Wednesday, July 20, 2016


Part 2
(Part 1 here)
(Part 3 here)

(Part 4 here)
(Part 5 here)

Qualifying Comments

Before I get to the main body of my case, allow me to qualify myself. I am only arguing against human multiism in the church or the right kingdom as opposed human diversity or human multiism in the left kingdom which involves the construct of divine institutions of civil establishment. What do I mean?

How the governments of individuals, marriages, families and tribal-state-national governments are comprised are not in view (though I will be referring to the kingdom on the left as I build my case and some of those matters). These left kingdom divine institutions or governments of the world, though divine institutions, do not follow the same protocols as the construction of the body of Christ, universally or locally/visibly.

For example, the practice of apartheid by Native American tribes in forming both their governments and cultures is a historical fact up until this very day and the Bible does not comment on it any more than the United States’ non-apartheid practice of multiracialism, ethnicism and culturalism. I am not here to argue those values one way or the other.

Yes, there are Biblical principles which I believe are both apparent and other ideals which can be discovered through extrapolation, all of which may guide us to superior forms in our left kingdom governments but none of these have the specific and detailed protocols and boundaries which God has given the church.

Further, I am presuming we all understand that the civil governments of the left kingdom may not have imposed upon them, the constructs and protocols God gave the church - and only the church - because such unique protocols are for just that, the church, the spiritual kingdom and not the civil or left kingdom governments. What I just stated may seem innocuous for the moment but as you read on, this principle and the critical application of not imposing church/spiritual protocols from the kingdom on the right onto the kingdom on the left, will become apparent in its value.

Examples of the Doctrine of Human Multiism and Particularly, Racial Reconciliation, Being Advanced as Orthodoxy in Conservative Evangelical/Protestantism

I am somewhat astonished that the passages
which I will share in Part 3, with their implications, have been by-passed either through ignorance or deliberation by proponents of human multiism within the Evangelical church, particularly so-called historically conservative ones. I want my readers to think long and hard, regarding what Peter says to us in his first letter, particularly highlighted in 1 Peter 2:9 as well as a statement by Paul found in Ephesians, when we arrive there, in contrast to what is being forwarded at the links I am providing.

For now, I want to give you a few samples of the proposals of human multiism being pushed by the so-called conservative Evangelical church and particularly this emphasis on racial reconciliation. Much of this, I have discovered and mentioned earlier, is coming from Tim Keller and The Gospel Coalition and its cooperatives which include the Southern Baptist Convention which is being heavily influenced with social justice theology by way of Russell Moore, the SBC Ethics President, at least in my view.

Additional prominent parties promoting this novel doctrine are John Piper and Al Mohler along with segments within the PCA. Added to these, under the umbrella of The Gospel Coalition and within their sect or denomination are independent churches and less sizable groups such as Reformed African American Network. The following are but a handful of links which reveal the view of the many agents of this new doctrine and who treat racial reconciliation as an imperative exercise for the church as well as encourage the deliberate use of ecclesiastical resources in pursuance of racial justice, as I have observed. I encourage you to investigate:

Prayer Racial Reconciliation
The Church and Racial Reconciliation 
3 Reasons Why Racial Reconciliation Should Be a Church Priority

I am not going to take the time to restate the repetitious arguments, with their varying nuances, made by Christian Bible teachers, theologians and Pastors who are inundating the body of Christ with this ultimately divisive doctrine rather, I will be combating it. I may, in my rebuttal formula, refer to some of their views but I will assume the reader is familiar with them and if not, please become knowledgeable about their ideas.

If you believe you are in the most insulated church possible, this error is like water and will seep through even the tiniest crack and initiate its intrusion into your assembly. And unless you are equipped to engage with unimpeachable truths in protecting your church, it will slither like a vine and eventually take hold of the foundation of your church as it has in both the leadership and the church body in many places, eventually seizing control of the entire edifice. Instead of the holy organism of the church serving its Creator, it will be rendered a tool for the aggrandizement of the creature.

Why is Racial Reconciliation and More Broadly, Human Multiism, so Attractive?

There are many things in this world which are good, relatively speaking. That is to say, when two nations are at peace with one another, that is usually a good thing. Securing peace between nations, however, isn’t the calling of the church. It is not her occupation, by God’s ordination, to facilitate the reconciliation of nations nor maintain any achieved international tranquility.

The conflict between racial groups is no different. While, civil harmony isn’t a bad thing and rarely does one have to teach its value to civilized men and women because it is quite obvious on its own, this is not the imperative work issued to the church by God.

But because those in society who magistrate over civil conflicts to an effective resolution are often admired and celebrated as men and women of nobility, ethic and possibly Godliness (after all, the Bible does state in Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers”), we understand that peacemaking is a good and valued thing in God’s eyes thus, ours. But mistakenly, because it is seen as a good thing by God we assume, without understanding the context, that such efforts are partly, sometimes significantly, the responsibility of the church when, in fact, it is the incumbent duty of civil, not ecclesiastical officers or resources. 

Secondly and maybe more relevant is that sometimes it is our brothers and sisters in the Lord who are involved in social disadvantage by way of what we believe to be negligent or indifferent governmental policies and action. We reasonably share the burden in our souls and wish to intervene where possible. Unfortunately, many allow their compassion to convince themselves and others that ecclesiastical resources should be allocated for such left kingdom causes.

What to do?

The problem is, of course, that effective civil mechanisms and organizations for addressing civil strife such as racial conflict, are few. Therefore, earnest and sincere Christians who genuinely want to address civil disruption, succumb to the temptation to turn the institution of the church into a body for social causes instead of the spiritual campaigns to which she is called. I get that people want action but the church cannot impose herself upon a nation nor is she the institution which God has established to resolve such conflicts.

Some might argue that using the church for social change has been quite successful in the past therefore, God must approve of this or that it simply is a good thing and good things cannot be bad to God. May I suggest that, “a right thing done in a wrong way, is wrong.” God will judge those who misuse the divine institution of the church for social campaigns and burn every single bit of straw of which such illegitimate commonwealths are made.

Rescuing humans and animals is noble but context is everything. There is a left kingdom for civil rescue and a right kingdom for spiritual rescue and the one may not be the other, even as a surrogate, no matter the magnanimity of its cause.


Daniel G. said...

I don't think we can stress enough how important it is to properly grasp these principles when it comes to the church and social activism, be it direct or indirect. It's particularly important now more than ever, as churches will continue to be pressured to respond and shift resources to what some perceive to be the suffering of particular "victimized" groups in this country of ours. The problem is that you will have to tacitly acknowledge the lies in current issues that have been heaped upon us by the media and social justice warriors in order to serve in that capacity. Any push back or alternative points of view that seek the truth rather than the accepted narrative will brand someone as unloving or un-Christlike. Steven Furtick recently threw out a simple tweet that read "#altonsterling #philandocastile" and he was lavishly praised by those inundated with the prevailing pack-think regarding "race relations" and being commended for being a pastor who "crosses the racial divide". This, despite the fact that the Alton Sterling case is still very much debatable in terms of the use of deadly force and the Philando Castile narrative continues to fall apart by the day. Regardless of one's opinion one these (and other similar cases), the circumstances surrounding these and other events that lead to activist causes are debatable and opinions will differ, nothing is set in stone. Taking the PC side and using it as a springboard for a ministry series is not only ill-advised with regards to shepherding the church, it is irresponsible and an abdication of duty as far as expounding the truth. I get that Furtick has numerous other issues where we could cite his irresponsibility and disqualification for ministry, but this was one example regarding this issue that I thought was a good reference point. This all takes place because those in ministry falsely believe it's their responsibility to engender unbiblical notions of "racial harmony", "racial justice", "racial reconciliation", etc. Kudos, Alex, on expounding such an important that many do not take care to grasp. I hope believers will pay attention.

Alex A. Guggenheim said...


Thank you so much for the encouraging words and taking the time to stop by and share your thoughts.

The example you gave is not a surprising source. Your point about the various media being responsible for the elevation of a one-sided narrative cannot be overstated butt I am not confident many are willing to acknowledge this.