Jul
10
The Sufficiency of Scripture in Matters of Race and Justice
This week I have a citation from the chapter titled “A New Canon” in Voddie Baucham’s Fault Lines. In the chapter, Baucham discusses a list of books, articles, films, and social media platforms provided by Christianity Today ostensibly to “help move white people toward antiracism.” The list concerns him. So as not to be misunderstood, Baucham encourages reading broadly, and he gives examples of what he and his wife encourage or require their own children to read, as well as listing the broad array of topics that he himself reads.
Nevertheless, Baucham sees how influence from the CT-listed sources and others can be problematic and contribute to the “fault lines”. After giving a couple case studies from “Big Eva”, he states that he has found other criticisms of Christianity Today‘s list based on the authors’ politics, faith, or lack thereof to be counterproductive. Rather,
“I am taking issue with what this list represents: what it means. I am taking issue with the presuppositions behind it. Specifically, 1) its underlying assumption that the Bible is not sufficient to address issues of race and/or justice and 2) its stated assumptions about the very nature of both race and justice….”
Here’s the rest of the chapter:
— — —
“The general theme of the current CSJ movement within evangelicalism is a covert attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. People are not coming right out and saying that the Bible is not enough. Instead, high-profile pastors get up and speak about the ways in which modern sociology texts have done for them what the revelation of Scripture has been unable to do. My dear friend Paul Washer put it well when he noted. ‘Five years ago, I was amazed as I saw the young, restless, and Reformed crowd at conferences talking about their latest encounters with Spurgeon, Calvin, Kuyper, and Machen… now they’re all talking about Christian Smith, Jemar Tisby, and Robin DiAngelo.’
Granted, most of the men mentioned above believe firmly in the sufficiency of Scripture and have done so for decades. I am not talking about the liberal, openly social gospel/liberation theology wing of the CSJ movement. (At least not in this chapter.) In fact, many of the men to whom I am referring here have been on the front line of the battle against liberalism, mysticism, and pragmatism for many years. That is why the allusion to an unofficial new canon is so disturbing.
‘I have spent much of my life in a haze of relative cluelessness about and culpable indifference to many of the concerns that are addressed in this book,’ writes Ligon Duncan, chancellor of the Reformed Theological Seminary, in his forward to Eric Mason’s book Woke Church. Unfortunately, ‘the concerns that are addressed in this book’ are not exegetical. Far from being rooted in groundbreaking exposition of the biblical text, Mason’s book is part of this new canon. Nor is Duncan’s an isolated voice. The internet has been teeming with similar confessions in recent years. How can this be possible in light of what we know about the Bible?
Please hear me well. I am not saying that men should not come to understand more of God’s revelation as they grow. On the contrary, we must always be reforming Semper reformanda was and is the cry of the Reformation. However, the CRT crowd in evangelicalism are not men who have been challenged on the interpretation of Scripture — they are proclaiming that sources outside of Scripture have brought them to a new, better, and more complete understanding of God’s truth on race.
At least three realities should give us pause when men who have been studying and teaching the Bible for many decades proclaim that they have come to some life-altering revelation that has not been derived from Scripture.
First, the Bible is the Word of God. Paul says, ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God.’ In other words, the Bible is not merely the words and speculation of men. Nor is it dependent upon the words or ideas of men for its authority. Unlike the texts in the new antiracist canon, the Bible carries the authority of God Himself.
Second, the Bible is ‘profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3:17). In other words, since race is undoubtably a ‘righteousness’ issue, the Bible is profitable for teaching those who are ignorant about race, rebuking those who are in sin concerning race, correcting those who are in error about race, and training everyone who is pursuing righteousness in regard to race. To put a finer point to it, there is not a book in the world that is better suited to address men on the issue of race than the Bible. That is not to say that there is no help to be found in other books. It is, however, to say that they are not essential.
Third, the Bible is sufficient. The Bible is the only canon through and by which ‘the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:17). This includes the work of race relations of any and every kind. It is the Bible — not sociology, psychology, or political science — that offers sufficient answers not only on race, but on every ethical issue man has faced, or will ever face.
This, of course, is at odds with secular theories like Critical Theory, Intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, and Critical Social Justice. This is why the idea of a new canon that is ‘desired to make one wise’ (Genesis 3:6) for so-called ‘racial justice’ is a problem for Bible-believing Christians.
What must we do to be antiracist? Christianity Today‘s answer is nothing less than a full-throated recitation of the ideology of Critical Race Theory. ‘This question, of course, can mean many things. It can mean, “Where do I start to understand the history of police brutality in America?” or “Where do I start to deal with the fact that I have lived a segregated life?” or “Where do I start to understand systemic racism?”‘ the author writes. In two short sentences, the piece makes it clear that the proposed curriculum is designed to promote Critical Social Justice. Let’s look at the three assumptions in turn.
First, ‘Where do I start to understand the history of police brutality in America?’ As we’ve already discussed, this is a red herring. The idea that America has a race-based police brutality problem is simply not true. We have already seen that the overall statistics on police shootings, the best-known cases, and an honest look at crime rates convincingly rebut the idea that police are ‘hunting and killing black men in the streets.’ Also, notice the move away from the human heart right into the public/political sphere. This, by the way, is why CSJ proponents tend to downplay the sufficiency of Scripture: to them, racism is not a heart issue or personal sin; it is a ‘systemic’ problem. Therefore, reform is the solution, not repentance.
‘Where do I start to deal with the fact that I have lived a segregated life?’ This question is ironic for Americans like me who have had the opportunity to live in other parts of the world. When my family and I arrived in Zambia, we were struck by how monolithic the culture is. As Americans, we are used to seeing people from every tribe, tongue, and nation wherever we go. Moreover, we are used to the fact that every one of those people has the right and privilege of calling themselves Americans. But most of the world is monolithic. Zambians are not only people who were born in Zambia, they are black people who were born in Zambia. We have a dear friend whose parents immigrated to Zambia from India. Although he was born in Zambia, he is not considered Zambian simply because he is not black and his parents immigrated from abroad. Say what you will about race problems in the United States, I have never had anyone tell me I cannot be considered American because of the color of my skin!
However, there is a deeper issue here: that of what D.A. Carson calls ‘cherished pluralism,’ which goes beyond the fact of pluralism to argue for the superiority of pluralism. ‘[W]hen the reality, empirical pluralism, has become “a value in itself, even a priority”; it is cherished.’ For example, consider the following scenario: Two pastors meet at a conference. Eventually, they get around to the questions every pastor asks fellow pastors these days, ‘How many ya running?’
That used to be where the conversation stalled out — the size of the congregation. However, now there is a second, more important question: ‘How diverse is your church?’ We don’t just want to know how many people are there; we want to know what color they are. Whereas in years gone by that would have included all ethnicities, today we just want to know the black-white makeup (because in this climate, other minorities simply don’t matter). In the past, the pastor with the biggest church was the winner; today, it is the one with the best black-white split. In this climate, the pastor with the inferior black-white split not only pastors the inferior church, but he is actually considered the inferior pastor — or, more precisely, the inferior person. (Hence, this question gets to the heart of another flaw in our thinking regarding race.) But Christianity Today saves the worst question for last.
‘Where do I start to understand systemic racism?’ This is the crux of the matter. This is why we need a curriculum in the first place. The idea, you see, is that the Bible may help you with a number of things, but it simply cannot help you even begin to understand systemic racism. That is because ‘systemic racism’ is a moving target.
Christianity Today makes the point succinctly by stating, ‘In an effort to incline hearts toward understanding, minds toward wisdom, and hands toward doing justice, CT Creative Studio has compiled a resource list specifically oriented toward coming alongside our white brothers and sisters in the work of becoming and living as anti-racists.’
As we saw earlier, the term ‘antiracist’ is loaded. It has a very specific meaning — part of which includes the idea of works-based righteousness. White people are not called to look to God for forgiveness. They are not told that Christ’s blood is sufficient. No, they are told that they must do the unending work of antiracism. And this work must be done regardless of their own actions since the issue at hand is a matter of communal, generational guilt based on ethnicity.
This flies in the face of the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible makes it clear that God forgives sin. Consider the following passages:
‘And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34; cf. Hebrews 8:12; 10:17)
And sin, once forgiven, is removed far from us, “As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.” (Psalm 103:12)
Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. (Micah 7:18)
“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” (Isaiah 43:25)’
The idea that we need a new canon to be able to decipher what the Bible says, or more specifically, what it means regarding race, is quite troubling. This attack on the sufficiency of Scripture should serve as a call to arms.”
— — —
That pretty much sums it up.
