Previous posts in this series:
When Reformed Evangelicals disagree on contemporary secular movements and theories: Introduction
When Reformed Evangelicals disagree on contemporary secular movements and theories: Camp A
Camp B: exhorting love of neighbour
But first, we bring you an important announcement…
The title of this series is, ‘When Reformed Evangelicals disagree on contemporary secular movements and theories’. That may communicate that with something like CRT, Camp A says ‘No’ to it, while Camp B says ‘Yes’.
However, I don’t mean that! So, apologies if the title is misleading. Instead, as I see it in terms of Camp B, they’re not giving an indiscriminate ‘yes’. Instead, what I’m hearing most times is: “Yes there are significant issues with CRT, but at the end of the day, we don’t think CRT is the primary issue or what we should be talking about. We think we need to keep moving the conversation and actions along to ways in which we can talk about past injustice and present issues as we try to better love and serve the people around us with and from the good news of Jesus.”
Therefore, even under Camp B, we should expect further critique of CRT.
In my opinion then, the disagreement between Camp A and Camp B rests on what should currently capture our focus. Camp A is ringing the warning bell about ideologies like CRT, and the real and potential dangers. But as I see it, Camp B is saying “yes BUT… have you seen what’s going on over there with those people we want to love?” And again, as acknowledged in the first post (Introduction here), I am aware that even while discussing Left and Right camps within the Reformed Evangelical movement I am (perhaps unnecessarily so) still mostly sticking to a very moderate version of both – i.e. I have largely excluded far left or far right.
And now, back to this week’s episode….
As I’ve tried to hear people more easily fitting into Camp B, these are the areas I’ve most benefitted grappling further with:
- The corporate nature of sin, historical and present, is real
- Consider better common grace and subversive fulfilment in Christ
- Listening well can be an excellent way to learn, grow and love.
- Loving our neighbours will involve messy and costly discipleship
Let me unpack those:
Four areas of loving others
1. The corporate nature of sin, historical and present, is real
If Camp A emphasises the personal agency and responsibility of individuals, then Camp B puts up their hand and says, ‘but don’t forget the collective side of sin.’ Both camps stress the pervasiveness of sin – but from different angles.
Yes, we sin as individuals. But as individuals get together, we can create structures and ways of thinking and relating that codify and enhance some of our sin. Think personal sin on steroids. And it doesn’t even necessarily require continued personal input for it to carry on. It almost becomes a creepy ‘something’ with a life of its own. I’m South African – we know the effects of legislation implemented by the Government aimed to dehumanise certain precious humans created in the image of God. But beyond mere legislation on the books, a deep seated and permeating culture of anything not-white being less-than was spawned. Less-than beautiful, valuable, human… and the list goes on.
How deep our sin goes…
Camp B is asking us to consider how deep our sin goes, beyond only individuals. And perhaps they’re asking Camp A: is your understanding of sin Biblical enough? Yes, of course for individuals, sin is so dreadful that we must be born again! In other words, we must have our hearts changed through faith in Jesus and by the Spirit. But on a broader level, in order for sin to be finally routed, not only will people need to be remade, but so will our very world at the return of Jesus. That’s how deep our sin goes! Everything has been tainted and needs recreation. So, we shouldn’t be surprised that sin works itself into multiple layers of human existence in this broken world including legislation, practises, beliefs, culture and narratives that become part of the air we breathe.
While cases and charges of ‘structural’ and ‘systemic’ can be overextended, and truthfully drive me a little cra-cra at times, personally this has been a significant area of deeper reflection. Passages like Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 1 and Daniel 9 encouraging consideration of corporate responsibility, weighted against other passages highlighting personal responsibility have been good to camp in. And I have found Timothy Keller’s commentary on the asymmetrical relationship between individual responsibility and corporate responsibility to be immensely helpful in this regard.[1]
Where’s the evidence?
As Camp B has used the wording of ‘structural and systemic racism or injustice’, Camp A has pushed back and said: ‘show us real examples, give us concrete evidence’.
In South Africa, as far as I’m aware, all or most of the racist legislation from Apartheid has been removed – perhaps you’ll be hard pressed to find examples? That doesn’t mean injustices can’t still be structurally or systematically present.[2] But to limit corporate sin only to current legislation is to miss a larger point. Namely, of just how pervasively deep our sin is AND how lasting the legacy of our sin can be.
On the latter, consider firstly how, even in a post-Apartheid South Africa, there can be the continued physical effects of the past. Almost like a hangover of crimes committed 30, 60, 100 years past. Prime examples include the land issues in South Africa, and the distribution of wealth being held in the hands of a relatively select and few.[3] Linked to this is how much harder it is for certain people to move out of poverty without much of the social and economic capital available to them.[4] Apartheid largely attached skin colour to that situation and separation between groups. That legacy takes more than 27 years to rectify.[5]
But other examples of the pervasiveness are perhaps less concrete and involve an underlying narrative or culture where ‘white’ (however you want to classify that beast) is still seen as the benchmark of what is normal and catered for. Or what receives priority engagement or trust. It may run from the aesthetic issues of advertising through to difficulty securing rental agreements without help or input from those perceived to be ‘trustworthy’ (aka white). Regarding the latter: it’s not that there is rule on paper saying ‘We won’t serve black people’. It’s more ‘this is [still] how it works’ with an unhelpful shrug or blanking of ‘sorry, can’t help you’. It’s the vibe and way things are done.[6]
Any of that results in individuals within certain groups being discriminated against unjustly. And so, out of love of neighbour, we should want to do something about that at various corporate levels where possible. That’s the major aim here – that’s what’s driving things. Love of neighbour that puts their needs beyond our own as we wait for the Saviour to return.
Doing ‘something’ at the macro level?
But what does that look like at a corporate level? I’ll admit two things:
1) My own conviction is that most times our actions will and should be focused on the people and immediate spaces around us. This acknowledges the limits and rightness of being salt and light, not just broadly ‘out there’, but intimately within the context of those closest to us. Conversely, this raises the dangers of living in isolated or cloistered settings removed from needs – perhaps sought for self protection and comfort.
2) I lack some clarity in terms of what doing ‘something’ at the corporate level looks like (and could use some helpful input from others in the South African context). So, it is a bit messy and muddy. But, perhaps that points to the smoke like quality of historic injustice? Namely, you can’t always get a firm handle on the beast to choke it, and yet you can smell that it is in the room. So, perhaps this all will be rather messy and murky at times. And within reason, that needs to be alright?
Nevertheless, let me attempt this.
Firstly, in terms of legislation from the top. Pro-racism legislation may have been repealed. But from the other end, limited efforts may include introducing (or joyfully submitting to) legislation and structures that attempt to redress past imbalances. As messy as that is and will be.
Does that sound like partiality (Lev 19:15; Deut 16:19, Prov 24:23)?
I’m not sure it is. Instead, isn’t it simply acknowledging that God’s justice has a particular bend towards those vulnerable (for whatever reason) to present injustice, or even the lingering results of the past? For instance, Deuteronomy 10 will stress God’s lack of partiality (v. 17), followed quickly by his apparent ‘soft spot’ towards the vulnerable (v. 18), which God’s people are to emulate (v. 19). The rich/powerful deserve fair treatment too (Lev 19:15 again)! But realistically: i) they don’t always need as much care; ii) they’re more able/likely (than the poor) to offer a bribe towards injustice (Deut 16:19); iii) we’re more likely to favour them (James 2:1-4). Obviously this does need to be weighed up context/case by context/case basis.
Beyond legislation, we may also have other opportunities to combat entrenched cultures and norms that minimise the worth or value of certain groups. Perhaps within certain companies and communities, and the mix between work and home spaces. Places where it may be harder for the black or brown person to step forward because of their skin colour. Or where they are being dehumanised. And we have an opportunity to start with the relationships and structures closest to us – many of them informal, some of them not. Again, even in my limited circles, these are still very present as opportunities and struggles.
Finally: Bible, or CRT driving corporate level change?
Many Camp B-ers draw our attention to the Scriptures regarding corporate sin and responsibility. But CRT also highlights the structural/systemic nature of matters. This can cause confusion: what’s pushing the conversation and action?
Perhaps looking at the fruit might help us discern the root – as to whether is it a Biblically driven one, or a CRT driven one.
From the Biblical end: talk and action around the corporate nature of sin should develop humility and gentleness in all parties – I’ll touch further on this in points 2 and 3. And we’d expect it to exhort sacrifice and generosity towards the wellbeing of all people in the context of restored and healthy relationships – more on this in point 4.
Whereas when driven by CRT I suspect that it will introduce what we discussed under Camp A. Namely: i) gross reductionism seeing racism as the root cause of all ills, and ii) the systemic and structural (corporate) almost completely overshadowing personal responsibility. CRT certainly has no asymmetrical relationship between personal and corporate responsibility. Personal responsibility can at times be entirely lacking.
Furthermore, an over extension of racism as hyper-present through all systems and structures seems to produce a culture of blinkered witch-hunts that engender shaming and cutting down people. For example: BLM proponents demanding and shaming people into saying the party line or raising their fist. Some ideologies to advance their cause harnesses mob power: creating a feverish and unthinking crowd of people who when joined together, don’t get smarter, they get dumber, and meaner. And less human. When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail, and this can feed a frenzied crowd-driven movement to label everything from lack of wisdom to actual ungodliness with the R word. And doing so as the first response and the first weighing of things! We must be careful about that.
Again, it’s reductionistic to see every issue (in every person or structure) as stemming from racism. And it also shuts down conversation! It makes people walk on eggshells for fear of being labelled as something they might not be. Even if they did do something unintentionally silly or unloving. And it can minimise the space for people to admit their wrongs freely and to seek genuine ways to right matters.
2. Consider better common grace and subversive fulfilment in Christ
In some ways discussing common grace has, especially in the last decade or two, become trendy (sorry, I think the cool kids say on trend now?) especially within talk of culture and contextualisation. Even contextualisation at times seems overextended as the clever answer to how we preach the Gospel and live as God’s people. Nevertheless…
Common grace: negative and positive functions
Daniel Strange in the UK, drawing on John Murray, summarises common grace as containing both a negative and a positive function.[7] The negative is that of divine restraint: we’re not all as bad as we could be, wrath and judgement is not immediately poured out, and even, some of the effects of sin can be restrained. Perhaps including through state, structures and legislation, I would add?
The positive is of divine favour, ‘whereby creation receives divine blessing, non-Christians receive divine favour and goodness, ‘good’ is attributed to non-Christians and non-Christians receive benefits from the presence of the gospel’.[8]
Extrapolating the positive element further, practically it means that even for rebels in God’s kingdom, even as they attempt to suppress the truth (Rom 1:18), common grace means they can’t do that perfectly, despite their best intentions. We can and should expect that pagans will strike gold – they will touch on things that are true and good. It’s not enough to be saved, but it is an overflow of common grace. Common grace, as Strange says, ‘common’ because it is universal, and ‘grace’ because it is undeserved and given by a gracious God.[9]
Common grace, and secular theories and movements
Do we expect that secular theories and movements, including BLM and CRT, can at times point out or do something that is good or true or needed? That perhaps they might partially point to both the problems and solutions? Partial I say because, let’s be clear, both their foundations and ultimate aims are flawed – sub-par because Christ is rejected.
But still, do we have room within our knowledge of God that they can (not always!) highlight certain points that are true, or do something that is good? Or… provide somewhat decent conversation partners or sounding boards, even if severely limited, and only for a while?
BLM and CRT for instance…
As an organisation, Black Lives Matter, is antithetical to Christ in multiple ways.[10] Furthermore, unlike the famed Civil Rights Movement, both the church and cross appear absent from their foundations.[11]
But even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then (too demeaning?). And the ‘nut’ they’re getting at is the need to redress the entrenched dehumanising of black and brown people. They wouldn’t use the ‘sin’ word as they have no God to sin against. But they are sounding the alarm over entrenched sin spanning decades, centuries – where black people’s lives were seen as less. So, their platforms question what doctrine of humanity we have. And they encourage a rethinking of some of the socio-economic follow-on effects of our pasts.
Having said that, as it stands, their understanding of sin and even anthropology is incredibly flawed! And their means and aims are deeply problematic and dishonouring to God. And yet… Black lives do matter – that part is true. An organisation may have trademarked some of that saying, but the ultimate truth tied to creation and the cross and resurrection in Jesus, is God’s truth.
Or take Critical Race Theory. CRT was initially developed within the American legal fraternity with an aim to advance the ground the Civil Rights era had won.[12] ‘From conventional civil rights thought, the movement took a concern for redressing historical wrongs, as well as the insistence that legal and social theory lead to practical consequences.’[13] Yes of course, when its beliefs spiral and expand outwards as an answer to everything, we have problems. But the initial narrow focus was to help people in broken systems and circumstances under the law. Isn’t that worth getting something of a Amen to? Isn’t that common grace in the outworking?[14]
There are elements of noble aims, and lucid insights within CRT.
For instance, CRT understands ‘race’ as a social construct. Christians would agree. AND need to admit all the times when supposedly Christian theology was used to advance and prop up a social construct! (ouch) Or, CRT recognises that power and privilege are tied to how certain people or people groups can benefit themselves to the exclusion of others. And again, we have some level of agreement: isn’t that just illustrating the selfishness of sin?
In other words, there is some gold of common grace. Things they ‘get’. Of course, that comes in the context of a framework that doesn’t ‘get’ the great Begetter or only Begotten. In other words: their common grace is in need of the greater special grace. One with a hamartiology that runs deeper, all the way to the human heart, and showcases even more the need for God to act in salvific grace. And even as they ‘reveal’ partial truth, they are certainly not adding to anything the Scriptures haven’t already been saying.
Use not embrace
Part of grasping common grace may entail a certain openness to using secular insights and ideologies in a limited sense. Using, not embracing.
Let me qualify what I mean by ‘use’. I don’t mean as a main or authoritative viewpoint of how we see the world and ourselves and God. I don’t mean it in terms of a major crutch to lean on and keep us upright – that’s placing too much trust in an unstable tool. And I certainly don’t mean as giving us something we don’t already have in Christ and the Scriptures.
Rather, I mean it more in terms of a light springboard or sounding board at times. At its best, there may be some good it highlights. Maybe some insights that, as it turns out, are more biblical than some of the forms of cultural Christianity we might have imbibed. Maybe they highlight a form of sin or injustice that again perhaps we were blind to, but God’s Word wasn’t! And so, as they spark some limited but good insight, we want to be launched back into the fullness of the Scriptures and God’s revelation to us in Jesus. With a desire for us to live honourably as God’s renewed people. And perhaps in the moments they highlight some wrong but without a real and lasting solution, we can show that what they desire is only perfectly found and fulfilled in Jesus. But repentance and faith is needed.
Too dangerous?
Is it worth doing this? Perhaps more forcefully: isn’t this too dangerous like swimming with sharks?
This is where Camp A is petrified – that we’ll embrace rather than use. And that *it* (whatever this is) will subtly seep in and overthrow the gospel. And I do feel that danger. The safest option is to set up boundaries i.e have nothing to do with anything secular. That might seem to keep us from anything dangerous.
But that feels too neat, and akin to a monastic approach to life in this world. Which actually ruins the opportunity for the far more difficult, but far more real opportunity to be salt and light. To engage and not just shut down.
Don’t hear me wrong, certain secular movements and theories may only need to be shut down and not engaged with! There may be nothing of good or value worth gathering from the wreckage.
But sometimes Camp A seems to apply that in a blanketed and indiscriminate way. Whereas I’m hearing Camp B saying, “Let’s just hold on a moment here and do some due diligence.” And as we shift through some of the dung, there might be some gold. If not some common grace to strengthen us, then at the very least some starting point to talk about how Christ is better.
Biblical examples
Isn’t this closer to Biblical examples? Sorry to bring up le texte célèbre of contextualisation but yes, consider Acts 17. So, Paul in Athens to the unknown god. Today it feels like Camp A would have called Paul aside and chided him, saying ‘Paulos, are you saying the Triune God is unknown? And we’re a little concerned that you didn’t come out guns blazing towards their pagan beliefs!’ Or when he quotes a Cretan poet in Titus 1:12, ‘Dude, did you know what Epimenides was into? He supported X and Y… stop embracing such and such!’
And yet, Paul seems OK with his plan of attack, using snippets of culture and religion (and aren’t secular ideologies religious?) to draw truer and larger conclusions. He’s able to do that while still condemning false teaching (Titus 1:13-15). Or climaxing with the message of resurrection of Christ as the one set to judge the world (Acts 17:30-31). He simultaneously upholds good doctrine, and engages the thoughts and actions of the world! Not as a clever magic key, but simply as a way of being Christian and talking about Jesus.
Using and not embracing…. threading the needle between those two elements is tricky! Again, the safest is to shut things down.
But is that always the most faithful response?
The former feels very monk-like: ‘us up here in these hills and with these walls, we’re safe from the world.’ But not only is that not true (have you seen our own hearts?). But also it misses opportunities to engage our world (or rather, the people around us) in such a way that sees Christ proclaimed. That’s part of Paul’s driving aim isn’t it? And it leads him to touch and reach into certain ideas of the world, using them at times as launching pads and touch points.
Engage the world, and protect our doctrine?
I wonder if part of the discussion we need to be having is about how we’re still able to use but not embrace – engage with our world, but also protect against false teaching entering our churches. And I do get that Camp A feels like something like CRT is being embraced by the [American?] church. I don’t think that should just be dismissed. But I do admit that it is harder to see in my context.[15]
To explain that: I’m into my 14th year linked to a single university campus in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa. The first four years of those included undergrad and postgrad studies in law and languages (and various other humanities subjects) in the early 2000s. There were some gaps and a hiatus for further Theological studies abroad, but the other decade has been spent working fulltime among university students. So, the university context of secular theories and movements – and our South African campuses are the hotbed of these – has been my location.
And yet, June 2020 was the first time I heard the term ‘CRT’! And it’s not like I live in a country that doesn’t have a massive racism background! As I’ve done more looking around, I can see some tenets of elements that might be classified as CRT related. But in my context, they feel like minor threads, and probably more so, anachronistic to label them as driven by CRT. Lots more of our actions since 1994[16] have the stronger feel of Christian influences to them. For instance, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee’s attempts to navigate matters.
I am conscious of the need for us to protect our doctrine and practises! But I do wonder if wholesale rejection of engaging current secular movements and theories of and in the world is to miss the opportunity for us to point to the greater and far truer storyline of God in Christ Jesus. Maybe that’s easier for me to say because CRT doesn’t seem particularly prominent in presence here (see fn# 15). And again, it’s tricky to do well. But faithfulness to seeing Christ proclaimed might encourage us to explore this more. How do we use (even if just in a limited sense), but not embrace? At what points do we say of something, “this is utterly useless (and dangerous)”? And at others say, “this has some, even very limited, use or engagement?“[17]
Our continued struggle with sin as Christians introduces humility
I want to pick up one final element here, from another angle.
Common grace reminds us that the world is not as bad as it can be. Common grace also reminds us that pagans can pick and advance certain elements of good. But least we think we have it all together: at the same time our doctrine of sin reminds us that Christians (!), even as those saved in Christ, struggle to be as good now as we have been declared in Jesus. In other words, perhaps we would say, we’re not as good as we should or can be. We sin by commission AND omission. We miss the ball. Hang, sometimes we miss the stadium – even as those who know God’s Word. Does that surprise us? It shouldn’t if we have a biblical understanding of sin including for Christians, and so of our great need for Christ’s return.
Taking stock of our culpability
There is a humble invitation to acknowledge that even though we have the sufficient Scriptures – sufficient in showing the way to life, and the way of life (2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:3) – in Christ, we can still miss what the Spirit is saying IN THOSE SCRIPTURES. And at times, secular methodologies or ideologies can highlight things we’ve missed, or purposively ignored. They may function as a loudhailer from God.
Let me stress this: that is not to say they ‘own’ this truth in terms of generated it. No, God in his common grace is still at work. But us, while we continue to struggle with sin and wait for the perfecting of Christ’s return, would do well at times to stop and listen, or look. And if or when we do that, at times we may discover that what the secularists declare may partially be something that the Scriptures, or a section of the historical church, have already been saying.[18] But we’ve been too blind or rebellious or consumed with cultural Christianity to notice.
Where haven’t we been ‘the salt of the earth’ or the light of the world’ (Matt 5:13, 14) – as followers of the salty Jesus, the true Light who came into our world? As those re-created in Christ Jesus, we’re to overflow in good works (Eph 2:10, 2 Thess 1:11-12; Titus 3:8, 14). But how many times have we hunkered down, instead of heading out? Perhaps seeking comfort and individual happiness, instead of sacrifice and communal good. The sharp edge of Christian insight and concern for the people of this world has been dulled. Mea culpa. And Lord, have mercy, on us your people.
Bringing it together
When these secular movements and ideologies are so tainted, the question I keep asking myself is: why even bother trying to ‘use’ or engage with them? Frankly I often wish we didn’t have to touch any of them with a barge pole.
But then my understanding of common grace comes in and the recognition that the men and women behind these secular ideologies and theories are image bearers – broken but still, image bearers. They may still be reflecting some of the light. While splintered and deeply needing renewal in Christ, there may still be some truth. Though broken, they are not always as broken as they could be. God’s common grace.
And my doctrine of sin also sets in better and I remember, even as someone renewed in Christ, I don’t always keep in step with the Spirit. There is still a certain taint to me, with one foot in this world. A bit of humility would be wise and true. And simply better listening, which I can keep weighing up with the present witness of the Spirit-inspired and Christ-honouring Scriptures.
3. Listening well can be an excellent way to learn, grow and love.
Camp A’s point 4 included a warning about the potential powerplay of ‘you can only speak if you’re black or brown’ (so, shush… even if you have God’s Spirit). It can also quickly morph into ‘you can only speak if you’re the right kind of black or brown.’
So yes, when it comes to something like CRT, there can be all kinds of powerplays to do with who gets to speak, and so who we can/must listen to.
Here’s Camp B’s ‘yes, but’ to that. The basic point is that we can learn and grow and love by listening to the voices and experiences of others. A few caveats for the Camp A-ers currently feeling triggered (hang in guys, it’ll be OK):
Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience
Figure 1 
Figure 2
Many of us will be familiar with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of ‘Scripture, reason, tradition and experience.’ (figure 1). I frequently hear it used to interrogate where our ultimate source of authority lies. But at times proponents of Sola Scriptura (of which I am too) strain matters. At times we seem to say that because we’re convicted of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, therefore the other three (reason, tradition, and experience) are rubbish. To be frank, that’s silly.
Holding to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture doesn’t mean the other three parts of the quadrilateral don’t count or aren’t good. It just means they need to be in their proper place. In other words, not as the ultimate authority (figure 2). But there can still be a goodness to the other three areas and avenues. And actually (!)… they can be used by God to help us as we study the Scriptures and desire lives worthy of God. Of course, discernment is always needed (Acts 17:11) – i.e. we keep a fairly constant movement both from and to the Scriptures as we read and listen to the newspapers of the world.
Christians are (or should be) listening people.
Perhaps we need to take a step back and touch on the foundational role of listening in the Christian life. Listening is a crucial part of the Christian life. Was it Luther who said that the primary organ of the Christian are the ears? It’s certainly part of what God uses to see us become Christians. And it is part of what God uses to continue to grow us as Christians. As we start, so we continue. So, Christians are listening people. Let me make 3 brief points related to that:
i) Within the community of saints, we listen to learn and grow
Around God’s Word, God grows us through the speech of his saints – which we would do well to listen to. And I don’t just mean from the preacher at the pulpit, I also mean through the saints in the sidewalks of life. Think Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3:16. God has wired us as those who grow through the saints speaking the truth to one another in love. We mature as the word of Christ dwells in us richly. The saints speak (and so do we as fellow-saints) and we listen (and so do they as fellow-saints). We do this in community with one another – lives rubbing, often uncomfortably, and yet we grow together. And again, central, is speaking and listening, flowing from and heading back into the fountain of good news concerning Jesus from the Scriptures. He who will not listen, is unlikely to both become, or grow as Christian. Christians are listening people.
ii) As we listen, God can use differences to sharpen and illuminate
God has shaped each one of us differently. And these differences under God can be for our good. They won’t always be. And often they might make life more difficult, not easier. But still, even if difficult, they can be for our good. Differences, under God can sharpen and illuminate.
It might be differences such as gender or age or socioeconomics or ethnicity. These can be for the strengthening of us as individuals or as a local community of saints. The 20-year-old leans on the wisdom of some of the older men and women. The rich, in fellowship with the poor, are reminded that much of what they materially take for granted is actually a gift from the Lord, which they are to generously steward. The poor are taught by a rich saint that desire for money can easily be an idol when unchecked – either as rich or poor. The bloke is rebuked by his older sister in Christ that not everyone thinks like a guy – duh! Or, a white South African like me is given insight into what it’s like to be a young Black man or woman in the post-Apartheid years.[19]
All or any of these differences can be used by God to sharpen us. Or to illuminate something. That’s not CRT’s standpoint theory, that’s God’s design. It’s simple and basic, and yet subtly and powerfully used by God to mature and grow us. And many of us would have experienced this used by God in our relationships with both Christians and non-Christians in a host of ways.
iii) Listening as a basic way to love, and again, learn
It’s a fairly basic human desire isn’t it? For someone to listen to us. Especially so when there is pain or an issue. In that moment, an important way to love, is to listen.
My wife comes home and she’s angry about something that just happened. She needs me as her husband to listen to her. To listen and not interrupt. At least not now. As she speaks she might not get everything right (that’s ok, this is a secure relationship and hopefully I wont pounce on her). She might be using speaking to me to process things. Or to eventually ask for advice or encouragement, or rebuke. But in that moment if I’m loving her well, I’ll keep quiet and listen to what’s going on for her.
Yes, there may be counter arguments and things to push back on. And there may (and must be?) times to raise those points. But at a basic level, listening is a crucial way to love. And it’s a skill that we often don’t get right: be it in relationships like above, or even sometimes in our relationships with non-Christians. On the latter: sometimes we only listen as a way to get a chance to speak (evangelise). Rather than first loving the person by genuinely listening to what they have to say. And then perhaps taking the opportunity to speak.
Listening is not only a basic way to love, but also to learn.
In Christian community certainly (cf. i) above), but also with non-Christians and the world. And this ties into our previous points to do with common grace (section 2 above). As we interact with what people have to say, we do have an opportunity to learn. It’s true: not everything said is worth learning from, or is necessarily true. And so, discernment again is needed. But… we’re in a world where God’s grace is at work, using a myriad of different people (Christian and not) and ways to learn and grow us. He is sovereign like that.[20]
So, what’s the fuss? (The point still stands…)
I get that Camp A is worried that the calls for us to listen, especially in the context of race relations, sound very po-mo (postmodern) and more. But as far as I can tell, Camp B isn’t calling for some version of listening with malleable truth. They’re just saying: it’s good to listen. After all, Christians are listening people. In community around the Word. With differences being used to sharpen and illuminate. And we know that listening can be a great way to love.
Furthermore, the current context of this encouragement matters. It’s coming from a place where people are feeling hurt and pain and fear.
Might there need to be some push back at certain points? Yes, perhaps or probably. But… wouldn’t a first good instinct be to listen to some of what people are describing and talking about? As a way to love, and with a willingness to learn? I get that lots of this current conversation is US-specific too, which is different to the African scene in some ways. The US context, within a majority white and minority black situation, has some asking for there to be more listening to black men and women. To hear some of the things that grieve them – as a way to love these fellow image-bearers. And as a way to learn – especially from black Christians.
While my context isn’t the same, the point is still a good one. And actually, something that South African whiteys like me need to heed. It’s still far too easy, even as a minority, to get stuck into white bubbles that make us think ‘that’ culture is the norm. And to remain closed off to what the far more ‘normal’ South African experience is.
Ways to listen well?
The call to listen well has been a point from Camp B I have appreciated and tried to continue taking to heart. There might be different ways of doing it, but in practise for me it has looked like a focus on relationships and reading.
i) Relationships
In my opinion, especially with the issues floating around, the most ideal situation for listening is within relationships. First and foremost, with fellow Christians but also with non-Christians.
It might be easier for some than others though. I spend most of my work week as a white minority in majority black settings and relationships. Which is a joy! For someone, under God, sovereignly born and bred in South Africa I’d go so far as to say that I’m a better shaped person and Christian for this context because of the influences and inputs of the beautiful men and women I am on staff team with, and the men and women I have the privilege to disciple. In many of those relationships even if I am leading in some capacity, it really is a two-way street in terms of edification. That’s, I think, always meant to be a case in all Christian relationships to some extent – even in contexts where people look very similar to one another.
Camp B has encouraged me to keep pursuing active listening from those God has placed around me. Especially in the context, God-willing, of genuine love and relationships. I rejoice in the opportunities and relationships he has given me.
ii) Reading
Reading widely, and deeply at points, has been an enriching form of listening. Reading isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but for me this has always been a major way to open a window into the lives and experiences and insights of people far broader than just those I know, and even agree with. And so, if close relationships are currently lacking, this option is still available. Or can be in addition.
For instance, my understanding of my country’s past (and future) is much better off through reading (of) Tiyo Soga, Magema Fuze, Es’kia Mphalele, Steve Biko, Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Robert Sobukwe and others. Reformed evangelicals or not; Christian or not. And having that allows me to, hopefully, apply the good news of Jesus with sharper focus to the people who live and breathe in the context of South Africa. It has helped shape me to be a better gospel proclaimer and lover of people.
Likewise, when it comes to interacting with touchpoints somewhat related to points raised by BLM and CRT I have benefited immensely from the works and thoughts of others. My current list of Christians includes, for instance, Carl F. Ellis Jr., Anthony Bradley, Esau McCaulley, Timothy Keller, Voddie Baucham, Darrell Harrison, Rasool Berry, and Neil Shenvi[21] These guys wouldn’t see eye to eye on everything together (understatement of the year?). But unknown to them, they’ve been helpful conversations partners for me as I’ve wrestled with certain elements.[22]
One step further but related to the above: I do think there is value in reading outside of our theological fold or backgrounds. Of course this is easier (safer?) if/when we have a firm (and continued) foundation in the Scriptures. For some of us, in addition, Theological education when operating best gives us further tools to interact with those we disagree with theologically.
But the point is: as only reading your favourite theologian or celebrity preacher/writer can be unhealthy, so too can reading only within an extremely limited, especially theological, framework. I find it healthy (and stimulating) to engage with those outside of my theological fold or background. I aim for reading the best of ‘others’ – by which I mean the best of the arguments and thoughts of those somewhat different to me. That’s within reason. For example, there are some I’d never bother with. Joel Osteen for instance, theological lightweight that he is – just because there’s little to no chance of edification, even if he’s one of the best in his racket. Likewise, I sometimes can’t handle those too far left or right, or heretical. So, there are limits even to my own willingness.
Lastly, I have also been edified by insights from fields like history (that one seems more obvious, as noted above), psychology, and the social sciences for instance. They are not my first point of where to look for truth, the Scriptures take that priority.[23] But while exegesis and theology are dominant, and should continue to be so in forming me, I have been stimulated by inputs from these other fields. And again, I see this as forming part of Common Grace, with of course, the need for continued discernment.
Conclusion: Listening well can be an excellent way to learn, grow and love.
Yes, there are dangers (gosh, it’s a dangerous world out there!). While Proverbs encourages listening, it also warns against how listening to the wrong people can lead us astray. So, again, there must be discernment.
But in their concern over CRT, might Camp A be forgetting the fairly basic place of listening in the Christian life? Of first and greatest and continued importance is listening to God’s Spirit through the Scriptures! But sometimes the Camp A warnings seem to lean towards some kind of unhealthy dualism that denies other areas of common grace such as experience, reason and tradition. And perhaps more fundamentally runs the danger of shutting our ears to the cries of pain and hurt of others.
Camp B, rightly in my opinion, champions listening better. And especially as a way to love people in their hurt. I think that’s worth reflecting and acting on further.
4. Loving our neighbours will involve messy and costly discipleship
I see this as a particular emphasis of Camp B. And in fact, the first 3 major Camp B points are subsets in some degree to this single point. Having said that, I’m not saying that Camp A doesn’t care about love of neighbour, and aren’t actively and sacrificially involved in it! So perhaps to say: it isn’t a question of presence but emphasis in this current discussion.
I’ve appreciated Camp B’s encouragement to embrace some of the messiness of loving and serving the people around us.
Truth matters! Doctrine matters! Faithfulness to the Scriptures and honouring Christ matters! But while we want to keep making sure our foundations and actions are securely biblical and Christocentric, hopefully we can also recognise the danger of merely becoming ivory tower theologians. We’re so prim and proper about crossing this theological T or inerrant I (yes, there is importance in doing that!) but can end up missing the wood for the trees. Hear James, ‘be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.’ (James 1:22) Or: ‘faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.’ (2:17). I feel this danger for myself.
Getting stuck into the messiness of the world
Our lives involve interactions with, for instance, structures and culture and politics. It is easier to not get involved – perhaps to try and keep us and ‘our Christianity’ more pristine. But it can also create false dualism in the ordinary things of life, instead of stepping up to the plate of the vocations of relationships we have been given in a myriad of ways. Of course, there are good times to set up boundaries that separate us from the world. For instance, with our current conversation, I can’t see the goodness or godliness of joining the BLM or embracing CRT.
But at other times we need to recognise that there will be some needed chaos in getting stuck into loving the people around us. Including entrance into the realm of politics etc. These areas form a significant part of people’s lives. And so, for us to absent ourselves from these areas, besides missing the opportunity to love people in those spaces, also leaves a vacuum. A vacuum that will be filled by others who might, on their best days, raise some decent points. But at the end of the day, if they are outside of Christ, they can’t point to ultimate hope in Christ.
Instead we have both knowledge of God’s better story, and also the call to live that out in all areas where God has placed us. The good news of Jesus is for all of life.
Over and under-realised eschatology, and good works
Perhaps there are dangers of over-realised eschatology from some moderate and especially further left voices. I’ll admit that I often feel that some calls for ‘social justice’ (and even ‘redeeming the city’) have overtures of this here. Surely we must recognise that our involvement in politics and structures and culture is not the same as in Islam – to dominate, control and be the majority voice. We must be ok with being marginalised and the minority and mistreated in the messy middle of the Lord’s comings.
On the other hand: there is also the opposite danger of an under-realised eschatology from some Reformed Evangelicals – myself included. Yes, our ultimate hope is in Jesus’ return bringing in God’s will on earth as it is in heaven.
But trusting in that doesn’t divorce the call to jump into people and places and politics now. Not so much to see heaven perfectly come now through our efforts. But as an outworking of our new identity in Christ, and as tangible ways to carry that out in loving the people around us.
As those in Christ Jesus we have been recreated in Christ Jesus to do good works. Jesus’ good works save us – there is our assurance and salvation. But the nature of living in this salvation involves seeing and doing what we’ve been reworked to walk in – Ephesians 2:10, Titus 3:8. As the feisty Reformer, Martin Luther said: in some sense God doesn’t need our good works, but our neighbour does.
Cross shaped love: gospel deeper
Love for these neighbours is costly. Loving others will involve certain disarray.
But as those who know a greater and first love (1 John 3:1), the love we show to others is to be concrete, including laying down our lives and rights and privileges (Phil 2:5-7) – I need to hear this as a white guy in South Africa. People need to hear about Jesus. But our good works do not only involve our words. And our good works are not only done to give a hearing. That’s to use them only as a means to an end, and not also as an end in themselves. Namely the reality of us being new creations in Christ Jesus: recreated to love God, and to love others. That’s not the gospel per se – but it is the result of God’s Spirit giving us an again-genesis (Titus 3:5-8) through faith in the Jesus-message.
Sometimes Camp B-ers are charged with trying to add to the gospel. And there might be times when the charge sticks. But from where I’m standing, I’m not seeing an exhortation to a gospel minus, or even to a gospel plus but instead to a gospel deeper. In other words, they’re asking us to realise that us being salt and light in this world will involve getting our hands dirty in loving and serving the saints and pagans around us. Love of neighbour is costly. Costly in time and in resources and in status. And in long-term getting stuck in and alongside the broken and hurting and marginalised. It’ll involve pouring ourselves out in sacrificial and gritty love (cf. Phil 2). A love for others that, at the end of the day shows we know the love we have first been shown in Christ (1 John 3:11-18; 4:7-21).
All that to say: the Christian life is cruciform from start to end. The cross of Christ is sufficient for salvation. And the cross of Christ is central to proclamation. But the cross of Christ is also intended to shape the lives of those trusting in Jesus. Think passages like Mark 8:34 flowing into 1 John 4:7-21 and 3:11-20. The cross-shaped life is willing to humbly embrace generous sacrifice for others. As both a witness to and outworking of the salvific love Christ showed to us, and continues to love us with.
What we’re FOR, not just what we’re AGAINST
There is a danger that Reformed Evangelicals in some conversations become almost entirely defined by what we are against, rather than what we are for.
Take good works again. As Reformed Evangelicals we often seem to major on the negatives of good works: good works can’t save us. Whereas, in addition, the Scriptures have much positive speech and exhortation concerning good works flowing out of Jesus’ ultimate (and saving) good work for us.[24] Some of Camp B’s exhortations simply feel like a retrieval of a more robust doctrine of good works in the mess of racial sin.
Consider how we can be defined by our stance against CRT and a host of other elements. Again yes, there is great value in combatting false beliefs etc – it must be done! But… don’t we also have a call and opportunity to show a beautiful alternative? In other words: it’s OK to critique and poke holes in CRT (Camp A loves this, Camp B also does this). But when we’re not offering anything much better – that’s an issue. Our good works are not the gospel; but they are to adorn the gospel.
‘Show, don’t only tell’ is sometimes the advice given to preachers. And perhaps that is part of what’s needed here?
We’re for biblical justice, not some secular or watered-down version of social justice… ok… tell me! But also show me. What does that look like in practise, positively as driven by the justice of God? This side of Jesus’ return, it may well be slightly disheveled and gritty; it won’t be neat and sanitised. There will be no rosy movie clip riding off into the sunset of heaven on earth now. But it might be a partially sweet foretaste of the kingdom perfected when Christ returns on the back-lit clouds.
Is there a danger of being defined only by what we are against? Surely we need to make sure we are also defined by what we are for. This is part of the witness of Christ’s body, his people, now.
Again and again in the chronicles of history, God’s people in Christ have displayed this (yes imperfectly) in so many areas of life. In matters of integrity and generosity and hospitality and sympathy and chastity and suffering. In realms of poverty and peace-making and sexual ethics and care of the vulnerable such as children and women. And in redeemed views of humanity as image-bearers contra racism and xenophobia and a host of other ills.[25]
Oh Lord, please help us, as we cling to Christ, to live as your people in all these areas and more, in love of the people around us. To the praise of your glorious grace.
To summarise in closing:
Camp B: exhorting love of neighbour
I’ve raised and wrestled with four areas of loving others that Camp B exhorts us in:
1. The corporate nature of sin, historical and present, is real.
2. Consider better common grace and subversive fulfilment in Christ.
3. Listening well can be an excellent way to learn, grow and love.
4. Loving our neighbours will involve messy and costly discipleship.
This third post was uber long – longer than needed, sorry. One final post remains (see HERE: Conclusions), hopefully drawing many of these threads and themes from both Camp A and B together.
[1] See: https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/justice-in-the-bible/
[2] Could this be an example, related to refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa, maybe not so much in terms of structural, but instead, systemic sin?
Under COVID there was a slowdown in terms of how much the Department of Home Affairs (servicing passports and identity documents etc) could do – understandable! But as things have opened at various times, one element very slow to do so is the Refugee centre in my city. Closed since March 2020, they will apparently only open much later. What does that mean? That the documentation of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers have expired. This has massive knock-on effects for the daily lives of many of these men and women. Often making them even more vulnerable in their interactions with the police for instance, even if a ‘grace period’ has been advertised.
Of course, there are other points to consider such as, ‘The government must first service its legal citizens’. I understand that and it is a pragmatic outworking of limited resources. Yet, in South Africa it should be easily acknowledged that we struggle to treat our refugees from Africa well – again, many would say, understandable given our socio-economic situation even for citizens of this country. But I’m not sure that will completely fly by God as OK. While there is no bald-faced legislation that is overtly xenophobic, South Africa does seem to have a consistent culture of misusing fellow Africans.
Is that a systemic example in some way?
[3] More on this in the context of biblical justice here: ryanvda.wordpress.com/2020/10/20/biblical-justice-with-application-to-land-redistribution-in-south-africa/
[4] I’m reminded of Benjamin Pogrund’s comments: “In everyday life, [Robert] Sobukwe was subject with all other blacks to the inferiority imposed on those who were not white. This meant not only racial segregation, already established as a tradition in South Africa, but the poverty that went with it.” (Robert Sobukwe: How can man die better, page 18, 2015 edition).
[5] Consider here certain Acts like: Black Land Act (1913); The Native Land and Trust Act (1936);
[6] We sometimes come across this as a local church in regard to accommodation for refugee (black African) brothers and sisters, where sometimes a white face can open doors that a black face doesn’t. However, it’s true that the opposite also occurs in other settings: a white face might close the door that a black face might open.
[7] Daniel Strange, Their rock is not like our rock: a theology of religions (Zondervan. 2014). Pg. 89 (see in general 87-94).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] For the demonic links of religions (and surely, we can include secular ideologies too?) see for instance Strange, Their rock is not like our rock, pages 260-266.
[11] At least that has been my conclusion. If there is material to the contrary – please let me know.
[12]‘Critical Race Theory: an introduction’ by Delgado and Stefancic (NYU, 3rd edition, page 4)
[13]‘Critical Race Theory: an introduction’ by Delgado and Stefancic (NYU, 3rd edition, pages 5-6)
[14] Now, again, don’t get me wrong, the list of their other influences (besides conventional civil rights) varies between ironic (European philosophers for instance), to worrying (the movement from race into sexuality). More on this latter part in a later footnote.
[15] A few caveats:
A) I realise that the American context might be vastly different to the South African context in this particular area: Camp A from the US seem to suggest that CRT is EVERYWHERE. True, or hyperbole? Either way, that’s not my context. Maybe if it was then to be honest, I probably would be more circumspect.
B) But even within South Africa, I am in Kwa-Zulu Natal (province/state) and Durban (city) which is slightly more traditional and conservative than many other bustling parts of South Africa. What goes on at the university I’m involved in, is not quite the same as universities in Cape Town or Johannesburg. My feel is that some of the tertiary education centres there are more liberally left leaning and even Western (I think of Cape Town in particular). Whereas the majority of our students are Zulu and from rural and township parts of Kwa-Zulu Natal.
[16] South Africa’s first democratic elections
[17] One of the discernment elements promoted by Camp A is to highlight the dangers of ‘race’ talk denigrating into ‘gender’ issues. We see worldly (and ultimately profoundly harmful) definitions of gender alarmingly present in the BLM and variations of Critical Theory. But in terms of picking out the good and discarding the bad, I wonder if there is value in contrasting CRT with other forms of Critical Theory (CT).
So, for instance, there are some points of agreement between Christianity and CRT when it comes to RACE. Again, think about the notion of race as a social construct and its attendant evils. CRT then, in a simplistic form, seeks to overturn a distorted social construct – i.e. it views race and racism NEGATIVELY. We can have some overlap of agreement there – the Scriptures are not for race (differentiate this from ethnicity) and racism.
But now take this in contrast to the subject of GENDER within CT. While it may at times also pick up examples of men oppressing women (something we also hate!), it also PROMOTES a [re]definition of gender that stands opposed to Scripture’s understanding of gender, and even marriage.
I need further thinking here but I wonder if this highlights potential use/uselessness in weighting things up? In other words: CRT has limited use in so far as it OPPOSES racism tied to the social construct of race and sin. Whereas other forms of CT that PROMOTE redefinition of gender are more clearly in a different category of, not common grace, but unrighteousness. Is that too wobbly a point?
[18] Many, particularly Black Camp B-ers are saying that even if these secular ideologies are currently in the lime-light and so receiving publicity… they’re picking up what a) the Scriptures and b) parts of the saints through history have already been putting down. So, it’s nothing new on the ground and in the trenches. It’s just getting more social media time.
[19] For earlier thoughts on this see: https://ryanvda.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/3a-diversity-in-the-church-of-god/
[20] Even if he has a very special means of grace through the Scriptures by the Spirit about Jesus.
[21] These are some of the resources I interacted with, mostly in the second half of 2020 from that list:
Carl F. Ellis Jr.:
https://drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/2020/02/seven-points-of-clarification.html
https://drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/2020/06/protest-and-anarchy-in-black-and-blue.html?m=1
His seminal book, Free at Last?
Anthony Bradley:
Although I’ve read his Liberating Black Theology a while back and have an edited volume (Aliens in the promised land) on my to-read-soon list, I think that, in terms of current conversations I’ve mainly been peeking in on lots of his twitter comments etc.
But here is one, more recent, article: https://mereorthodoxy.com/critical-race-theory-presbyterian-church-in-america/
Esau McCaulley
His book: Reading while black (review forthcoming).
Podcast episode via OnScript: https://onscript.study/podcast/esau-mccaulley-reading-while-black/
Timothy Keller
https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/justice-in-the-bible/
Voddie Baucham
Podcast episode with Allie Stuckey: Exposing & Opposing Social Justice Theology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK4TT_6QDA8&ab_channel=AllieBethStuckey)
On Ethnic Gnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip3nV6S_fYU&ab_channel=FoundersMinistries
Darrell Harrison
Darrell’s blog. For eg. https://justthinking.me/a-few-words-about-justice/
Also, via podcast episodes with Virgil Walker. For instance: George Floyd and the Gospel (https://justthinking.me/ep-098-george-floyd-and-the-gospel/)
Rasool Berry
https://rasoolberry.medium.com/critical-g-race-theory-the-promise-perils-of-crt-c5de933d55a1
https://rasoolberry.medium.com/uncritical-race-theory-7124e760d6b5
And see podcast episode below…
Neil Shenvi
Via Unbelievable?: Is Critical Race Theory compatible with Christianity? Neil Shenvi & Rasool Berry (https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-Critical-Race-Theory-compatible-with-Christianity-Neil-Shenvi-Rasool-Berry)
Podcast episode with Allie Stuckey: Critical Theory: A Disastrous, Unbiblical Worldview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kie9r89naF0&ab_channel=AllieBethStuckey)
Hopefully soon I’ll have a list of reviewed books to do with race and reconciliation and injustice. The authors include: Ben Lindsay, Carl Ellis, Sechrest (et al. Editors), Latasha Morrison, Irwyn Ince, Esau McCauley, Daniel Hill, Dennis Edwards, Bryan Loritts, Brenda Salter McNeil and others.
[22] I just wish the list wasn’t American (sorry). I’ve got plenty of home-grown men and women to read on a host of issues, but it has been a struggle to find Christians in Africa commentating incisively in this particular area – perhaps pointing to the differences in context? Feel free to throw name recommendations my way!
[23] See Ellis’ wise warnings: “It is increasingly common to pass off mere sociology, psychology, historical analysis, and other disciplines as theology proper. I believe this is errant and dangerous. I take the approach that “theology is the application of God’s Word by persons in every area of life” (Dr. John Frame). I still believe that theology is the ‘Queen of the Sciences.’” (http://drcarlellisjr.blogspot.com/2020/02/seven-points-of-clarification.html – VI. Differentiating Disciplines)
[24] Consider even how good works helps us in the fight against sin: https://africa.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-tactics-how-to-get-a-grip-on-personal-sin/
[25] I don’t know where this list started (it’s on the notice board in front of me) but I’m pretty sure it’s from some Keller article way back when.
Taste and see... 
5 thoughts on “When Reformed Evangelicals disagree on contemporary secular movements and theories: Camp B”