Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Are You Woke? The Truth Behind the Evangelical Woke Movement

PART ONE

People read here, as evidenced in the statistics on my dashboard.  Just because I may not get comments or compelling ones, ones that indicate people with understanding, doesn't mean that I'm not hitting target or that those people aren't reading.  Maybe they don't care.  Maybe they have something to hide.  On July 2, eight days ago, I wrote a significant post on a major rift in evangelicalism.  In my opinion, it's not repairable, because it is foundational or structural.  That shouldn't be ignored, but it's what I see happening.

Everyone who claims to be an evangelical Christian has skin in the game with and for evangelicalism.  You want it to do as well as it could do.  It's better for everyone if it does.  The worse it is, the worse everything is.

My analysis of the rift said it was systemic.  The assessments I'm reading from the few evangelicals who care, conservative ones, are missing the point, I believe (read this article by Phil Johnson, and I'd predict there are many more to come).  They are picking at the fruit or even the foliage of the issue.  I hope they aren't doing it on purpose, but I'm writing this to explore the cause of the rift a little further and help make it understood.  The real problem, the underlying one, relates to all history, major systems of interpretation of scripture, apostasy, the truth, and even reality -- actually more than all those, but I tell you those for you to gauge the magnitude.

Only one thing has happened in the world, not two.  God is one.  The Bible only means one thing.  Allowing for two isn't generous.  It is a lie.  If you allow for two, you're aren't helping.  Conservative evangelicals have acted like they're helping, but they are pandering, which is ironic here.  Evangelicals pander to the left and in this case some further left than others, but all of them are pandering.  Let's just say that I would be happy if I could help the parties involved to become "woke" to this occurrence.

The concern of Phil Johnson and others is posed as "shifting the evangelical focus away from true gospel issues."  That's about as light a criticism as Phil could have given.  He's not saying they are corrupting the gospel.  His accusation is that they are just not putting the focus where it needs to be, which is "dividing evangelicals over something other than the gospel."  Does that really represent what's going on?  If those Phil addresses would just move the focus back on the gospel, which would stop the division, is that the solution?  Is the leftist ideology acceptable as long as it's not the focus?

What I wrote was that two contradictory systems of interpretation, which are really two different views of the world, cannot coexist.  Truth is not protected and preserved by ignoring these doctrinal and practical variations in order to get along with one another.  The "thought leaders" Phil Johnson now addresses have been invited to keynote.  They have been elevated by Grace Community Church, John MacArthur, and Phil.  I would call this the chickens coming home to roost.

A major manifestation of postmillennialism is liberation theology.  Mark Dever has said,
For us to conclude that we must agree upon . . .  a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture. So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view.
"A particular millennial view" is at the bottom of the rise of leftist evangelicalism.  "Woke" evangelicalism, is a system of interpretation.  Postmillennialism, versus premillennialism, parallels a rise of leftist or woke evangelicalism.  Progressivism, built upon Darwinian optimism for a utopian society, mirrors postmillennialism.  The foundations of this I explain in part one, and I won't want to repeat myself too much.  I'm drawing attention to this once again.

"Together for the Gospel" isn't just together for the gospel and "the Gospel Coalition" doesn't just coalesce around the gospel.  Both have in them the destruction of the gospel.  They are together for and they coalesce around postmillennialism as well.  That's why Dever says that "you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view."  Conservatives like Phil Johnson and John MacArthur have taken and take Dever to heart.  Liberation theology is a millennial viewpoint.

There will continue to be confusion, division, and departure from the acceptance of more than one system of interpretation of scripture.  You aren't free to take scripture how you want.  That acceptance undermines and destroys the truth, including the gospel.  This we are seeing happening in evangelicalism right before our eyes.

4 comments:

Jeff Voegtlin said...

As I got to the end of this article, I was reminded of this from John MacArthur: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-334/why-every-calvinist-should-be-a-premillennialist-part-1

It looks to me like MacArthur is in trouble with Dever :)

Kent Brandenburg said...

Jeff,

It's true, but it hasn't changed anything. Is this what causes it to change? It seems that article writing and sermons are it. GTY published Truth War. Is article writing and sermons how you fight that?

The conservative evangelicals, like the fundamentalists, seem to be more upset about those to the right of them than they are those to the left. There is a seduction of the left. I actually remembered writing something about this, and it was in 2006:

https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2006/10/lure-of-left.html

If you use the KJV because of a biblical and historical believe in perfect preservation, you would be more marginalized than if you were amillennial or postmillennial, which buttresses the liberation theology, Marxist application of scripture.

kddlporter said...

Unless he has retracted it, John MacArthur teaches against the blood of Jesus Christ saving. The Baptist Pillar archive has the source details. Hebrews 9:22 -26 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Heb 9:23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. :24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: :25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; :26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ..... Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
---
He is also is on record as saying the believers in the time of the Antichrist can take the mark without being damned while the word of God says: Revelation 13:16 -17 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: :17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. :18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
--
Revelation 14:6-11 KJB ¶ And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, :7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. :8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. :9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, :10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: :11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
---
John MacArthur does not handle dispensations properly & claims that God's word contradicts as a result. He claims that since 1 Timothy 5:8 says a man must provide for his family, God didn't REALLY mean that any taking the mark would be cursed. So in his imagination, a man at the throne, or facing the angel of Revelation 14 is supposedly going to be able to argue with God on that point. I don't think so.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Kddlporter,

Whether what you say MacArthur believes is true or not, and I'm not saying it's not, I think it veers off the point of this post, which is related to accepting more than one system of interpretation, which has the consequences I'm describing here. MacArthur is a premillennialist. He is opposed to amillennialism and postmillennialism, but he allows for the coexistence of these two contradictory positions. I would rather than you stayed on the point of the post. Going off on these two issues is not helpful, I don't believe.

He takes different positions on various doctrines than what I believe, and what you believe, it seems, but it's not what I'm writing about here. Do you understand?