Category: Church

True Witness is through Rejection of Identity Politics, Part 2

On December 26, 2017

I want to point out three different ways the world plays identity politics. These three ways are through the rejection of the universal masculine, through the acceptance of nomenclature like “non-straight” Christians, and finally through acceptance of gender-neutral pronouns to refer to individuals. The first is an older issue. In the minds of many that particular cause is a lost cause. It’s beginnings were prominent in the last century. This is the movement away from the use of any type of universal masculine. To use the universal masculine is to use “man” as a placeholder for both men and women This is a legitimate use of the word “man” in the English language. In its stead, men have used gender-neutral words like “people” or “they.”

Through feminism and individualism, along with the rise of leftism in universities the universal masculine is no longer used. Feminism argued for equality of men and women in absolutely every respect. They did not exclude pronouns. Radical individualism resisted any type of collectivism even in language. The few who refuse to bend to the dominant grammar are relegated to the sidelines. This is particularly true in Bible translation. Yet God chooses to identify man, as a whole, in masculine terms. He defines man and women, as man, in Genesis 1. This is not demeaning to women, this is merely because man was created first.

Arguably, this is the beginning of identity politics; a demand for respect for the individuality of members of a group. There was no room for definition in relation to a whole, the individual, in this case, the individual woman, demands respect. The speaker must recognize her gender.

This is where the insanity began. For this reason, I choose to be regulated to the sidelines with a couple of others. I choose to join the dinosaurs. There is a chance to persuade me that God might not appreciate this stand. God wants us to relate to our own society. We speak in a different language than the Hebrews. We think in a different way than the Hebrews. It’s possible that I sin. If I do, I do so in ignorance. However, I believe that God will honor this decision. I believe that there is more continuity between Hebrew culture and our own than we like to believe.

My reason: scripture should teach me how to think about gender. It is not the main goal of scripture. The main goal of scripture is to teach me about Christ. but scripture does teach me about my identity and the identity I receive in Christ.

The second way of identity politics is a little more recent. It is the new understanding of the word “homosexual.” The word used to refer to a condition, a desire or an action, not necessarily a biological identity equivalent to our identity as a man or a woman, or possibly our identity as tall or short. Unfortunately, the evangelical world has begun to talk about “homosexual Christians” as if that is a real possibility. They have accepted the “fact” that the identity of “homosexuality” is equivalent to a gene for tallness or a predisposition to cancer.

But God offers a new identity. That is why it is particularly repugnant to call a Christian a “homosexual” Christian. We wouldn’t want to call a brother in Christ a Christian “murderer.” We don’t even need to give into the world on the old identity we have in Adam. Yes “homosexuality” can be an identity, but it is an identity in the way “miser” or “murderer” or “drunk” is an identity. It is a problem; a problem that people seriously struggle with, sometimes throughout their whole lives. But this identity is not grounded in creation. The identities we gain through the curse and through our sinful desires are no longer ours in Christ.

The final example of identity politics is the most recent. These are the gender-neutral pronouns, which Jordan Peterson is dealing with. This is also the most extreme case of identity politics. My comments on this will only repeat what I have already said. I would only add that this is the clearest and unambiguous case we have so far. The attempts to nuance this issue fail.

Witness through Rejection of Identity Politics, Part 1

By James

On December 20, 2017

In Church, Witness

What does it mean to witness to Jesus Christ? The answer is simple. It is to confess Jesus. Christians are ambassadors of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We do so by announcing that King Jesus rules and calling all men to humble themselves in repentance before him. We tell them, and we show them, how good it is to live before Christ. I argue that we cannot use identity politics to witness to Jesus Christ. Identity Politics rejects the identity that Christ gives us and celebrates the identity that people choose for themselves instead of our God-given identities.

I would add more: we witness to Jesus by confessing the truth that he has taught us. Even more: we witness to Jesus by delighting in the good law that he gave us. Finally, we witness to Jesus by rejoicing in the identity that he gave us. That final point is the important point here. If we rejoice in the identity Christ gave us. If we accept Scripture’s word on the identity Christ has given both to us and others, we must reject any type of identity politics. This identity includes both the identity that Christ gives us through our creation and through our redemption.

Yet, for evangelicals, it is never so simple. They cave into identity politics. Identity politics is any movement that demands respect for an identity that is obviously false. And to see why you need to go no further than the problem Pastor Toby Sumpter deals with here. The article he is dealing with is here. You can find another article from the gospel coalition that uses the branding “nonstraight Christians” here. Now Christians are branding themselves according to the categories of the world.

In a strange twist of providence, I believe it is the agnostic Jordan Peterson, who has forced me to deal with this issue head-on. His courageous stand against using genderfluid pronouns like “zer” and “ze,” for the sake of those who want to use those pronouns has encouraged me to be firm on this issue. If an agnostic can take a stand for truth out of compassion for the psychologically confused, how much more a Christian, who confesses that they know the mind of Christ. It is wicked and cruel to accept people in this way. You demonstrate that you accept their identity as they define it.

Of course, you do want to accept the identity men have been given. We accept all men and women as people made in the image of God. They deserve the dignity that goes with that. A re-defined identity deserves no respect. Neither we should give it any respect. Out of grace, out of mercy, we should hold to the God’s truth. Even so, one’s true identity continues to deserve respect no matter how far one has perverted one’s self.

The Best and the Worst of Tim Keller’s “Center Church.”

By James

On December 13, 2017

In Church

Tim Keller’s Magnum Opus, Center Church, is impressive. You can find it here. He has a comprehensive grasp on what is going on in the church and scholarship today. Keller is a synthesizer. He draws from many traditions in order to present us with a church that is well-balanced in relation to the city and its culture. He continually demonstrates both psychological and cultural savvy.

Keller’s Contextualization

Keller’s grasp of human psychology is the most valuable thing you will go away with. It is particularly evident in the section on contextualization. He argues that in any culture we can separate Christian beliefs into “A” and “B” categories. The “A” category are those beliefs that our culture will easily agree with. The “B” category are those beliefs which offend our culture. Different cultures will gravitate toward certain doctrines in the Christian faith. This is not only true of cultures. Persons with different backgrounds will find Jesus attractive in different ways, but they need the presentation of the whole Christ.

Quite simply, it is wise to start with agreement. You don’t begin with conflict. That will come. If your friend does not confess the truth of Jesus Christ, the question of his existence will eventually come up. Find the “A” doctrines and work to the “B” doctrines. Find out why Jesus is attractive to the people you are ministering to. Why is it possible to do this? It is because the gospel is cohesive. The teachings of scripture are united in the person of Christ. If your audience, or your friend, find some teaching of scripture compelling, work from that to the rest of the doctrines of Christ.

For example, people in Canada, find the love and sacrifice of Christ compelling. They don’t like the doctrine of hell. But if Christ is truly loving, how can he ignore those who hate and ignore his church? You might try to get them to imagine a society where crime gets no punishment. Some type of justice is necessary. In this way, you can bring the whole gospel to a person in a winsome and helpful manner.

Keller’s Movement

Keller’s comments on movement are also very helpful. He sets movement at odds with institutions. To keep it simple: movements are about growth and revival. Institutions are about stability. Keller argues that the church must always include both.

He applies this to church planting. Church planting has to be a movement. Church planting, after all, is about growth. We plant a church in order to bring the good news to a new area. Church planting itself gives the church an opportunity for how we do church. As a byproduct church planting strengthens the institutions of other churches that are already in the area.

He also warns against institutions that are so rigid that they don’t allow for movement. I think this is a helpful warning to the more conservative denominations of today. It is good for their own health. It is very easy to use one’s power to hold an unhealthy control over churches within one’s own group.

Unfortunately, he assumes denominationalism. This is helpful in so far as the church deals with the reality of denominationalism today. However, Keller’s assumption seems to be more than a reckoning with the realities of today. He is largely content with denominationalism. Perhaps he sees it as a necessary evil in that denominationalism creates competition, which forces churches to produce effective ministers. It is hard to tell, since Keller rarely deals with denominationalism directly. When he does he has a light touch.

He forgets that there are other models from the past such as the Medieval European church, the Anglican church and the state churches of Europe. All of these have been effective as institutions and at the same time have had their renewal movements. As an aside, I should add that I do not favor state churches. But neither do I accept denominationalism. I believe that the church may well take on new structures in the future that go beyond a simple dichotomy between state churches and denominational churches.

A Major Criticism: an ill-defined church

But I have a much harsher criticism of Keller’s book. I believe this criticism applies to every part of the book.

Keller has an invisible center church. His center church has faith, but it is hard to tell how exactly it is a center church. Keller fundamentally downplays the marks of the church. It may also play into how he downplays the institutional nature of the church. He downplays the sacraments. He seems to see them as merely an aid to faith, rather than ritual signs that create a fundamental boundary between the church and the world. Throughout the book, he talks about the importance of sacraments, and of different metaphors for the church, but he does not have a strong sacramental boundary between the church and the world. I believe we end up with a center church that isn’t really a center church.

Attention to the sacraments would reveal that the church is a counter-polity a counter-city to the city. The sacraments give the Christian confidence in knowing that they are citizens of heaven. Others have argued that Keller is compromising in the way he reaches out to the city. A strong emphasis on sacraments would demonstrate that the church is a holy people. It would demonstrate that the church is the truly just society. It would also keep the antithesis between the church and the world strong, while allowing the members of the church to interact freely and graciously with all men. This is because the members of the church would know their true citizenship.

One could argue that this is not the real concern of Tim Keller for he is dealing with the church relative to mission. I would argue that this is impossible. For a large part of the book, Tim Keller is talking about the sociology of the church. He is defining the church in relation to the city and to society more generally. His inattention to the role of the sacraments in defining the Christian community is inexcusable: especially for a Presbyterian minister. Yes, the essence of the church is important, the church needs to be understood as the community of believers. But sociologically, the church is a sacramental body. This does not undermine the church as a movement. The sacraments are such that they are easily done among believers wherever the Spirit moves. You ignore that at the peril of the stability of the church itself.

Conclusion

As they say, “it is what it is.” Keller is a man of his time. Our times are not times where sacraments are emphasized. This is particularly true among the evangelical establishment. In many ways, he is the best that contemporary evangelicalism has to offer. His book is a gift to the Christian community and it should not be ignored.