Another Bitter Irony Of Black Lives Matter

The "Black Lives Matter" movement is one full of irony, not least that while the name of the loosely affiliated groups under their banner implies a concern for black lives, the groups generally focus exclusively on black lives lost to police shootings, most of which, while lamentable, are justified. There are cases where the cops are in the wrong, like the recent Philando Castile case (and even there some question remains as to whether the shooting was unjustified), but the overwhelming majority of cases, even highly publicized ones like Michael Brown in Ferguson, were justifiable uses of deadly force by cops.

The bitter irony I want to point out today is highlighted in a very good, very comprehensive piece in National Review, Planned Parenthood’s Century of Brutality. The vile beliefs of Margaret Sanger and Clarence Little, early "pioneers" in the practice of eugenic infanticide are laid bare for the reader. Keep in mind that Ms. Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is considered a saint for the acolytes of abortion. Planned Parenthood gives abortion supporters an award annually named after her, an award they consider "Our highest honor", including then Secretary of State and notable Presidential election loser Hillary Clinton in 2009. Mrs. Clinton herself praised Margaret Sanger in her acceptance speech:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision ... And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

She is in "awe" of a woman who would put the David Duke to shame in her racist ideology, receiving an award from organization that kills more blacks in a given year than the Klan ever did combined. This is the woman who Thabiti Anyabwile voted for.

The attitudes of Sanger, Little and others were not unusual for their time. As laid out in the book Imbeciles (my review here), eugenic sterilization of people deemed undesirable for reproduction was considered quite sensible and enjoyed broad scientific consensus (another irony...). That such attitudes were common is one thing, but that some would revere these people today as heroes and champions is obscene. Sadly Sanger and Little would likely be happy to see the result of their work today. Widespread abortion, reduced birth rates, more and more women in the workforce. Even their racial animus is being lived out:

Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color against White World Supremacy, might be gratified to note that, in Planned Parenthood’s hometown of New York City, a black woman is more likely to have an abortion than to give birth: 29,007 abortions to 24,108 births in 2013. African Americans represent about 12 percent of the population and about 36 percent of the abortions; Catholics, disproportionately Hispanic and immigrant, represent 24 percent. In total, one in five U.S. pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) ends in abortion, and most women who have abortions already have at least one child. The overwhelming majority of them (75 percent, as Guttmacher reckons it) are poor. The public record includes no data about the “feebleminded” or otherwise “unfit,” but the racial and income figures suggest that Planned Parenthood is today very much functioning as its Progressive-era founders intended.

I am not at all interested in inflated claims about blacks being killed by cops when black babies are murdered at a higher rate than black babies are carried to term. The real war on blacks is not carried out by white cops looking for an excuse to shoot a black, the war is carried out by polite and well groomed "doctors" in friendly seeming abortion clinics who take the money of black women and murder their children in return.

If black lives matter is not concerned first and foremost with the millions of black babies that have been murdered by abortion, then their name is a lie. Every single "progressive" policy you can think of, from providing an incentive to have children out of wedlock to widely available infanticide for black children, has the effect of weakening the black family and prolonging generational poverty. Progressives, including many in "Black Lives Matter", don't really care about black lives. They just care about keeping the money flowing and themselves in power.

Dear SBC: Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet?

I posted yesterday about the resolution proposed by Dwight McKissic at the 2017 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting. I thought it was poorly worded, indicated a lack of clarity on the issue, was clearly aimed at forcing additional changes and worst of all was a completely meaningless gesture. It didn't move forward and that was like waving a red flag in front of the secular and "progressive" religious media. As surely as the sun rising in the East, news of the "failure" to advance a specific proposed resolution has the secular media is jumping up and down with glee.

From the Atlantic:

A Resolution Condemning White Supremacy Causes Chaos at the Southern Baptist Convention

Leaders from the Southern Baptist Convention were divided over a resolution affirming the denomination’s opposition to white supremacy and the alt-right during their annual meeting in Phoenix this week. On Tuesday, they initially declined to consider the proposal submitted by a prominent black pastor in Texas, Dwight McKissic, and only changed course after a significant backlash. The drama over the resolution revealed deep tension lines within a denomination that was explicitly founded to support slavery.
....
Even if the committee’s decision was based on rhetorical nitpicks, it looked like the denomination had refused to condemn the alt-right. After a few frantic hours, around 9 p.m., the body reconvened. Pastors tweeted in all-caps trying to get people back into the convention hall, and Steve Gaines, the newly reelected president of the Southern Baptist Convention, begged people not to leave.
....
Over the last several years, the Southern Baptist Convention has made “racial reconciliation” one of its priorities, building on work begun in 1995 when it first apologized for its role in sustaining and promoting slavery. In 2015, the denomination passed a resolution supporting racial reconciliation, and in 2016, it called on Christians to stop displaying the Confederate battle flag. 
.
But to many in the denomination, any progress was significantly undermined by the 2016 election. With 81 percent of white evangelicals supporting Trump, African Americans in particular felt like they had been betrayed. As Anyabwile said of his fellow Christians in an interview with me shortly after Trump was elected, “I feel like they haven’t understood any of my concerns as a racial minority and an African American.”

So in essence a clumsily worded resolution proposed by a pastor suddenly gained national prominence and by not immediately affirming it the SBC is now playing defense, because obviously not considering a resolution, one of many of which were proposed and not forwarded, indicates strong support in the Southern Baptist Convention for the alt-right. Here are some of the other resolutions not forwarded for consideration by the SBC:

The committee also chose not to act on resolutions submitted regarding Genesis, pro-life support, unity in the SBC and country, collaboration on ministry to refugees, praying for the peace of Jerusalem and encouragement of trustee representation.

So based on this logic, the SBC clearly is pro-abortion, against unity in the SBC and our country, totally opposed to peace in Jerusalem and desirous of discouraging trustee representation. That is obviously not true but thanks to a P.R. campaign and an assist from the secular media that is almost entirely absolutely opposed to the Gospel and Biblical fidelity, the Southern Baptist Convention is spending all of it's energy falling over themselves apologizing for something that they have no reason to apologize for. I also assume that everyone knows that this will do nothing to placate anyone. Of all of the large, national denominations, the Southern Baptist Convention is by far the largest and one of the only large denominations that is still predominantly orthodox. Plus it is overwhelmingly White (85%), Republican and includes the word "Southern" in their name. When you add that all together you get a group that already has a lot of issues and has a gigantic target on their back.

Don't be fooled. The Atlantic and other secular media doesn't give a crap about racial reconciliation in the Southern Baptist Convention. They simply see this as a golden opportunity to undermine an orthodox, conservative Christian group that committed the sin of largely favoring Donald Trump over the media's chosen and anointed candidate Hillary Clinton.

So why did this particular resolution failing cause such a firestorm? Well upon it not advancing the second time, people started coming out of the woodwork to declare the Southern Baptist convention a bunch of racists. Thabiti Anyabwile went on a Twitter rampage, tweeting stuff like this:

Let's be frank: The SBC wrings its hands of a very ugly history complicit in the maintenance of slavery as "consistent" with Christianity.

— Thabiti Anyabwile (@ThabitiAnyabwil) June 14, 2017

As a reminder, no one in the SBC today owned slaves or was alive when anyone else did in America. Then this:

Any "church" that cannot denounce white supremacy without hesitancy and equivocation is a dead, Jesus denying assembly. No 2 ways about it.

— Thabiti Anyabwile (@ThabitiAnyabwil) June 14, 2017

So with that he writes off as dead and Jesus denying the Southern Baptist Convention with the obligatory scare quotes around the word church

As another reminder, Thabiti tweeted his support for "Black Lives Matter" in spite of the regular anti-police rhetoric and overt racism. Here is the tweet with what appears to be a series of raised fists which clearly invokes the black power salute of the Black Panthers:

I support #BlackLivesMatter.

I don't support everything under that label. Not by a long shot!

But I stand w/ #BlackLivesMatter.

— Thabiti Anyabwile (@ThabitiAnyabwil) January 7, 2016

Of course it bears mentioning that Thabiti announced in May 2016 on the pages of the Gospel Coalition that he intended to vote for Hillary Clinton, the High Priestess of Abortion On Demand, a vicious practice that actually dehumanizes people and disproportionately kills black babies. The abortion industry that was completely sold out for his candidate kills more black people in a year than all of the alt-right, White supremacist, Ku Klux Klan, etc. combined have ever killed. His post was titled A Vote To Check Unpredictable Evil With The Predictable.

To summarize: I think the evil is real. Consequently, my conscience is aroused and I feel obligated to act in a way that attenuates the evil–in this case, vote. That leaves one question: Who to vote for?

At this point, assuming Trump and Clinton are my only options, I’d vote for Clinton. Okay… take a deep breath. Count to ten. Pray.

I can appreciate people who chose to not vote for Trump. I didn't vote for him, instead reluctantly casting my vote for Gary "Pass the doobie dude" Johnson. If I had to do it over I would have voted for Darrell Castle or written in Ron Paul. But I would never, ever consider voting for someone who has elevated infanticide to an unholy sacrament.

Allow me to state in as bold a way as I can:

I have no interest at all in being scolded on matters of justice from someone who voted, however reluctantly, for a candidate who would have spent every waking hour as President advancing the cause of abortion and conspiring to limit religious freedom and human liberty.

As another aside, I had no idea that Thabiti Anyabwile was born Ron Burns and changed his name when he converted to Islam before later converting to Christianity. Not really relevant, just something I discovered today. I used to have a lot of respect for Thabiti/Ron but over the last few years he has lurched leftward and now seems more concerned with a fusion of "social justice" and Reformed theology that I think is untenable and at this point I am afraid that the leftist rhetoric will win out. I am seeing some of the same stuff from para-church groups he is associated with like The Gospel Coalition and 9 Marks. More on the issue of racial reconciliation and whether or not it is a Gospel issue in a future post (that I have been working on for months)

Back to the resolution. I have to give credit to Dwight McKissic. Whether intentional or not he very neatly maneuvered the Southern Baptist Convention into a corner and now it looks like he will get a version of his resolution and in the future the SBC will be cowed into approving any racially based resolution that comes forward out of fear of being raked over the coals again by the media and appearing insufficiently "woke" on matters of racial reconciliation. Well played indeed.

I would hazard a guess that far less than 5% of average Southern Baptists has the slightest clue what the alt-right is or have even heard of it. As America becomes more secular and hostile to religion and baptisms continue to decline, the SBC has their hands full already with contention over Russell Moore, the on-going jihad against Reformed Southern Baptists and other issues. What it certainly didn't need was to get ambushed by a gotcha resolution that casts the entire denomination in a largely undeserved bad light and a distraction from the critical work of the Gospel. Not to mention the reality of introducing a lot of people to the alt-right and their ideology.

There are no winners in this public relations fiasco and the biggest loser is the Great Commission. But hey, what is the Gospel when compared to the passing of an empty gesture?

Married White Male Seeking Another Male Or Three To Share A Hotel Room Next April For Together For The Gospel

Advertising on my blog that I am looking for other dudes to share a hotel room in a somewhat unfamiliar city. How could this go wrong?

Eight years after I went to Together for the Gospel I am planning on going again next April. The venue has changed and one prominent voice, C.J. Mahaney, is absent and some new voices are in his place. I am curious to see what the atmosphere is like. When I was there it was laced with a lot of triumphalism, all the cool kids were there and knew stuff that the rest of the church didn't. There was a top secret resource for attendees so we could network together. It all seemed kind of cliquish in retrospect.

As we head for 2016 the Reformed movement has taken some prominent hits and the fervor seems to have cooled a bit. With prominent names getting some bad press, from founder C.J. Mahaney stepping away amidst legal troubles to Mark Driscoll (never a speaker at T4G, to the credit of the conference organizers) stepping down and seeing "his" ministry implode to Tullian Tchividjian stepping down from Coral Ridge after a short and controversial stay as pastor amid revelations of marital infidelity. Much of the Reformed world seems to be victims of their own success, sniping and backbiting becoming prominent. Some perhaps some humility is in place. We will see. The main guys are still there, Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Piper, Anyabwile, MacArthur and that plus the fellowship and "free" books makes it worthwhile. As a bonus I very likely will be able to take some Amish to southern Indiana to help defray the cost of driving.

So anyway, if you are thinking of or definitely going to Together For The Gospel next April and need to split some of the costs, give me a holler. I am willing to split with as many as 3 other guys assuming we can find a couple of air mattresses.

I haven't gone to T4G since the first time I went, partly for monetary and health reasons and largely as a protest against the notion of a "conference for pastors and church leaders" which seemed to be intended to exclude "lay members", although an awful lot of the guys there in 2008 were not clergy. The speakers are generally all defenders of the institutional church status quo and that rubs me the wrong way. None of that has changed but I am secure enough in where I stand in regards to ecclesiology that I can go and just enjoy the teaching, the singing and the fellowship without feeling the need to make some sort of protest statement (like the nutjob charismatic that crashed the stage last weekend while John MacArthur was speaking). I am more hungry and thirsty for solid teaching and comradeship around a common understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ than I am for a protest against a deeply flawed church system. When they are talking about issues of the Gospel rather than church specifics or baptism I am in complete agreement with everything they are saying and I am in agreement with the T4G affirmations and denials (with the exception of article V on the centrality of expository preaching but even there I would prefer expository sermons over any other kind).

So there you go, hit me up if you wanna shack up in Kentucky.

Thoughts on expository preaching

Eric Carpenter has apparently garnered the attention of one of the big guns of the Reformed world, Thabiti Anyabwile. Eric questioned something Thabiti had written in his book on What Is a Healthy Church Member regarding being an “expository listener” and apparently Thabiti read Eric review and responded with his post Who's Doing the Talking in our Church Gatherings?.

Here is the crux of his argument. According to Thabiti and most advocates of expository preaching, what is happening is not one guy talking to a bunch of other people from a platform and behind a pulpit. It is God speaking through His Word, God speaking to His people. According to Thabiti, the structure of the service (something I have railed against many a time) actually facilitates this dialogue between God and man…

The very structure reflects a running dialogue–not between the people gathered, though we “speak to one another in songs,” etc.–but fundamentally between God and His people. We come singing to our God, but He speaks the first word in the “call to worship.” We respond in song. Then God addresses us again by the reading of His word. We then speak to Him in prayer of confession. Following the confession, God speaks to us in the “assurance of pardon” taken from Scripture each week. Hearing His promise of pardon, we then respond in song. God speaks next in the sermon. God gets the bulk of the service to say what’s on His mind, disclosed in the word of God. Following God’s word to us, we respond in praise. We then receive the benediction or words of blessing from God, before sitting in silence (hopefully awe) before the God of the universe.

Here is my problem with that.

From a theological position, we affirm that God is speaking through His Word.

From a practical standpoint, what we get is one guy speaking on behalf of God.

That is a huge difference. Is God’s Word really God speaking to us all the time or only under special circumstances? Is this a dialogue between God and man or is it man telling us what and how to respond to what he has chosen to share from God? From the Scriptures read to the songs we sing to the prayers we listen to, all of it is selected by a few people and imposed on the rest. All of that is done in most churches with the very best of intentions but the reality is that the majority of believers are mute observers of the performance, even when we are permitted to sing along with the songs someone else chose (standing or sitting by their direction of course). In every church we have been involved with up to the gathering we met with in East Lansing, the entire church gathering was focused around one guy, i.e. the pastor, who does virtually all of the speaking. Is there something special, from a Scriptural standpoint, about when a pastor delivers a sermon versus when two brothers are opening the Word over a cup of coffee? Everything we are taught to understand, even the way the church service and building are structured, gives the impression that something special is happening in the pulpit but frankly I have been far more edified by informal conversations with brothers outside of church buildings than I ever have sitting in a pew.

Expository preaching sounds so great. We open the Word of God, study it and then exposit what it is saying. What is not to like about that? Almost everyone I know grew up in a school setting where one person always spoke and the class listened. Many of us had a similar experience in college. That mode of learning is comfortable and familiar to us and that transfer to the church where we are also taught to expect to sit in a pew and listen to the guy in front. Something odd happened as we progressed in college to upper level classes. As I went from a big lecture hall for PoliSci 101 to senior level seminars that dug deeper, there was far less lecturing and far more interaction. Guess what? I needed some basics up front (not as much as the normal college frosh but I digress) but once I had the basics I was able to engage in conversation with my professors and fellow students, in dialogue and not in simply listening. My learning was far deeper and meaningful in those classes. We all know this to be true, but why do we never progress beyond “from the pulpit to the pew” edification?

When we restrict the conversation to talking about expository preaching within the context of our presupposition and culturally attuned preferences, everything is fine but when we take the time to dig into Scripture and ask: what is commanded and what do we see modeled through example, it just isn’t there. It is amazing the more I read through Scripture to find so little of what we take as absolute truth in the church is completely absent and that often the opposite is what we find.

I love a lot of what Thabiti writes and I deeply respect him as a brother in Christ. I just disagree, vehemently, with the idea that being a mute listener is a sign of a healthy Christian. That is a great quality to be desired in a mannequin but not in a fellow follower and disciple of Christ. Certainly there are times to be quiet and listen just as there are times to be active and involved but the determining factor is not whether a preacher gives you permission or not. It is high time that we release Christians from their pews, equip them and exhort them to minister to the world and see what happens!

They aren't really black

Very interesting comment on race from Voddie Baucham...

One of the issues underlying the current debate is philosophical assumptions that dominate the modern American landscape. I don’t think the average Evangelical has a clue as to the scope of Neo-Marxist thinking in our culture. For example, as I have conversations with black Christians who adamantly support Senator Obama (which is virtually every black Christian I know), I always ask why (especially in light of his support for black genocide, i.e. abortion). The response is almost universal. “This is a monumental step for black people,” they say, as the look at me incredulously wondering what planet I live on. Then I ask, “What about Justice Thomas and Dr. Rice?” The response here is not ‘almost’ universal, it is absolutely universal, “They’re not really black.” Unless you are black, you may not understand that response. However, blackness in many ways is defined less by skin color than by the view that blackness is about oppression, victimization, and the struggle to overcome.

Similarly, the current philosophical landscape views women as a victimized, oppressed class struggling to overcome. Ironically, women are often referred to as “minorities” in America even though they actually outnumber men! Hence, a woman like Governor Palin is viewed as a non-woman in much the same way Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are viewed as non-black. I have lived with this stigma most of my adult life. My barber calls me and my family “white” because he knows that I am a political and theological conservative. In fact, most of the black people I know (including my own family) would consider me non-black because I am not a socialist, or Gramscian neo-Marxist (though they would never use those terms).

They aren't really black? Pastor Baucham is right, that makes no sense to me as someone who is white.

What political conversation exposes is that for the left it is not about what is best for black people, it is what neo-socialist political agenda can be pushed on America in the name of racial equality. There are quite a few black Americans who are successful but come down on the wrong side of the political spectrum, people like former Congressman J.C. Watts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. These individuals are educated, eloquent, successful by any measure and yet they are shunned by the vast majority of self-imposed black leadership because they challenge the assumptions and stories of racial inequality that are the lifeblood of the leftist movement.

It is refreshing to read the thoughts of a new generation of black Christian leaders who have rejected the victim mentality and the black liberation theology that has held many predominantly black churches in bondage for so long, leaders like Pastor Baucham, Thabiti Anyabwile and Ken Jones. No amount of earthly oppression can compare to the bondage of sin, and these men recognize that and preach Christ crucified as the only remedy for that enslavement. Pray that God will raise up more men like these to put Christ back in the church.

Church is so totally like boring dude

A recent article in the Detroit Free Press touts yet another "new kind of church":

New-fashioned church

Pastor hopes to draw families, professionals

It's not going to be like your mother's church. Your grandfather's either.

The pastor might wear jeans and a sports coat. Movies may be incorporated into lessons, and the hour-long service might have a concert feel.

The Macomb Township church is so casual organizers haven't even named it yet. They're holding an online contest through May 31 allowing the public to help choose its name.

The goal of this modern approach is to attract young professionals and families to worship.

The church is joining a recent push to target twenty- to fortysomethings in metro Detroit -- whether it's through the establishment of new churches or creating more relevant programs for young people at older, established congregations.

"I think most people believe in God but for the most part have given up on church. This is a way to reengage them and get them to come to church again," said Josh Hossler, 29, pastor of the new church. Services would include media technology, contemporary music, pop culture and slang -- to replace stiff religious vernacular.

The same old refrain, the same broken record. New, culturally relevant, exciting, engaging, anything but boring and old. That is what churches are after these days because that is what they think people want. They are partly right. That is exactly what sinners want and it draws them in. The problem is that these churches never get past the marketing to the meat. The claim is that they are just seeking ways to reach out to people so that they can give them the Gospel, but these churches get trapped by their own method. They suck people in by entertaining them, but they can never stop because they fear they will lose them.

Warren Community Church Pastor James Thompson said it's a privilege to help the new church, even if he loses members.

"Church planting like this is probably the most effective way to reach people in our present church culture," he said. "So many older churches are dying and many are closing, and there's just a whole new level of commitment and excitement in a new church plant that is much more effective than trying to revive a church that is on the down side of growth."

Churches that are dying are not dying because of their methods, but because they have abandoned the Gospel. Most stodgy mainline Protestant churches long ago abandoned the Gospel and Christians have slowly abandoned those churches to the point that they stopped being true churches long ago. There is more to a church dying than fewer people in the pews. Churches can and do die spiritually and it is less obvious to the naked eye. I am sure that these guys in "The church to be named later" think they are doing the right thing but they are doing what they are doing to appeal to the sinners eyes and ears, not on what the Bible commands us to do.

In marked contrast, and a welcome contrast, is a blog post by Thabiti Anyabwile warning us to be careful in how we grow the church: Be Careful How You Build: A Plea for Boring Preaching.

So here's a plea. Please, please Lord build your church on "boring" preaching and "regular" personalities owned and fired by your Holy Spirit, so that your people will find excitement and emotion that comes from the truth and their affections will rest on You rather than the earthen vessel that proclaims your Name.

Not many people call for boring preaching but Thabiti does and he does has a very valid reason: when the pastor is called upon for theatrics or entertainment, the Gospel is lost. I know that not everyone finds Gospel preaching to be stimulating, but it really shouldn't be. If a sermon is entertaining to a sinner, then they aren't hearing the Gospel. I love hearing the Gospel proclaimed and the Word of God unfolded chapter by verse by word. When the Word if proclaimed and explained and exhorted from the pulpit, THAT is preaching. What goes on in "seeker sensitive churches", emergent types, and other aberrant forms of worship is not preaching in any sense of the word.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4 ESV)

Together for the Gospel

Day One

Thabiti Anyabwile

Last night we were privileged to hear from Thabiti Anyabwile from the Grand Cayman Island (tough gig) He spoke on race from a Biblical perspective and it was pretty sobering and thought provoking. His main point was that race, like unicorns, doesn't exist.

Thabiti Anyabwile had four main points (1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base and home):

1st Base: Our unity in Adam

• Our solidarity is not just in out sin but in our common heritage and parents. We all stem from the first parents, Adam and Eve, and we are all made in the image of God, whether we are Christians or not.

2nd Base: Our unity in Christ

• John 17:20-26
• Our common heritage in Christ is a deeper source of unity. We shouldn't look at people based on skin color and say that person is like me, but when we see Christians we should see a descendant of Adam, like me. A sinner in need of grace, like me. A redeemed brother or sister, bought with the blood of Christ, like me.
• Christ's blood creates a greater unity, a deeper identity than our ethnicity.

3rd Base: Our unity in the church

• The penultimate display of unity in Christ before glory, the glorious assemblage of all of the redeemed elect, from every tribe and nation.

Home Plate: Our unity in heaven

• Revelation 5:9-10
• That is how we are going to end up, that is where we are headed, so why not live that way now?

One of the best talks I have ever heard on race, in any context. Hands down. Sober, provoking, challenging, Bible saturated.

"It isn't that we can't see the solution, it is that we can't see the problem."