The controversy was generated in 2018 when a group of men led
by John MacArthur issued a document (sometimes referred to as the Dallas
Statement) condemning the recent spate of 'social justice' movements at work
within US political culture and in particular Evangelicalism.
Most of these movements are deemed as being fueled by Left-wing
impulses or Leftist agendas which have surreptitiously infiltrated conservative
and Confessional theological circles. What I'm sure seemed obvious and
non-controversial to the drafters and signers proved otherwise. The controversy
was generated because some simply disagree with the signers. Others disagree
with some of their nomenclature or the way in which they have framed the
issues. And others believe the condemnations found in the document go too far
and actually end up condemning legitimate social concerns and callings (as they
see it) for the Church.
Many who might have found a degree of general sympathy with
the statement condemned it for its vague language, generalisations and in some
cases caricatures of their opponents.
This controversy has been further exacerbated by the present
context in which our culture and our Churches are hyper-politicised and in
which the deceitful culture of the Internet is raging out of control. Social
media has created an environment wherein the truth has been discarded, abused,
manipulated and twisted in order to fit the agendas, proclivities, misunderstandings
and often ignorance of its users. I'm not a user of social media but from time
to time I see via email or through investigative curiosity some of what's
taking place and it's shocking as I'm sure most readers already know. The
ignorance and foolishness is at times staggering. In some cases people I once
respected as sober and Christian have been revealed as unhinged even buffoonish
and I'm sorry to report that I've lost no little amount of respect for some of
them. I'm not merely speaking of public figures or acquaintances but even
friends.
The battles within the Right-wing political sphere have
escalated to such a level that once staunch-conservatives are now being called
socialists and Cultural Marxists. In many cases terms are ill-defined,
misunderstood and in other cases it's painfully clear the accuser literally has
no clue as to what they're really talking about.
On the national stage the forcing out of John Boehner and
Paul Ryan demonstrate the radical shift to the right. Ryan was an
arch-conservative in 2010 but by 2018 he was a moderate. This wasn't because he
changed, but he failed to keep up with the ever-rightward trajectory that has
driven Right-wing politics to the very brink.
In some instances the Social Justice debate has degenerated
into one side labeling the other as racist and likewise their opponents are
labeled as Cultural Marxists. All too often the charges are false or at best
contain only a hint of truth.
I think this debate (which is really a microcosm of the
larger cultural debate) has to be understood within the context of New
Calvinism and its myriad Evangelical impulses. The movement has wedded
Calvinism's potent and robust doctrinal and intellectual
positions with the Madison Avenue approach and compromising worldly spirit of
Evangelicalism. An unprincipled movement, it has unwittingly unleashed
divergent forces even while generating tremendous momentum and numbers. And
thus given its often money and celebrity driven foundation it has proven
extremely difficult to manage or contain.
In some respects it makes complete sense that some of the
criticisms of the largely New Calvinist Dallas Statement on Social Justice are
coming from other New Calvinists. But of course there's also a deep irony to
this.
Further from my vantage point the debates are not between Right
and Left or between political Conservatives and Liberals but between Far-Right
Conservatives and Center-Right Conservatives.... both political camps in this
ecclesiastical sphere fully embracing the core tenets of Dominion Theology. In
other words from my perspective the gulf that divides them is largely
contrived.
There have been revived discussions regarding the
Spirituality of the Church an issue which harks back to the Civil War era. The
Southern Churches argued against the activism of the Northern Churches with
regard to politics and slavery. Many believed and still believe the 'Spirituality'
doctrine of the South was a cop out, a means for Confederate apologists to
provide a theological veneer for the Southern status quo. Contrary to the
assertions of some they were not advocating any kind of Two Kingdom theology.
They were just as Christendom-Dominionist minded as their Northern cousins. The
truth was the two parties had split in their understanding of what Protestant
Christendom was supposed to look like. The Southerners tended to be (for the
most part) theologically conservative while the North (with some notable
exceptions) was already deeply infected by theological liberalism and yet they
both thought in terms of a Christian society and Christian government. And
sadly both cast the evil episode that was the Civil War in religious terms.
Many see a repeat in this issue both in terms of conservative
and liberal theology and in the Anti-Social Justice movement's reiteration of
Confederate (or even Princetonian) 'Spirituality of the Church' Theology.
Additionally some have argued that the modern Social Justice impulse within
Evangelicalism is but a resurrection of the Rauschenbusch Social Gospel of the
early 20th century.
However, Rauschenbusch was clearly a theological liberal and
his movement in many respects was but a secularised version of old
Postmillennialism, an ancestral cousin to today's Dominionism. Indeed not a few
have picked up on the parallels and the fact that the modern Christian Right
retains many of the same impulses but instead comes up with specifically
Right-wing (as opposed to Left-Progressive) solutions. There have been times in
which Two Kingdom critics of the Social Gospel have been attacked by
Dominionists who (while certainly opponents of the Social Gospel) actually
share in some of the movement's assumptions. This is a complicated issue as
many very conservative Confessionalists and Evangelicals reject the idea of
Social Justice (as it has been framed) and yet retain a deep concern for what
they perceive to be just causes, just government and for a righteous and
therefore just society and therefore not a few of them have expressed concern
with the Dallas Statement.
I have no dog in this fight so I simply offer my own
(hopefully informed) opinions. I see the conservatives in this case (and
certainly the Dallas signers) as succumbing (if not selling out) to American
Conservatism and Right-wing political impulses. This was amplified by the Obama
presidency and they have become defiant. To suggest that men like MacArthur and
James White are somehow advocating 'spirituality' or are somehow divorcing the
Church from politics is laughable. From MacArthur's celebration of the police
and war to James White's insufferable Hannity-Limbaugh-esque commentaries,
these figures are deeply committed to the Right-wing cause and it clearly guides
and shapes their thinking. I have frequently been appalled at their commentary
and have taken great Biblical umbrage at their statements and interpretations
of history, events and expositions of Scripture. I do not support these men.
I've appreciated MacArthur on a few points over the years and that's about it.
I have no time for the likes of James White, his political opinions and much of
his (less than Biblical) theology. While I do not agree with the advocates of
Social Justice I find White's comments and arguments singularly unconvincing if
uninspiring.
That said, while their opponents are right to point to the
racist realities of Western Christendom and American history, they too are
misguided and in some cases they have let themselves be swept away by the
madness that has overtaken American and Western culture. Both Right and Left
have their forms of political correctness and at times both have fallen off the
cliff. The Right (and some of the Pseudo-Left) have done so when it comes
nationalism, the military, police and their narratives of history, particularly
with regard to the Cold and World Wars. The Left has fallen into the same traps
when it comes to race and other issues although I continually contend that much
of the Left is not nearly as Left as it's made out to be. The Democratic
Party's support of Wall Street and the Military-Intelligence apparatus is
hardly congruous with Leftist (let alone Far Left, Socialist or Marxist)
impulses.
As I (and many others have argued) Identity Politics are not
a genuine outgrowth of the Left and thus to a large degree I am dubious when it
comes to this whole Cultural Marxism narrative. There's nothing Marxist about
it. At best it represents an extreme deviation or recasting of the basic
principles. While there might be some ideological and philosophical lineage
connected to the Frankfurt School most of that narrative collapses under examination.
Rather our culture's current manifestation of Identity Politics is really the
fruit of degeneracy and decadence, a rotten harvest of Capitalism's
hyper-individualism. It represents a collapse of the Middle Class and the
fragmentation of our society on a massive scale. It's also been used as a
political survival tool to divide and conquer by the Democratic Party and its
hypocrisy regarding the working class and Wall Street. The tragedy here is that
the Right has largely failed to see that they too (on many fronts) are infected
with the consumerist Identity Politics virus and have been for more than a
generation. One has to venture back into the economic collapse of the 1970's
and the Culture Wars of the 1990's to understand the matrix that produced this
phenomenon.
These tensions have defied rational discourse because the
tempo of the debate is running white hot. From the insanity that now governs
the universities to the rapid cultural shift on Sodomy, the various camps which
once had a modicum of unity have now fragmented. Even among conservative
Evangelicals the consensus has been shattered. Some figures like Russell Moore (who
once was as Right-wing as any of them) have realised that there's a cancer in
our society and that ghosts from the past have reappeared, or more rightly
never went away. Old social diseases once thought vanquished are in fact alive
and well. Moore like many political thinkers is forward looking and realises
that like it or not our society is changing and unless political conservatives
and Evangelicals wake up and deal with their own revisionist history they are
going to find themselves isolated and in serious decline within a generation. The
culture is not buying their mythology and Moore is among those that seem willing
to admit that some of it is indeed myth.
These questions regarding history are another persistent
problem. Both camps have played the revisionist game. If I might muddy the
waters I would also add that some revisionist history is good and even
necessary. The official narratives are often lacking and in other cases biased
to the point of falsity.
Pursuing these cultural lines, some like Albert Mohler (who
I've never really considered to be much of a stalwart conservative, let alone
insightful) have already begun the process of compromise when it comes to
Sodomy.* They have embraced the language of orientation and the notion that
people are 'born' in that condition. This is despite the fact that Romans
identifies this sin as contra naturam,
an egregious violation of nature even in the context of a fallen world. We can
debate the uses and extent of Natural Law but even a minimalist understanding
demands that lost people should comprehend that such conduct is abominable. And
yet the Evangelical impulse reigns. Sharing the Middle Class values of
respectability and security these seemingly shameless leaders are desperate to
stay relevant and to keep their place at the table. It is a formula for
compromise and even in conservative New Calvinist circles, the line has already
been crossed.
Many of their Evangelical and Confessional critics aren't
content with simply a place at the table. They want to be at the head of the
table, to own the table or to rule all. And thus there are divisions over both
strategy and tactics. This is also part of the debate over the Dallas
Statement. None of these camps are willing to follow through on the New Testament's
teaching regarding the Church vis-à-vis the world nor are they willing to take
up the cross and defy the world, its system and reject all that it might offer.
It is no wonder they have all too often twisted the Gospel
narrative regarding the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. Rather than
glean the lessons exemplified by Christ, they negate them by dismissing what
was on the very table. Insisting Satan had no right to make his offer, that his
claims of ownership were invalid, they side-step the question. This is despite
the fact that the rest of the New Testament clearly confirms the claims that he
is indeed the god of this world. Their Dominionism leads them to miss the point
of the episode and effectively negate a crucial aspect to Christ's teaching
regarding the Kingdom.
On so many levels this debate proves fruitless as it deals
with symptoms and assumptions, style and strategy. It often lacks substance and
few (if any) seem able to strike at the root issues.
Then we have the additional factor surrounding figures like
Mohler who are caught up in denominational politics. They are limited in what
they can say or how far they're willing to go. We also have corrupt ministries
and rich celebrities with egos on the line.
There are also misguided debates over corporate guilt. The
concept is Biblical to be sure but as far as the Church is concerned its
context is largely covenantal and therefore not applicable to a New Covenant
era nation like the United States or Great Britain.
That said, only a blind man would refuse to acknowledge that
White people (including White Americans) have indeed benefitted from the
heritage of imperialism which most definitely includes the legacy of slavery.
Some have benefitted on a far greater scale than others. Just as my working
class eyes can discern how middle class folks get a huge boost in life from
their status... even though most of them are unable to see it.... likewise many
minorities will be able to see on a larger scale how Whites receive many
benefits in society that are repeatedly denied to them.
In the end it must be remembered this Social Justice Debate
is really about politics and power.
The answer to the dilemma is actually quite simple but very
few will hear it.
The answer is for the Church and individual Christians to get
out of politics and break with the social order. Live Biblically as pilgrims
and strangers even within the borders of so-called Christendom. It is then that
you will begin to read your Bible differently. It is then that you will view
money, power and violence through a different lens. It is then that you'll be
able to see these questions in a completely different light.
I can actually sympathise in part with those advocating
Social Justice, indeed the prophets condemned the nations in such terms. And
yet we have no true prophets today and the Christians caught up in this
movement are completely misguided, failing to grasp that they too are ultimately
engaged in a struggle for power. The questions are valid. Of course the
solutions presented by the Left are often terrible and morally repugnant even
if these aren't really the solutions we're hearing from Social Justice
Evangelicals and New Calvinists. Try telling that to their critics, to people
like JD Hall who destroys his credibility through his sensationalism and
demagoguery. The truth is there's precious little justice to be found anywhere.
The defenders of the old guard and the old status quo (such as the Dallas
signers) are repugnant and in many cases have abandoned any moral foundation.
They have circled the wagons and are determined to protect their lands, gold
and power. And they will turn violent or at the very least are spawning violence.
In some cases they have confused Church and nation. But certainly they have
confused Kingdom with culture and civilisation. And they have unequivocally
confused godliness with gain.
Breaking with the mainstream you won't care about these
things and you won't turn to the wicked siege mentality of the Right nor will
you embrace the misguided utopian exuberance of the Left. I don't really think
a lot of the so-called Social Justice Warriors are even part of the Left. To
identify Russell Moore or even Tim Keller as being Marxist is just laughable.
The joke is on those making the accusation. That said, I think there's plenty
wrong with what these men are advocating. Moore has turned in a healthy direction
I think, especially when I think back to things he said and wrote during the
early years of the George W. Bush presidency. I used to wince whenever I heard
his name but in recent years he has surprised and has on occasion spoken truth
and boldly, even if I'm not always sharing in either his motivations or goals.
He still is a lobbyist after all and advocate for a powerful bureaucracy. I'd
love to see him step down and denounce the whole machine and the system it's
part of.
Keller has rightly been subjected to many critiques and yet
those who peg him as a Marxist have missed the point.
The problem with Keller is that he's a Dominionist with
strong Evangelical proclivities. Additionally his brand of Dominionism is
plugged into the urban Wall Street world of Manhattan and while he criticises
many of its values he (at the same time) also embraces them. On a positive
note, no one who lives in a large cosmopolitan city can ignore the changing
face of America. For some reason many of the Tea Party/Trump types think that
immigrants are Leftist. In reality most are more conservative than the average
American. That said, few of them, even if converted to Christianity are likely
to embrace the Judeo-Christian West/America myth and rightly so. Their
rejection will come first from their own backgrounds and experience. And
secondly they're not going to find it supported in the Scriptures. Keller is
trying to engage this cosmopolitan jet-set world. I don't agree with how he's
doing it and I'm hostile to his theology, ecclesiology and even ethics to be
sure. But that doesn't make him a Marxist. It's really quite ridiculous.
Once you're a pilgrim you won't really care about producing
'successful' children (as defined by the world) and thus
university credentials aren't so important. Don't send your kids to those
nuthouses. And equally so don't send your kids to the Dominion factories (like
Liberty and Patrick Henry) which do little more than baptise worldliness and
teach godliness is gain. I immediately think of some of the articles I've read
on the New Calvinist dominated Gospel Coalition website. Celebrating the
integration of work and worldview I am all but in pain as I read these celebrated
chronicles of compromise and abandonment of Kingdom ethics. Truly they glory in
what ought to be their shame. I think of the stories about figures like Frank
Reich or of career women in politics and entertainment. These are not victories
but admissions of defeat.
*Listening to some of the audio from the recent Shepherd's
Conference I was appalled to learn that the New Calvinist leadership respects
Mohler as a cultural commentator and apparently they all listen to his
'Briefing' on a regular basis. I have listened to hundreds of episodes (and his
old Albert Mohler Radio Show) and yet had to stop. I couldn't take it anymore. I
will only occasionally dive back in to hear him on certain issues. I've written
elsewhere about his commentaries and I find them riddled with unbiblical
ignorance and they are lacking in both insight and wisdom. His Christian
Worldview is a corrupt syncretism.
Mohler covers a wide range of topics but I rarely agree with
him and even when I do, we arrive at that point by different roads. I could
keep myself occupied on a full time basis simply writing rebuttals to the
commentaries of Mohler, Stonestreet and others. If Mohler is where these men
are turning for insightful commentary on current events, they are drinking from
a dry well.
Mohler is consistently wrong on politics, Europe,
economics, Evangelicalism, history, geopolitics,
World War II, Churchill, The Cold War, Putin, Snowden, Assange, Focus on the
Family, Billy Graham, Philosophy, Arts, Worldview and Ecclesiology. His variety
of Calvinism is also impoverished and as a theologian he is at best an amateur.
What he knows is the Southern Baptist Convention and how to
navigate Evangelical bureaucracies.
For more on Mohler: