×

This morning D.G. Hart published a post called “The Gospel Coalition Goes Racial.”  Hart, no fan of groups outside denominational and confessional lines, often has interesting and provocative things to say.  He beats that drum regularly and loudly, but he keeps a pretty steady rhythm.  Usually.

Today, Hart takes issue with what he sees as a sloppy and ill-defined conversation about “race” coming from two Gospel Coalition members in particular–John Piper and lil’ ol’ me.

Piper and Bloodlines

Hart spends the bulk of his time criticizing Piper’s recent book, Bloodlines and a recent CT article based on excerpts from the book. He summarizes Piper’s memoir thus:

It chronicles Piper’s life, from his southern youth where he presumed the superiority of whites to blacks, to his days at Wheaton College where he was confronted at an InterVarsity Fellowship conference to consider the legitimacy of inter-racial marriage, to his studies in Germany which allowed him to visit concentration camps designed by the “master” Aryan race, to his decision as a middle-aged man to adopt an African-American child. Along the way, Piper employs tropes and taps sentiments designed to show the wickedness of racism, all the while he avoids a technical definition of the concept. And without a definite idea of what constitutes racism, readers don’t know if Piper really was a racist or whether his self-absolved declaration of innocence is justified.  (italics added)

Really?  Are we to believe that being a former racist is now so respectable that someone who admits it might be exaggerating the case or just plain wrong about themselves–on the order of former Muslim-turned-Christian professors claiming apologetic debates they never had or Milli Vanilli lip-synching?  A man walks us through his life’s history, confessing his sin and blindness, and we’re supposed to respond, “Yeah, but you didn’t define ‘racism’ so I don’t know and you don’t know if it’s true”?  Seriously?  We can simply reject the man’s memory of his own life?

For Hart, Piper’s writing suffers too much sentimentality.  Piper’s offending paragraphs?

I was, in those years, manifestly racist. As a child and a teenager my attitudes and actions assumed the superiority of my race in almost every way without knowing or wanting to know anybody who was black, except Lucy. Lucy came to our house on Saturdays to help my mother clean. I liked Lucy, but the whole structure of the relationship was demeaning. Those who defend the noble spirit of Southern slaveholders by pointing to how nice they were to their slaves, and how deep the affections were, and how they even attended each other’s personal celebrations, seem to be naïve about what makes a relationship degrading.

No, she was not a slave. But the point still stands. Of course, we were nice. Of course, we loved Lucy. Of course, she was invited to my sister’s wedding. As long as she and her family “knew their place.” Being nice to, and having strong affections for, and including in our lives is what we do for our dogs too. It doesn’t say much about honor and respect and equality before God. My affections for Lucy did not provide the slightest restraint on my racist mouth when I was with my friends. . . .

Dr. Hart objects to likening Lucy to a dog and racists to slaveholders.  He counters that Whites teaching Blacks the Bible was evidence of Whites having higher regard for Blacks and their souls.  He doesn’t like the associations, for if slavery was akin to the holocaust then that makes Whites Nazis.  I don’t like associations of this sort either (here, here, and here), but a personal dislike for the association doesn’t constitute a rebuttal to the actual problem/situation described by the association.

In an interesting way, Hart himself plays on sentiment here.  He’s trusting the sentiments of those who already feel nervous, hurt, fearful, or angry about their own botched experiences with “race” and discussions of “race” or racism.  He’s strumming the sentimental cord, “Wait, let’s not talk about these things.”  That’s a little too hauntingly “old life” for me.  But Dr. King told us 40 years ago from a Birmingham jail why we can’t wait.  King’s letter and the book along with Piper’s Bloodlines would repay careful reflection.

There is one point, however, where I agree with Hart’s assessment of Bloodlines.  It’s this sentence: “If evangelicals read and adopt this book as a clear and incisive statement on race, they will surely be surprised the next time they enter a discussion or read a news item which reveals how deep and contested are the politics of identity.” Well said.  We can’t expect any book–excepting the Bible itself, rightly read and applied–to provide us a “clear and incisive statement on race” sufficient for the varied and troublesome identity politics “race” provokes.  But in fairness to Piper, I don’t think Bloodlines claims to be such a statement.  The evangelical that reads the book thinking they’ve read the final word on the subject surely must be naive.  But that’s a problem with the reader, not the book or Piper–who does with this book what not a single other white evangelical pastor has done in print–admit he’s been a racist.

I’ve offered my own critique of some a Piper sermon dealing with “race,” holocaust, and abortion elsewhere.  Despite Hart’s complaints, Piper’s stock goes up in my account for the courage of not only writing Bloodlines and confessing his racist past, attempting to launch conversations about the topic, but yearly for the last two decades faithfully bringing his church’s attention to the issues of “race,” racism, culture, and ethnicity from the Bible.  On that Great Day, I think the Master will say, “Well done” when it comes to this aspect of our brother’s life.

Me and T.D. Jakes

As for Hart’s complaint with me, well I dared mention my concern for the African-American church when I objected to the invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room.  Here, I think Dr. Hart simply mischaracterizes things when he writes “The problem was particularly the mixed message that MacDonald (and by extension) the Gospel Coalition would send to the black church about the doctrine of the Trinity.” No, Dr. Hart, the problem was particularly the heretical view of the Trinity Jakes has maintained or not distanced himself from to date and the false ‘prosperity gospel’ he preaches regularly.  As I stated in the post, I was simply adding a not-yet stated perspective.  Others had already written compellingly on the core issue of the Trinity.

Hart complains that we assume the White church has a sound doctrine of the Trinity and then critiques The Gospel Coalitions’ doctrinal statement.  Just for the record: I don’t assume all White churches are sound theologically on the Trinity or a host of other matters.  Truth be told, there would be no T.D. Jakes (at least not at the level of popularity he’s reached) if there were no Paul and Jan Crouch, Kenneth Copeland, or Kenneth Hagin.  We may observe error and theological culprits all around the ethnic spectrum.  I’ve written about those guys as well.  Why Hart thinks my criticism of the Jakes invitation injects a fuzzy charge of racism or TGC is “going racial” is beyond me.

While Jakes’ reach is multi-ethnic, his starting point and perhaps his largest base is African American.  Beyond his own congregation, he is celebrated most energetically in African-American churches.  Pointing out the collateral damage was, imo, simply the responsible thing to do.  Based on his post, it would seem Hart thinks the responsible thing to do is not to speak of ethnic and “racial” issues because “Race… is almost as foggy as evangelicalism.”  I’m of the opinion that from time-to-time we must turn on the lights and drive through the fog.

Conclusion

I guess the gist of Hart’s post is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Don’t admit your racist past or point out a false teacher’s effect on a particular community unless you (a) define racism and (b) show an awareness of other communities with theological problems.  He manages to argue that position while (a) not defining race or racism and (b) stating his ignorance of Jakes and the wider African-American church.  Stunning.  Now ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

For anyone who’d care to know, here’s an address I had the privilege of giving at T4G ’08 on how I define and think about “race” and ethnicity.

Piper’s work in Bloodlines and his yearly effort in his church to stir meaningful discussion, confession, and repentance on matters of race and racism are commendable.  Hart astutely manages to avoid the discussion while stirring the easily stoked fires of hesitating fear and resentment in others.  It seems his post suffers from the same weaknesses he points out in others.

I’d hoped for more.  But honestly, Mr. Hart, I’d settle for your having enough sensitivity to spell this Black man’s name correctly.  I’m just saying.

LOAD MORE
Loading