with others, and looking to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  But he had to first escape Jakes and the prosperity movement before he could really come to build his life on and give his life to the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now, not everyone has had the same experience as Sean and Amber.  And not everything in Sean’s experience can be attributed to the preacher.  But we can’t deny the connection between belief and behavior.  If the belief is faulty chances are the behavior will be faulty also.  Picture Sean.  Picture many more like Sean, falling into life-changing and sometimes life-threatening behaviors because they’ve believed a life-stealing teaching.  Now picture that teaching coming to an evangelical church near you.  Perhaps your own.  That’s the face we need to put on this destructive teaching.

Jakes’ false teaching has long been experienced in predominantly African-American and Hispanic-American communities.  His reach extends throughout the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa.  Recent events have given T.D. Jakes greater credibility in and access to communities that to this point were largely unaware of him.   In my opinion, that can’t be a good thing.

Putting a Face on Destruction

The guys explain their thinking here:

Panels: The New T4G Format from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

In any case, this looks like a great line-up of discussions and the panel format should hopefully result in some good push-and-pull, give-and-take.

Celebrity Pastor: Indecent Exposure?

Moderator: Ligon Duncan
Participants: Thabiti Anyabwile, Carl Trueman, C.J. Mahaney, David Platt

Celebrity Pastor: Indecent Exposure? from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Contextualization: Lost in Translation?

Moderator: Mark Dever
Participants: Matt Chandler, Kevin DeYoung, Al Mohler, Thabiti Anyabwile

Contextualization: Lost in Translation? from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Preaching: Is There a Plan B?

Moderator: Al Mohler
Participants: Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney

Preaching: Is There a Plan B? from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Complementarianism: Essential or Expendable?

Moderator: Ligon Duncan
Participants: Russell Moore, Greg Gilbert, John Piper

Complementarianism: Essential or Expendable? from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Inerrancy: Did God Really Say . . . ?

Moderator: Mark Dever
Participants: Simon Gathercole, Peter Williams, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, John Piper

Innerrancy: Did God Really Say…? from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Gay Marriage: Now What?

Moderator: Mark Dever
Participant: Al Mohler

Gay Marriage: Now What? from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Hope to see you there as we come together again for the precious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Some Good Discussions Coming Up

Reading and re-reading Carson and Keller, as well as a number of other post-game reports, left me with a few reflections, for what it’s worth.

1.  Nothing has changed with Jakes.  I won’t belabor this point because Carson and Keller’s piece covers that quite well, as does a couple other posts around the blogosphere.  Jakes’ comments on the Trinity were essentially the same comments he’s been making for the last 10-15 years.  He says he has moved and the Scripture prompted him to do so.  Comparing his statements in 2000 and 2012, it’s difficult to see that he’s moved at all unless the movement happened before 2000!  As far as I am concerned, the man’s teaching on the Trinity remains heretical.

2.  Something may have changed with us.  The Church is split more than it was previous to the ER.  We have new lines of division.  Are we among those who favor public discussion or those who are against public discussions with heretics?  Are we in the truth camp or the love camp?  Again, Carson and Keller expose this false dichotomy nicely and point us forward in healthy ways.  My only point is to say, “This division inside the broadly ‘Reformed’ camp feels new to me.”

3.  Theological depth is critical.  Honestly, I was surprised that so many could make such quick and bold pronouncements of Jakes’ orthodoxy after a short conversation before cameras.  Jakes used the same spiel he’s always used.  The entire discussion revealed not only Jakes’ poverty but the poverty of a lot of evangelical and Reformed Christianity.  In the final analysis, we were given not only a view of Jakes’ modalism but also of our own slippery and sometimes lazy grasp of the Trinity and other doctrinal issues of importance.  Let’s admit there’s truth beyond our knowledge here.  But let’s also admit that too many of us have not really sought to grasp what may be known.  Consequently, a lot of observers weren’t theologically prepared to discern truth from error, heat from light, wheat from chaff.  For me, that was painfully clear in the celebratory declamations following the event.  It saddened me and left me with a resolve to teach more systematic theology to my own church.  It also left me more determined to be a watchman on the wall.  How urgent it is for us “to watch our lives and doctrine closely.”  I think I’ll read Spurgeon’s “The Minister’s Self-Watch” again today, just for my own soul’s sake.

4.  We need a practical understanding of repentance.  ”Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” was John the Baptist’s declaration.  The apostle Paul preached that men should “perform deeds in keeping with repentance” (Acts 26:20).  So, how do we know a person is genuinely repentant of false teaching or other sins?  Well, there should be some practical outworking of the changed mind and heart; there should be “deeds in keeping with repentance.”  What would that look like with Jakes?  Answering that question keeps us from making snap judgments and prematurely assuring someone in their error.  So, ask yourself: If I were a pastor and Jakes were on my staff while teaching these the prosperity gospel and modalism, what would I ask him to do to demonstrate his repentance?  Most of us would probably have a few things in mind, including: (a) a definite retraction and renunciation of previous error taught, (b) a clear and unprompted statement of the changed belief, and (c) a request for forgiveness from any offended.  In short, we’d look for him to clearly own his error without equivocation, advance the truth, and look to make amends where possible.  That would be the minimum we would expect before we gave him another public opportunity to teach.  Or, at least that’s the minimum I’d expect in the church I pastor.  But the evangelical practice of repentance can at times be so shallow, and we can at times be so desirous of a good outcome, that we grab at any mirage or any pretensions to repentance.  But group hugs are no substitute for thoughtful pastoral engagement.  In the end, we hurt ourselves and the very one needing to change.

5.  Divisions come swiftly and easily.  My heart breaks to see how quickly and easily the unity of the Spirit can be broken.  It really doesn’t take much at all… a few poorly stated sentences, hurts nursed and rehearsed, the refusal to reach out or keep short accounts.  Ephesians 4 and 5 contain critical instructions for us!  And this medium that I’m using right now can make the divisions deeper, wider, and quicker than most anything else I can imagine.  And, yet, some divisions are most certainly necessary.  I wish the necessary divisions could be recognized and enacted more quickly while the unnecessary divisions could be avoided all together.  Is it just me, or doesn’t it seem the unnecessary variety comes at the speed of light while the necessary toddles along slowly?

6.  A lot of reconciliation and brotherly affection gets shared privately, but it’s sometimes not useful to be insisted upon publicly.  A lot of people have taken it upon themselves to be the “private conversation police.”  They want to enforce a new rule for public discourse: Talk privately with those with whom you disagree before you disagree publicly.  I think that’s well intended, but it’s quite problematic.  Again, Carson and Keller handle this very well.  I just want to add that this desire to require private conversations before public redress has two unintended and negative consequences.  First, it means that the first persons to speak have the controlling leverage in the conversation.  That’s not much of a problem unless the first one to speak speaks heresy or some false teaching.  In that case, everyone who would act to counter the falsehood is held hostage by the purveyor of falsehood!  That’s a very bad outcome.  Second, the vocal insistence on private conversation, or rather the suggestion that no such conversation is happening, can actually frustrate and undermine very real private efforts at unity, restoration, and correction.  It’s surprising how public comments (ironically, without first making private contact!) about perceived private failings actually complicate the very private efforts being called for.  It’s also interesting to note how many unrelated parties feel entitled to know what’s happening in private sessions.  They don’t seem to realize that asking for private matters to be disclosed publicly might actually hinder trust and communication.  As it is, these things don’t always work out.  So, it’s probably prudent to use that few moments of keyboarding to instead offer a few words of prayer and intercession.

Here’s a rule of thumb: If you have to speculate about whether this or that conversation is happening, you’re probably not close enough to the situation to be useful.  If you can’t pick up the phone and ask one of the parties, “What’s going on?” then you’re probably not positioned to help or insist on private communication.

Speculative and sometimes accusatory writing in public forums, in my opinion, actually do very little to help situations while doing a fair amount to complicate matters and frustrate people.  I’ve become a fan of the old rules of engagement: If a person speaks or publishes something for public consumption, that speech or publication is automatically fair game for public critique and correction.  It can be useful, courteous, and sometimes necessary to contact a person to be sure you’ve understood them correctly.  But public addresses are fair game for public redress.  This in no way releases us from all the biblical requirements for charity, grace, and the like.  But it does free us to respond where situations warrant.

7.  Our cooperation needs to be principled rather than pragmatic.  This has really come home to me in a powerful way.  I realized something about myself.  My cooperation in TGC has largely been pragmatic.  I learn so much when I’m with the guys.  I’m stimulated by the conversations we have.  Many lessons and resources are shared with the church I pastor.  In all these ways I benefit from TGC.  Here’s the problem: I’ve been essentially selfish.  I was in danger of only cooperating for as long as it benefited me.  I was in danger of being “at the table” but not really contributing fully.  That’s selfish and it’s sin.  The divisions and threats to unity forced me to remember (realize?) that I need to remain involved in TGC because there are important principles at stake.  There is the evangelistic signal effect of unity with other disciples who hold the same gospel (John 13:34-35).  There is the need for unity beyond my local congregation.  There is the necessity of defending and confirming the gospel (Phil. 1:7; Jude 3-4).  There is the necessity of every part of the body contributing to the whole (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4).  I could go on.  The point is simply this: One danger to our unity and our coalitions may be the tendency to think in pragmatic rather than principled terms about our cooperation.  I need to be principled.

8.  Our cooperation can have a liberalizing tendency.  I’m all for a more robust unity across denominational lines.  But I’ve seen enough situations where “cooperation” becomes code for liberalizing.  I’ve seen this in denominational mergers here in the Caribbean, where groups from quite distinct confessional traditions have rushed to the lowest theological common denominator to create unity.  I’ve seen it in international churches in some of the great crossroads cities in the world.  The great diversity in those churches can subtly pressure leaders to minimize doctrine in order to “fit as many people in as possible.”  The victim will inevitably be doctrinal integrity and truth.  This doesn’t have to happen; it’s not a foregone conclusion.  I’ve seen international churches thrive quite well across wide diversity anchored in a shared confessional stance.  And we’ve seen the rise of trans-denominational networks that have held fast to robust theological commitments.  So, the act of cooperation does not lead inexorably to theological laxity and liberalism.  But it can if we’re not watchful and if we’re not constantly sharpening our commitments and restating them in fresh, living ways.

9.  There are descriptive and prescriptive ways of using “race.”  I injected the notion of ethnicity in my original post on the Jakes invitation.  I did so by pointing to the enormous influence the man has in predominantly African-American churches.  The intent was simply to describe an effect, to note a phenomena.  Such description is sometimes necessary and helpful.  But description is miles apart from injecting “race” in a way that prescribes how people should act, whether coercing certain behaviors or playing to certain expectations and stereotypes.  These prescriptive uses cross the line, in my opinion.  Attempting to prescribe behavior along “racial” lines keeps us locked into unhelpful “racial” categories, histories, and sins.  It’s one thing to say descriptively “Thabiti is African American” or “Sarah is Kikuyu.”  It’s an entirely different thing to say prescriptively, “All African Americans must act this way” or “Kikuyu people should be treated thus.”  One simply helps us observe the world as it is while the other attempts to sinfully manipulate and control others.

10.  ”Race” is not only powerful, it’s also about power.  These categories and histories affect us–sometimes viscerally.  They’re powerful. Just the mention of racial stereotypes or insinuating racial motives is enough to stir heated reaction and even riots in the streets.

But another thing for us to keep in mind is that “biological race” as a construct has always been a sibling to power.  Racial categories were created and put in the service of oppression and claims to supremacy.  The categories became justification for slavery, prejudice and bigotry, and all manner of evil.  The ability to define someone as a “racial other” is, plain and simple, an act of power.  The greatest acts of power occur when you not only define someone else’s reality but also when the persons so defined willingly accept your definition.  We have real power when people freely see themselves as we tell them to see themselves.  So, when African Americans or any ethnic group accepts “race” as a category–a category we did not invent but was forced upon us and used to justify our subjugation–we unwittingly succumb to the power of others to define us.  Without question, African Americans have appropriated those categories in subversive ways.  Think of the romantic appeals to Ethiopia in the 18th and 19th centuries, the New Negro movement, the Black Pride movement, and Afrocentrism.  All of those efforts to redefine categories–Ethiopian, Negro, Black, African American–largely thrust upon us but ultimately accepted, while subversive, are ultimately capitulations to the very categories themselves and to the power dynamics coupled with the categories.  The real power of self-determination doesn’t settle with redefining the categories, tinkering around the margins of color symbolism and cultural romanticism, but rejects the categories outright.

The Power we should be happily submitting to is that power to define us that YHWH alone has.  He has purposed that various families, clans, and ethnic groups exist, but not that those families should be categorized, marginalized, subjugated, or separated based upon the phony notion of “race” as “biological otherness.”  The question simply becomes: Who has power to define us and to define our behavior–God or man?  The answer ought to be obvious.  But here’s the challenge: Will we willingly endure the cognitive dissonance, social dislocation, and emotional discomfort to live under God’s definition?  In other words, will we be sanctified enough to conform more fully to the new humanity in Christ to which we’re called?

While I’m at this, I should point to something that seems to escape the notice of some people.  It’s just as much an act of power to define people in such a way as to deny their ethnic identity as it is to define them in ways that insist upon a racial identity.  Some people think that saying “‘race’ does not exist” provides a warrant for saying all that’s happened in the name of “race” did not happen or does not matter.  They seem to think that saying “‘race’ does not exist” means there is no sense or aspect of “otherness” that matters.  ”Race does not exist” becomes a magical mantra that wipes the slate clean and absolves us of any responsibility for pursuing reconciliation and justice.  ”Forget about culture.  Forget about ethnicity.  Let all that stuff go,” they tell us.  But, friend, doing that to someone is no less an act of power than defining them in a “racial” category of your choosing.  It’s simply a box marked “nothing,” which can be as debilitating as one of the many boxes marked “race.”  And it trades in the same power differential and dynamic.

What’s the solution then?  Let people self-identify.  Let’s be honest: None of us has this figured out.  Even those who feel they understand the Bible quite well on these points, if they’re honest they must admit that they understand these truths better than they live it.  So, people are in progress.  The light we have today we didn’t have five or ten or fifteen years ago.  If that’s true of us, then we should give others the five, ten, fifteen, twenty or more years they need to figure some things out, too.  Let’s be patient with one another and let folks grow into what Christ has called them to be.  Relax.  We don’t actually have to define one another into neat boxes with stereotypes and judgments.  We can actually allow the Lord by His word to define us and to define others.  We can and must allow Him to remove the old man and to renew us in the new man, a new man who remarkably includes in himself every ethnic group, family, or clan of the world.  It’s worth figuring out our ethnic selves because in the age to come our ethnicity will redound to the Lamb’s glory.

11.  My assumptions about my usefulness need chastening.  What do I mean by that?  Two things.  First, it was evident that a lot of the actors and commentators before, during, and after the event had very little knowledge of Jakes and his teaching.  Some of the least familiar have been the most unhelpful.  I’m not blaming them because I recognize in this situation my tendency to sometimes speak when I should really remain silent, listen, and learn.  I’m sometimes asked to speak at various places or address certain topics for which I have little to no expertise.  Thankfully, to this point, I’ve been able to spot most of those invitations and turn them down.  Recent events have made me all the more concerned about rightly assessing what I know (or don’t know!) and responding accordingly.  I can’t be helpful where I’m really ignorant.  Second, it was also evident that we live in a complex world with lots of factors and pressures acting on people all the time.  We can sometimes think that action ‘x’ should lead to result ‘y’.  But, if I’m honest with myself, I almost never see that happen in life and ministry.  I’m far less influential than I sometimes think.  Seeing the complexity and seeing my limitations have taught me in some measure, however small, to think less of myself and my ability to be strategic, influential, helpful, etc.  I’m not that useful.  The work and the battle is the Lord’s.  I rest in Him.

Well, that’s my 11 things for tonight.  Tomorrow, Lord willing, we’ll try to put a face on some of this.

In the comments, I’m not looking for more debate about recent events.  I’m registering my thoughts for what they’re worth.  Feel free to comment.  But if the comments get steered toward acrimony or allegation, I’ll either delete the comment or close it altogether.  I’m hoping these are constructive thoughts and hoping yours will be, too.

11 Things I’m Thinking in the Wake of Recent Events

Here’s a description from the website:

Jonathan Edwards is arguably the most important theologian that North America has produced. He is a hero to many Christians. Yet he also owned slaves, a fact that has raised important questions about his moral credibility. Should we really be holding Edwards up as a theological role model? Should we be trying to learn from him? These are live questions here at Trinity and beyond. Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile has thought about these questions-as a pastor, an African American, and adherent to Reformed theology. We invite you to listen in as he reflects about them personally, engaging two other African-American pastors and the audience in an edifying installment of the Edwards Center series ‘Jonathan Edwards and the Church,’ moderated by Dr. Sweeney.

This event is cosponsored by the Henry Center and the Jonathan Edwards Center at TEDS. Pastor Anyabwile’s lecture will take place on Wednesday, Feb 1, 1-2:30pm in the ATO Chapel on the TEDS campus. The responses will be from Pastor Louis Love of New Life Fellowship Church, Vernon Hills, and Pastor Charlie Dates of Progressive Baptist Church of Chicago-Q&A to follow.

If you’re interested, you can check the live-stream here.

Jonathan Edwards, Slavery, and Theology

One of the things that caught my attention and encouraged me was the review’s highlighting of the fact that each of these authors reach back into pre-Enlightenment Christian tradition for resources to reformulate “race” and challenge racism.  That methodology is encouraging in its own right, but it’s all the more heartening since each of these men stand somewhat close to Cone’s school of Black Theology.  Hence the reviewer’s speculation about the emergence of a “new Black Theology.”  Such an emergence, representing a re-appropriation of classic Christian sources rather than a rejection of them (a la Cone), would be a huge move toward theological health.  I suspect there would still be tendencies and conclusions we’d all differ on at places, but re-centering Christian dogmatics and tradition significantly improves the viability of “Black Theology” as unqualified theology.

If you’re interested in thinking more along these lines, I’d encourage a read of the article/review.  Here are the final three paragraphs:

In other words, black theology is reclaiming the theological tradition as its own and, under the banner of orthodoxy, taking on all comers. By rethinking the Enlightenment’s promises of enlightenment and rearticulating racial existence in the language of the church’s most sacred doctrines, black theology is now (or once again) making a case that cannot be denied. The debate is no longer fixed on racial identity politics (a quagmire from which none can escape); rather, it takes place on the level playing field of orthodoxy.

The new theology reminds us that it was a mistake to call black theology “black theology” in the first place. Consistency at least would have required that European theology equally bear the burden of qualifications (“colonizing theology”). To be sure, patronizing name-calling allowed black theology to develop its own voice in its own time, just as the segregated black church developed its own styles, saints and stories. But because the margins were managed by white theologians, those voices were heard by whites, and when heard they were regarded as less than equal and so were not allowed to challenge white hegemony and help white theology be anything other than white theology.

Accordingly, the new black theology is best described as the new theology, no (dis)qualifying adjective necessary. In it we see Christian theology at long last incarnating the material conditions whereby the good news becomes good news.

A New “Black Theology” without the (Dis)qualifying Adjective

On April 13-14 2012, ReachLife Minsitries in Partnership with Reach Records will be hosting the 2012 Man Up Conference and Concert Finale in Atlanta, GA.

This event will be a huge opportunity for over 1000 Urban Men to attend and provide them with the knowledge, encouragement and prayer that they need to pursue biblical manhood in their lives.

Because of budget constraints, many individuals who NEED to attend are UNABLE to.

Because of this need, we have created the Man Up 116 Campaign Fund. This campaign will help us pay for those individuals who need to be at this event, regardless of their financial circumstances. We are praying that we will be able to give 500 men free admission to this conference.

Would you please help us by supporting these individuals with a donation?

For more information on the Man Up 2012 Conference and Campaign, please visit www.manup2012.com.

If you would like to create a matching grant for this campaign, please email us at manup2012@reachlife.org.

REACHLIFE MINSITRIES IS A 501(C)3. YOUR DONATION WILL BE TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

Support the Man Up! Conference

He was an ambassador for African-American history and culture and a tireless champion/mentor for healthy respect and diversity on campus.  In the 80s and 90s, Dr. Clark used to host part of the orientation for incoming freshmen.  He pioneered this slide presentation (anybody remember slides?!) called, “Who Am I?”  It was a tour de force in African and African-American history.  In my days on campus, he was part of a dynamic twosome with Dr. Gus Witherspoon, who went to be with the Lord a few years back.  Together they were good cop (Clark) and bad cop (Witherspoon) in agitating for so many good causes.  When they did “Who Am I?” together it was as if you were transported centuries into the past and walked distant shores and sands of history.  They were fierce.

Students were often in Dr. Clark’s house eating up his food, listening to him regale them with history, stories, and jokes.  He was the favorite uncle or the slightly whacky grandpa, only with serious depth.  He could call you in his office and put you back in line, too.  I’ve received that call a couple times for being “out my natural born mind.”

And he was a brother in the Lord.  I didn’t respect that at the time–too radical, too angry, too blind, a Muslim.  But he witnessed patiently and prodded gently and never rejected me.  God, I owe so much to him.  He was a dear, dear man.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, one of the best compliments you could have paid an African-American was to call him a “race man.”  It was simply a way of saying that he was committed to the advance and progress of African-Americans.  Such a man was an example of industry, intelligence, and insistence.  He was unimpeachable in character.  Dr. Clark would be among the last of the great “race men.”  He’ll be remembered and missed.  I pray for his four children, their families, and the extended family as they mourn such a great loss.

The Last of the “Race Men”

I don’t know what I expect when I write some blog posts.  Usually I’m just in my own little head trying to get some coherent thoughts out so I can learn and think.  So, I write what I’m thinking.  Somewhere in the back of my mind I do hope it’s helpful to someone else.  But sometimes it stirs up questions and comments I didn’t anticipate.  Like the post “This Black Leader or That Black Leader.”  I suppose I knew it would stir conversation, but I didn’t anticipate being accused of furthering Black-White divides, especially when I’ve written so much to challenge the very question of “race” itself.  Outflanked on the right, I suppose.

Then there was this great question: “Where does the idea of ‘blackness’ come from anyway?”  Hmmm.  That’s a fine question.  It revealed my assumption that everybody had a working notion of “blackness” or “whiteness” and some sense of where it comes from.  I’m glad for the question for two reasons: (1) It proves not everybody does–that’s good news; and (2) it suggests real progress on this front–also good news.

But, perhaps it’s good to attempt a short answer to this question before resuming the schedule of posts I have for this week.  Perhaps answer this question will help make some sense of the previous posts and make the subsequent ones more helpful (at least understandable).  So, where does “blackness” (and for that matter, “whiteness”) come from?

Not from the Bible

First, we ought to say something about where it does not come from.  It does not come from the Bible.  As I understand the Scripture with what light the Spirit has given me, the Bible’s story line emphasizes our great continuity with one another.  To be sure there are different families, clans, nations, languages, and religions, but there is one humanity, descended from Adam, made in God’s image and likeness.  Genesis 10 tells us of the fracturing of peoples into various clans and regions.  But note that everyone there descends from one family, Noah’s.  Acts 17:26, a favorite text of early African American Christians fighting to be regarded as human, reads: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (KJV).  I suspect Paul had Gen. 3:20 and Gen. 10 in mind when he preached those words in Athens.  So, if by “whiteness” or “blackness” we mean something approaching “race” as biological other, then that idea finds no support in the Bible.

Not from Genetics

Acts 17:26 (KJV) is also interesting for another reason.  At least in terms of American views of “race,” there has been the long-standing “one drop rule.”  That’s the idea, at first social and then legal, that one drop of African blood made a person “black.”  This is why we ask insane questions like, “What color is Johnny?” or “Is Barack Obama black?”  And this is why we make the equally insane conclusion once we find out that somebody in Barack Obama’s family was black-skinned that, in fact, Barack Obama is “black.”  The one-drop rule resulted in terms like “full-blooded” (as in the case of “full-blood Cherokee”) or “half-breeds” (a pejorative if ever there was one), and “mixed-race” people.  The one-drop rule rests upon a faulty genetic premise: that there is sufficient genetic difference to constitute different “races” (read, “species”) among the peoples of the world.  The mixing of these “bloods” resulted in, it was assumed, real genetic differences between the “races.”  However, you’d be really hard-pressed to find one genetic scientist today who would argue for any genetic basis for different races.  The genetic difference between blacks, whites, browns, etc. is so marginal that we’re left to affirm Acts 17:26: “He made from one blood all nations of men.”  So, race (and therefore “blackness” or “whiteness”) has no genetic foundation.

From Society

So where does “blackness” and “whiteness” come from?  There are four interlocking sources, if you’ll let me speak in general terms.  First, it comes from society.  ”Race” and attendant ideas like “blackness” and “whiteness” are social constructs, made up by people and cultures everywhere.  One thing many people don’t realize is that there has never been in worldwide consensus on precisely how many “races” there are.  Different societies developed different definitions.  In America, most of the history focused on two “races”–black and white.  But in South Africa, that society classified people into three “races”–black, white, and colored.  Early Chinese ethnographers argued for ten racial classifications.  We could go on.  If you want more about this, read the introduction to Colin Kidds excellent work, The Forging of Races.  The point is that “race” and “blackness” or “whiteness” are socially constructed identifiers.

What’s fueling these social constructions of racial categories?  That brings us to our second of the three interlocking sources: spiritual alienation from God and one another.

From the Fall

Read Genesis 3-4 and 10 again.  What was meant to be one humanity under the reign of God subduing the earth and filling it with His glory became a alienated, hostile, murderous, dispersed, confused, and separated mass of peoples.  The effects of the Fall are real, and it’s our fallen nature that drives us to not only classify ourselves along racial lines but also to join feelings of alienation, hostility, and xenophobia to those classifications.  What’s the first thing Cain says when God pronounces his banishment?  “Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (Gen. 4:14, NIV).  Do you see the alienation from God and other peoples in Cain’s speech?  It’s an alienation he received from his parents and that we receive from his parents.  The spiritual “other” or “alien” really emerges from sin’s entrance into the world.  And it’s partly what explains the existence of “blackness” and “whiteness.”

From Psychology

The Fall touched every part of man, corrupting him at his root.  The rational faculties of man are no exception.  That’s what I mean when I say “race,” “racism,” “blackness,” and “whiteness” come from our psychology.  There’s a theory in social psychology called “social attribution theory.”  Simplifying a bit, the theory teaches that basically all of our minds are pretty quick stereotyping machines.  We recognize certain characteristics in others and then our minds–often so quickly that we’re not conscious we’re doing it–begins to make attributions.  You’ve perhaps heard of the famous (though flawed) psychological study that showed a black baby doll and a white baby doll to little children and asked the children to describe what they thought about the dolls.  Routinely the children rated the black doll as dirty, dumb, and so on, while rating the white doll as pretty, desirable, etc.  That study was pivotal in the Brown v. Board case that led to the end of racial segregation in the United States.  I point to the study simply to illustrate the point: we are assigning attributes to one another all the time based upon things like skin color and hair texture.  It’s not simply that we have a category of “races” in our minds, or simply that we notice skin color.  That’s not how the mind works.  We notice skin color, file the person into a racial category, and then our minds take over by filling in assumed attributes (positive or negative) about the person.  We do it and we often don’t even know we do it. The mind is a mercilessly efficient stereotyper.  That’s why we have the notion of “blackness” or “whiteness.”

From Interaction

Now, there’s a fourth source of “blackness” and “whiteness” we need to consider: cross-ethnic interactions.  Our experiences with one another have a lot to do with forming, reinforcing, and shaping our notions of “blackness” and “whiteness.”  Part of what it means to be “black” or “white” gets formed in the crucible of shared pain, suffering, joy, hope, failure, success, loss and so on.  Despite our various categorizations, we share one planet and occupy one social world.  There are places in this social world where we may retreat with others who share our identity, but even then we’re aware of “the others” and that awareness shapes how we’re together.

Now, here’s an important point under this category of interaction: White people helped define “blackness” for Black people, and Black people help define “whiteness” for white people.  The entire argument for slavery which depended on defining “blacks” as inferior and subhuman had and has a tremendous effect on how others see Black people and how Black people see themselves.  Many others bought and buy the lie.  So, too, did some Blacks.  And those Blacks who did not nevertheless had to forge a definition of “blackness” in response to the negative definitions of whites.  There’s a dynamic negotiation and struggle for the control of “blackness.”  Where does “blackness” come from?

But the truth is: White people created “blackness,” and Black people have returned the favor.  ”Blackness” and “whiteness” come from the conflicts and interactions of black-skinned and white-skinned people fighting for that most absolute power of defining self and others according to your own social location.  In the same whites, Blacks have mounted counter-strikes to define white-skinned people, so that “whiteness” in the Black imagination includes certain things.  To be silly and very stereotypical, “whiteness” includes the inability to dance, strange tastes in music, no ‘cool’ or ‘soul,’ and so on.  Or, to be more serious, “whiteness” represents risk to one’s Black self, oppression, marginalization, and so on.  We are simply one lifetime away from a social setting where mistakes with Whites ended in lynchings, cross burnings, and so on.  That’s ugly, real, painful history.  It illustrates how “blackness” and “whiteness” result from a fallen social world where attributions and interactions happen at the speed of thought and carry enormous consequence.

So…

That’s why any discussions of “race” almost immediately move to discussions of our experiences.  It’s in the interactions that these things get defined in powerfully personal ways.  Now the problem with the quick move to experiences is that (a) we can’t change our histories, (b) our histories can enslave us, and (c) our personal histories often blind us to the underlying issues of the Fall and the social attributions we make.  So, our histories keep us from doing the harder, deeper work of forging a biblical view of ourselves and others.  And this is very important: Because these ideas are formed through interaction, it’s going to take massive levels of interaction to undo the damage that’s been done and to forge a new path.  We won’t escape the quagmire by waving a wand or by fiat.  Nor will we get there by simply decrying the fact that others “still think this way.”  We have to roll up our sleeves, reach into our hearts, pull out the old and plant the new.  I pray the Lord will allow us to do this more and more by His word and His Spirit.

Some References for Those Who Might Like to Read More:

Collin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000 (Cambridge, 2006)

Joseph L. Graves, Jr., The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America (Plume, 2005)

Nell Irvin Painter, The History of White People (Norton, 2010)

Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill, 1968)

David R. Roediger (ed.), Black on White: Black Writes on What It Means to Be White (Schocken, 1998)

Debra J. Dickerson, The End of Blackness: Returning the Souls of Black Folk to Their Rightful Owners (Anchor, 2004)

W. Fitzhugh Brundage, The Southern Past: A Clash of Race and Memory (Belknap of Harvard, 2005)

Mia Bay, The White Image in the Black Mind: African-American Ideas about White People, 1830-1925 (Oxford, 2000)

Eric L. Goldstein, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity (Princeton, 2006)

Mark M. Smith, How Race Is Made: Slavery, Segregation, and the Senses (Chapel Hill, 2006)

Scott L. Malcolmson, One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race (Farrar Straus Giroux, 2000)

Amitai Etzioni, The Monochrome Society (Princeton and Oxford, 2001)

Grace Elizabeth Hale, Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940 (Pantheon, 1998)

Where Does “Blackness” and “Whiteness” Come From?