A Response to J. D. Greear
J. D. Greear has come out with a new article in The Gospel Coalition titled, “Faithfulness amid the Culture War.” I encourage you to read the article. A favorable reading of Greear’s article might conclude that the article’s main point is that Christians—and especially Christian leaders—should prioritize the gospel and allow it to be the gateway to all other issues, including political issues. Greear claims that while some of the third way needs to be “jettisoned,” there are other “parts [that] need to be maintained.” Briefly, the third way is the stratagem of church leaders to be as nonpartisan as possible because they believe that Jesus was neither left nor right—a stratagem that is as easy to explain in theory as it is hard to find in practice.
Despite the initial agreement one might have with Greear’s main argument about prioritizing the gospel, there are multiple problems with Greear’s approach. Although others have taken issue with Greear’s article when comparing it to previous statements and stances from Greear, the analysis here is limited to the arguments within the article itself.
The Problem of Directives Unheeded
One directive that Greear repetitively makes is “that where God’s Word doesn’t speak directly, or the political application is only implied, we need to exercise self-control.” In these cases, Greear “leave[s] the authority of God and the reputation of the church out of it.” Yet Greear himself does not follow this directive within his own article. For example, just a few lines down, Greear notes that Matthew was described as a tax collector and Simon was described as a Zealot, which “indicates they were divided on the most pressing political issue of the day. One thought Rome should be cooperated with; the other thought cooperation with Rome was a compromise of God’s covenant and that guerilla [sic] warfare was the faithful response.”
How does Greear know this from how Matthew and Simon were described? Where in God’s Word is this sentiment about Matthew and Simon given? Where did God speak directly about the compromise of Rome and guerrilla warfare based on the descriptions of Matthew’s and Simon’s names? Greear says that the descriptions of these names “indicates they were divided…” (emphasis added), meaning that God did not speak directly on this issue and only, according to Greear, indicated it.
Here, “the political application is only implied,” yet Greear wastes no time using that implication to help him make the point that “a priori conformity on this issue wasn’t a prerequisite for following Jesus.” And yet again, even that statement is—at best—implied from the text of scripture. Jesus never directly said to Matthew and Simon, “Do not worry about your thinking on cooperation with Rome or about your desires for guerrilla warfare. That is not a prerequisite for following me.” Jesus did, however, give the following prerequisite for following him: “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33 ESV).
The Matthew and Simon example is not the worst example. Later, Greear “imagine[s] James, in the spirit of Acts 15, might reply…” Wait, wait, wait. Now Greear is going to make up what James says in the same article for which Greear says to leave God and His Church out of anything God does not speak directly about? Greear states the imagined quote from James would be this: “There should be all kinds of things you would say around the firepit that you wouldn’t say from the pulpit.” Again, James never says this. This is Greear using James to make an implied argument. Greear uses this made-up quote from James to then argue that the “pulpit is a place reserved for ‘thus saith the Lord’ not ‘thus thinketh the pastor.’” Again, nowhere is this sentiment directly stated by God in Scripture.
The point in all this is that Greear’s article takes small parts from God’s Word to make implied arguments based on them, while at the same time arguing that unless God speaks directly on an issue, one would be wise to leave God and the church out of it. This article from Greear would not exist had Greear followed his own directive. He is using God’s Word, and other sources, to make an implied argument based on those sources. I am not against him engaging in this practice, and I am not here concerned with the validity of his arguments. But he is not following his own directive. This is deceptive. Perhaps unwittingly, but deceptive, nonetheless.
The Problem of Contradictions
Greear also contradicts himself in the article in other ways. For example, near the end of the article, Greear states that sometimes “we should connect biblical values to specific candidates or parties.” Speaking on the issue of slavery, Greear says “faithfulness would . . . mean refusing to support any pro-slavery candidates, even if we agreed with them on other things.” We would use the Bible and Jesus to make the argument that picking the pro-slavery candidate is morally wrong, and thus we must choose the lesser of two evils.
Yet just a few paragraphs earlier, Greear says that while it is sometimes necessary to pick the lesser of two evils, we should not use Jesus to do so. He insists that “the lesser of two evils is still evil, and Jesus’s name must be kept free of all of it. Otherwise, we take it in vain.” Herein lies the contradiction: One the one hand, Greear thinks it is necessary to “connect biblical values” to our refusal of a pro-slavery candidate, and on the other had we should not ever use Jesus (the source of biblical values) to select the lesser of two evils. What Greear is presenting is a labyrinth of inconsistency, and he seems to be hoping that by getting you lost within it, you will concede that he is correct.
Of course, one can use Jesus and His wisdom to select the lesser of two evils while at the same time not entangling Jesus in said evil. Many church leaders love a false dilemma, and it appears Greear is not any different.
The Problem of Charlie Kirk
Charlie Kirk was assassinated less than a month prior to J. D. Greear’s article coming out, yet Greear only makes a passing reference to Kirk and certainly does not engage meaningfully in any of the arguments presented by Kirk, many of which would have had direct application to Greear’s article.
For instance, one of the key points by Greear is that “[a] change of politics is downstream from discipleship; it shouldn’t be the gateway to it.” I do not doubt that Charlie Kirk believed that discipleship could result in all kinds of changes, including influencing one’s politics. But Kirk was insistent that often it is the opposite effect that leads people to Christ: “Once people start drinking from the streams of liberty, they’re gonna wanna find its source. And liberty is not man’s idea, it’s God’s idea.” Kirk knew that sometimes the gateway to getting people saved was for them to first “taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Psalm 34:8 ESV). You let them taste the “streams of liberty,” and then you lead them back to its source and they will see that He is, indeed, good.
I also wonder why Greear is insistent that political change is downstream from the gospel. Why can it not be both that the gospel changes your politics and also that a changed politics can lead one to the gospel? In other words, we should champion both ideas: the good gospel and good politics.
In making the case that the “[g]ospel witness . . . is the tip of our missional spear,” Greear recounts a young lady (who we assume is left-leaning because of the context and because Greear describes her X handle as @LeftLinda) who eventually got baptized in Greear’s church, but “the first personal interaction we’d had was over X” when she had only been to Greear’s church a handful of times. In the X exchange, Greear “had no idea she went to our church.” Greear recounts how he engaged in a back-and-forth discussion with this young lady on X about a pro-life issue to which the lady disagreed. Greear states that “[w]hen she first came to our church, she wasn’t a Christian,” yet considering this young lady is now baptized, Greear uses this example to argue that “she’s in the process of reexamining everything. And yes, that includes her politics. But it started with a gospel encounter.”
Hold on. No, it did not, at least not the way Greear describes the story. It started with Greear posting about a political issue (pro-life), and then this young lady engaged with him about that post. The young lady disagreed with Greear on this political issue, yet she knew where he stood on the issue. It could be argued that it was from this initial clarity and conviction from Greear that then lead her to the gospel. She says, “[A]nd I didn’t like your pro-life stance. But I kept coming to the church, and eventually I was convinced by the truth of the gospel.” Notice, she was eventually convinced, but it was through the gateway of a pro-life stance. The tributary of pro-life brought her to seek out the river of Truth from which this tributary flowed. As is typical in confused arguments, what one thinks is making an argument in one’s favor often makes an argument for the opposite proposition.
The Problem of Obstacles
Last, Greear contends that pastors should “[p]reach the whole counsel of God, but don’t make it hard for anyone turning to God by encumbering the message with things not essential to the message.” Greear is concerned with putting “unnecessary obstacle[s] in the way of gospel proclamation.” While of course we should not put up unnecessary obstacles, I believe John G. West addressed this concern best in his book Stockholm Syndrome Christianity:
So, while we definitely don’t want to place obstacles of our own making in the way of the gospel being heard, we need to be very careful about what we consider obstacles to the gospel. Are we talking about our own sinful behaviors and shortcomings? Or are we talking about culturally unpopular parts of the gospel that we are embarrassed by and fear will make it hard for many people to become Christians? Bear in mind that Jesus said he himself was an obstacle to people. He’s hard to accept. Why? Because he stands for radical obedience to God, not men. So by its very nature, Christianity—following Christ—is an obstacle for many people. We can’t remove that obstacle without gutting Christianity.
In practice, what Greear’s strategy amounts to is this: Any political issue a Christian leader does not want to address can be labeled as an “obstacle,” and that’s that. But I prefer West’s approach: “[W]e need to be very careful about what we consider obstacles to the gospel.” Sometimes, something as simple as taking a stance on pro-life might be portrayed as an obstacle, but maybe it is the truth, the clarity, and the conviction in that stance that leads people to the gospel. Instead of seeing everything as an obstacle to the gospel, see it as an opportunity to tell others about the source of this so-called obstacle. People may see the tributaries of God as obstacles to where they want to go, but ask them to taste from the tributary. If they do, chances are they will see that it is good.
Although speaking on a different subject, a quote I like to return to from time to time is from Thomas Sowell, who said: “Today, many [people] flatter themselves that they are wrestling with the new complexities of modern life, when in fact they are struggling to extricate themselves from the labyrinth of their own inconsistencies.” I think this is precisely what is happening with J. D. Greear. He thinks he is understanding the “new complexities of modern life,” but instead he is leading us straight into a “labyrinth of [his] own inconsistencies.”
The way to get out of this labyrinth is to defend and proclaim both the source of Truth and its tributaries. For many, similar to the conversion of Saul, the source of Truth will shine so brightly that it cannot be ignored. But for others, the tributaries will lead them back to the source of Truth. Either way, let us remember that the “gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13-14 ESV). However they find it—either through direct gospel presentation or through clear politics—we can all rejoice that they did find The Way, The Truth, and The Life. There is no third way, but there is The Way.
Image Credit: Unsplash.
