WELL, WELL, WHAT DO YOU KNOW….? PART II

In my last blog I reviewed the ITC/Long fiasco, oops, mess. (Hi, brother ronde love. I stll love you). Now I’ll try to get beneath the events and analyze their meaning.

The Bigger Picture: Cone's Theology Is Not Orthodox
Yet, Cone's remarks must be evaluated in light of the broader theological spectrum. His criticism of long, though valid in context, does not emit from orthodox biblical theological convictions. His theological construct, Black Theology, deviates blatantly from the theology taught in Scripture in that it:
• is a branch of Liberation Theology which discounts individual accountability for sin to a holy and just God; elevates all oppressed peoples into a specially-favored disenfranchised class; views man's fundamental dilemma, not as original sin and practical sins resulting therefrom, but as the world's plutocracy; regards salvation as the liberation of the oppressed from the ruling classes; etc.

• has as its focus the immediate liberation of Blacks from the oppressive White man and his systems, by any means necessary.

• claims the absolute preference of God and Jesus Christ for the disenfranchised, marginalized and downtrodden.

• severely limits the immanence of God to His acts on behalf of the oppressed in this life… even in contradiction to His other attributes. It neglects the inescapable truths that God's immanence is also revealed in history by His redemptive works, especially in the Person and the work of the Incarnate Christ; in our lives in the Presence and power of the Holy Spirit; in His providential government of all His creation; etc.

• denigrates historic orthodoxy as the White man’s contextualization of truth.

• relegates the Bible to the role of a self-fulfillment manual.

• grants the oppressed special religious privileges, regardless of their relationship to Jesus Christ by faith alone.

• practically denies the biblical doctrine of original sin, especially in the lives of those listed immediately above.

• downplays the hope of the eschatological perfection when the righteous Judge will make all things right.

• de facto presses the need for a realized eschatology in this life.

• confounds such biblical categories as redemption with liberation; bondage with oppressed; sin with evil, etc. Its narrow view of oppression limits its struggle to the Black man's liberation from economic, psychological, physical and emotional subjugation. Herein lies its grand irony: just as our White oppressors’ violated the clear meaning of the biblical text to fulfill their own sinister, immediate ends, so too does Black Theology desecrate Scripture by super-imposing its agenda on it, by subjecting it to ad hoc liberation interpretations and by simultaneously presenting an absolute and false dichotomy between our needs in this world and in the one to come. In this scenario, Jesus is the grand Liberator of all the oppressed and, according to Black Theology’s interpretation of Lk 4:18-21, His mission is to release them from the shackles of poverty and from all other forms of earthly inequity.

• unbendingly insists on the Black experience as the highest binding element, the ultimate authority and the paradigmatic expression of biblical truth.

• in essence is nothing but humanism cut, tailored and dressed to fit the African-American experience. Black Theology begins with the existential circumstances of the Black man and opportunistically incorporates Scripture into its schema in order to fulfill its end -- the attainment of the Black man's dignity mainly through the efforts of self-realization but broadly, by any means necessary.


Further, ITC has historically been a supporter of Dr. Cone. His theological views are well-accepted by that institution, one of whose professors, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Fuller E. Calloway Professor of Systematic Theology, a former student and protégé of Cone, uses his textbook on that subject. It is not difficult to determine ITC’s theological stand.


Framing The Issue
On this basis, we should not view the current imbroglio as a matter of ITC/Cone versus Long. This would be improper and incorrect. The foundational formulation should be Jesus versus ITC/Cone and Long. Why? Because, in the end they all attack the Scripture: ITC and Cone by their advocating Black Theology (and the “feminist Gospel” ??) and Long, by his promotion of prosperity and Word Faith theologies underscored by the expedient application of secular financial and business practices.


In Fact, ITC/Cone And Long Have Many Similarities
All of them would commonly admit that the chief end of (the Black) man is not, as loftily summarized in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever, but to achieve Black social, economic and spiritual (whatever that may be) equality through regaining dignity and honor, by a creative use of the Bible. Their difference is not one of theology but one of methodology: Cone identifies with the oppressed in order to effect their liberation from White oppressors while Long grabs more and more from the oppressed because the more he gets, the more he is able to give back to them!! Both are grave distortions of the Gospel.

Further, both also have this in common: an inordinate concentration on the present, on the hic et nunc. Black Theology focuses overwhelmingly on reversing existing conditions, on liberation now for all oppressed, especially Blacks, at all costs and by any means necessary, and Prosperity Theology presses the expectation, the demand, and even the right, for all God's children to be financially prosperous today, now.

Both overestimate the importance of this present age, their attitudes towards which betray a misguided notion of ultimacy. For example, Black Theology despises the fact that God has delegated the power for ensuring social justice to governments whose officers will one day account to Him for all their thoughts, principles and actions. Prosperity Theology, in falsely promising a bounty of material blessings to those having the right faith, saying the right words and doing the right deeds, is in fact directing its hearers to find self-fulfillment right now. In both cases this unhealthy preoccupation with the present, the very essence of a consumer culture, ends up crippling the church by detracting it from its major role of worship, of which evangelism and discipleship are supportive means, in such a way that it de facto has no sense of the course and content of redemptive history which climaxes in the Second Coming of Christ Who will reward His servants for their suffering on earth for His Name's sake. It is this "eschatological orientation to God's promised future which establishes the context of human life" (Michael Horton's quote of Colin Gunton in Horton's Covenant And Eschatology, p. 42, emphasis ours) so that, as Horton continues, "The definitive power for Christian community is neither .. resignation to defeat nor .. "the will to power" but the Lamb who was slain for others but now is the life for others." Horton, p. 43.

Both denigrate our expectation of the Consummation because they reject God’s promises that He will bring forth His ultimate fulfillment of all things in Christ. Both deny unjust suffering for the sake of Christ as the Christian vocation, 1 Pe 2:18-21; indeed, in His suffering, He is our model, 22-25. Our unjust trials are not to take us by surprise, rather, we are to rejoice in them for it is fitting that such trials first occur with those of the household of faith, 4:12-19. Finally, both revel in a false over-realized eschatology founded on a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross. Contrarily, our biblical eschatological hope which is to be woven into every fabric of our lives, finds its highest expression in none other than our sovereign Lord Jesus, “.. the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” Heb 12:2.

Next issue: Christ alone is our eschatological goal. The Conclusion—A Caution to the Reformed Black Community

WELL, WELL, WHAT DO YOU KNOW...? PART I

In March of this year, 29 graduating seniors of the Interdenominational Theological Center (ITC) in Atlanta signed a written protest against that institution's selection of Bishop Eddie Long as May commencement speaker. Though the event has passed and though the posting of these observations at this time may not have its optimum effect, I do believe that the thoughts expounded in this three-part series have some validity. I hope this is your experience also. Thanks to my friend Anthony Carter for suggesting this medium.


It is about time that some Blacks would freely and openly disapprove of one of Black religion’s "Untouchables," one who has increasingly hoodwinked his congregation with an eclectic admixture of Word Faith Theology, Prosperity Teaching, unconscionable heresy, rank mysticism and personal duende. It is encouraging that some circles in the Atlanta area are courageously speaking out against the theology and conduct of one of Black America's most visible, prominent and popular religious icons, Bishop Eddie Long, Pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Ga. It is laudable that some have come to the point of saying that enough is enough -- in the words of Roberto Duran, the nonplussed recipient of a relentless pugilistic pummeling by Sugar Ray Leonard, No más! It is commendable that some would lift every voice above and against the obsequious din showered upon Long and sing: this fellow does not represent us!

I'm speaking of the representative group of 29 graduating ITC students (hereafter called the ITC 29) who vented their firm opposition to President Michael Battle's invitation of Long as this year’s commencement speaker. The remonstrants’ letter was clear and cogent, sound and objective, articulate and accurate, and responsible –it amply supported its claims by solid documentation. Among the many reasons for the ITC 29’s disapproval of the beleagured Bishop Long were his:

 discrediting the mission and vision statements of ITC.

 ethical foibles: the August 28, 2005 “Atlanta Journal-Constitution” reported his receipt of $3.07 million in salary, more than half the amount paid to intended beneficiaries, and many other material/financial benefits from a nonprofit corporation founded by him.


 vituperative denunciation of less popular Black preachers as ".. a bumbling bunch of preachers who can't talk … who spend time baptizing babies." See my previous article.

 (incorrect) analysis and disqualification of women from some leadership positions in the Church.

 disparagement of the value of theological education and his denunciation of ITC's leadership as "antiquated hindrances.." and "obsolete traditions" out of touch with the "fresh move" of God among His people.

 rash and irresponsible exegesis of 1 Jn 2:22; 1 Sam 3:1-10; and the account of the beheading of John the Baptist, to support his nonsensical idea that today's church must sever itself from past, otiose traditions in order to hear the new message that God is speaking.

 "lack of scholarship" and blatant disrespect for ITC faculty.

There’s More To The Matter
In addition to the ITC 29’s protest, there is another dimension to this situation. The May 11 Atlanta-Journal Constitution reports that, because of ITC's invitation to long, Dr. James H. Cone, the father of Black Liberation Theology (which is by no means Biblical Theology), has refused to attend the commencement exercises. According to the AJC, Cone, a prolific writer, respected scholar and Systematic Theology professor at New York's liberal Union Theological Seminary, cites Long's Prosperity Teaching as the premier cause of his objection. He contrasts Long’s commitment to personal and corporate prosperity with slain civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life and legacy of fighting for and identifying with the causes of the poor. Cone stated "King devoted his life to the least of these.. King could have been just like Bishop Long with all the millions he has, but he chose to died poor. He would not use his own message or his own movement to promote himself." Cone would not attend the commencement, the AJC article continues, because "he doesn't want to appear to condone Long's ministry."


Cone’s remarks are important for a few reasons. They:
 seem to be an accurate summary of the conflict between the biblical model of servant leadership, pre-eminently patterned by our Lord Jesus Christ and the American, TBN business/commercial/entrepreneurial model practiced by Long, Creflo Dollar, T. D. Jakes, Ike Hilliard, and others.

 attack the major tenets of Prosperity Teaching-- that God prospers the faithful with financial blessing in his life; that this divine blessing starts with leaders and consequently and derivatively flows to the followers; that material prosperity is emblematic of spiritual well-being; that such blessings are available now, in this life; etc.

 expose the intrinsic fallacy of Word Faith Theology and its abominable disdain for Scripture in that it reverses the explicit teachings of the Word of God on the need for all Christians, especially ministers, to be content under all circumstances, Phi 4:10-13; to shun the stifling cravings for wealth, to pursue holiness, fight the good fight of faith, store up treasures in heaven as a foundation for the future, Mt 6:19-21; 1 Tim 6: 9-19, passim; etc., and defiantly perverts them into practices and standards for gaining wealth, a type of wealth that proves spiritual well-being.

 emphasize the need for ministers to be faithful to their call by wholehearted devotion to the studying, preaching and teaching of the Word of God rather than being lovers of money, cf. 1 Tim 3:3.

 along with the ITC 29 's protest, confirm that the prosperity professors are no longer immune to criticism from the Black religious community.

 have the potential to be a catalyst spawning the opening of more eyes and mouths against the insidious “Prosperity Gospel.”

For these and other reasons, Cone’s and the ITC 29 's comments and actions are to be dearly cherished.


In Part 2: The Bigger Picture: Cone's Theology Is Not Orthodox. What Does He Really Teach? Cone/ITC and Long Have Many Similarities

THE ONE-POINT CALVINIST

A few weeks ago I was discussing the topic of Limited Atonement with two Atlanta-area Bible college students. They both claimed to be Calvinists but were wrestling with the tormenting question, for whom did Christ die? (AKA The Extent Of Christ’s Atonement). They proffered the usual arguments of the "all passages," for example, 2 Cor 5:14, 15; 1 Tim 4:10; Tit 2:11; etc., and the "world passages," for example, Jn 1:29; 3:16; 12:47; 2 Cor 5:19; etc., passages stating that Christ died for all and for the world but passages that are egregiously mistaken to mean that Christ died at least to make salvation possible for every human being.

I retorted that the logical and theological inferences from their potential universal salvation scheme were grievous: firstly, that Christ actually died for no one in particular; secondly, it is man who actually and really saves himself -- he has the moral ability to choose Christ without any independent, prior divine enablement; thirdly, final responsibility for salvation rests with each individual because he possesses the ultimate, decisive power in regeneration; and fourthly, man therefore deserves all the honor, praise and glory.

Their swift objection to these remarks precluded my extension of their position to other necessary consequences which would include a lack of the assurance of salvation; a loss of the joy of salvation; a hindered witness, work and worship; religious schizophrenia alternating between emotions of He loves me and He loves me not; and ultimately, no salvation at all since Christ is our only Savior and Mediator, Acts 4:12; 16:30; 1 Tim 2:5; etc.

They accepted my suggestion to review the TULIP, the acrostic named after the Dutch flower and the summary of the Dutch Calvinists’ response to the remonstrations of Jacob Arminius' followers at the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619). We started with the T-- TOTAL DEPRAVITY, which means that apart from God's prior, monergistic, external work in fallen man, the sinner is totally or radically unable to prepare himself for salvation, to incline himself to salvation, to turn to God, to please and obey Him, etc., Pss 51:5; 58:3; Jer 17:9; Rom 8:7; etc. Here my two young friends further demurred. They did not grasp the profundity of radical depravity and in fact subscribed to a partial depravity of man in his Adamic nature. They endowed sinful man with a remnant capacity, “an island of righteousness,” with which he is able to cooperate with God in his salvation. It was strange -- their idea of radical was anything but radical. Their understanding of the term “total” practically pointed to a meaning of “partial.” Their frenetic attempts to jitterbug on this issue proved to be futile as also were my tries to show the logical and theological contiguousness of the Calvinistic scheme. In the end, they departed mildly shaken but stubbornly unconvinced of the historical interpretation and application of the term radical. They stumbled and fell at the first point.

Yet the Scripture insists that apart from the Holy Spirit's monergistic regenerating work in his heart, changing it from one of stone to one of flesh and savingly enlightening him to trust in Christ as He is presented in the Gospel, man is completely and irretrievably lost. He is dead in his transgressions and sins, Eph 2:1, 2. Dead means dead. Theologically speaking, it means he is hostile to God, unresponsive to him, hates Him and needs the miracle of the new birth to quicken him and to cause him to respond to God's gracious overtures toward him in the Gospel. It is only when we embrace these fundamental truths of biblical anthropology, truths that are embedded in the first point of the TULIP, that we can correctly understand the necessity for and the inseparability of all its points. Because fallen man is TOTALLY (RADICALLY) DEPRAVED, that is to say, he is sinful, corrupt and polluted to the very core or root of his being (radical derives from the Latin word radix, meaning root), in order for him to be saved, God must UNCONDITIONALLY ELECT him unto salvation. This in turn means that God Himself decides which of fallen, condemned man, if any, He will save. By His abounding love and mercy and for His Own glory according to the pleasure of His will, God chooses a particular or LIMITED number of sinners in Christ to Himself and it is for these that Christ made ATONEMENT. In history and time, the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ’s atoning work by regenerating them and then they IRRESISTIBLY and freely answer His effectual call without doing violence to their will. Lastly, these are the very ones our Trinitarian God ensures will PERSEVERE to the end: the Farther works out His plan in them enabling them to press on, Phi 1:6; 2:12, 13; the Son continues His Priesthood role of praying for them, Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; the Holy Spirit continues the application of Christ’s redemption to their hearts by sanctifying and enabling them to produce spiritual fruit indicative of their salvation, Gal 5:22, 23, and constantly assuring them of their filial relationship, Rom 8:15-17; Gal 4:6,7.

It is only in this biblical scheme, otherwise denominated as Calvinistic, that God alone receives the glory that is rightly due Him, Ps 96:4-8; Isa 42:8; etc. It is only in this scheme that the divine sovereignty in man's salvation is zealously, consistently and reverently maintained. It is only in this scheme that we can truly exult that salvation is only of the Lord, Jon 2:9.

Can we opt for some of these five points or must we accept them all? Contrary to the post-modern penchant and reverence for free choice, these points constitute a comprehensive, concrete concatenation. To change, adjust or tamper with any of these points is to sever their unity and to destroy the completeness of their thought. Such action lands us in the Arminian camp. There's no such being as a 4-point, 3-point, 2-point Calvinist; these are all variations of Arminianism. A partial Calvinist is an Arminian.

But notice this scheme receives its foundation from a correct biblical understanding of the fallen nature of man, TOTAL DEPRAVITY, the first point. Failing to grasp the full ramifications of this point perforce catapults us over the Arminian precipice. As for me, I'm a 1-point Calvinist. I (believe I) understand TOTAL DEPRAVITY, especially as it is evinced in my own life. Would that we were all 1-pointers. That’s my point, my first point !