Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Bethlehem Baptist coddles white supremacy

Bethlehem Baptist coddles white supremacy

Last updated on: August 31, 2021 at 2:58 pm by Fred Clark

Bethlehem Baptist coddles white supremacy 2021-08-31T14:58:37-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

There’s a whole lot going on in Kate Shellnut’s humdinger of a report for Christianity Today, “Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture.’”

That’s a confusing headline. Readers will reasonably assume that this “clash” among John Piper’s successors at his Calvinist mega-church is a dispute between “coddling” and “canceling” — that one faction accuses the other of being excessively tolerant of sin while its opposite faction accuses it of condemning sin without mercy. But that’s not what’s going on here. Apparently, the same folks accusing others of “coddling” sin are simultaneously accusing those others of succumbing to “cancel culture.”

If that seems weird and contradictory, that’s because it is. And the fraternity of theobros driving this division are defiantly proud of that. These guys are from the “Young,* Restless and Reformed” crowd that has long sought attention by being provocatively “contrarian” and contradictory. That’s what brought all of this to a boil, when a bunch of these clerical frat boys started ranting about the “sin of empathy.”

Empathy is a virtue, not a sin. Neither Christianity nor DC Comics has ever been confused on this point.

The what now? That phrase suggests we’re either dealing with unserious people engaged in semantic nonsense, glibly redefining words to mean things they have never meant in order to use them in “provocatively” unusual ways. Or else that we’re dealing with unserious people engaged in moral nonsense who are glibly redefining morality itself as its opposite. Or, as it turns out, with both.

It also hints that, alas, we’re also dealing with people who are “Freakonomics” fanboys — people so enamored with the self-flattering pose of “contrarianism” that they’ve taught themselves to think only in terms of aggressively attention-seeking “hot takes.” This is confirmed later in Shellnut’s piece when she reports that one of these guys — a professor in Bethlehem’s parochial seminary — starts his classes with a discussion of freaking Malcolm Gladwell.

I’ve been using indirect words here — seems, suggests, hints — because this is a frustratingly indirect piece. It’s something like a deep dive into the surface level of what’s going on there at Bethlehem Baptist. Kate Shellnut has done a lot of admirable work and painstaking reporting on that level of the dispute, but it almost seems the piece works even harder to avoid directly addressing the larger divide underneath and undergirding that “clash.”

That deeper divide gets mentioned, but in a way that gets it backwards. See, for example, the subhed CT provides for the article: “A debate over ‘untethered empathy’ underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse.”

No. The divisions at Bethlehem Baptist did not result from the church’s decision to set forth and “approach” the contemplation of abstract “issues.” Those divisions stemmed from the church crashing into the not-at-all abstract reality of racism and abuse. Pretending that reality is nothing more than a collection of abstract “hot-button issues” is exactly what got them into this mess.

But Shellnut’s piece mostly seems to accept the framing preferred by the church’s remaining leaders — those retaining control of its congregations, its seminary, and its side hustles like the hugely popular “Gospel Coalition” website. They’re the ones trying to characterize this dispute as the consequence of different philosophical understandings of the “sin of empathy.” That’s an after-the-fact rationalization for their own failure to accept the reality of realities like racism and abuse. And it’s not even a clever or coherent after-the-fact rationalization.

Shellnut tries to make sense of that rationalization, pointing readers to places where Bethlehem College and Seminary’s new president, Joe Rigney, tries to expound on his ideas about the vicious dangers of “empathy”:

Rigney has become known for raising concerns about the “sin of empathy,” a topic he’s written about on Desiring God and discussed in a video series hosted by Doug Wilson. His worries center on what he sees as–

Wait. Stop. Go back a bit there. A video series hosted by who?

If you’re blessed not to recognize the name of Doug Wilson, let me try to explain why any further discussion of Rigney’s alleged “concerns” about empathy is nothing more than a sideshow and a distraction.

Doug Wilson is a white nationalist. And he’s not shy about that. He co-authored a book defending slavery with an outspoken white nationalist activist from the League of the South. It was full of Thomas R. Dixon type stuff about the benevolence and necessity of such hierarchies between cultural/moral superiors and their inferiors — which is also an apt description of Wilson’s rapey, male-supremacist views on “biblical manhood.”

So just when his church and seminary community were forced to begin confronting the realities of racism and abuse, Joe Rigney chose — voluntarily, unforced — to sit down for a long, friendly, abstract discussion of the “sin of empathy” in a video series with his good pal Doug Wilson.**

The meaning, if any, of Rigney’s weird musings about empathy cannot be the story here. The story here is his untethered allegiance to an abuse-enabling white supremacist. That’s the whole enchilada. That’s what’s happening at Bethlehem Baptist and that’s why three pastors, four seminary faculty, and dozens of long-time members have recently walked away.

Nothing else in this story even qualifies as secondary. It’s not about “deeper philosophical issues.” It’s not about half-baked hot-take attempts to redefine virtues as vices. And it’s not about various “approaches to hot-button issues.” It’s about church leaders cozying up to white supremacy and abuse-enabling patriarchy while blasphemously trying to dress up those sins as a principled defense of “biblical truth.”

This is, from the perspective of Reformed theology, heresy “not simply in its effects and operations, but also in its fundamental nature.” It is, my Reformed brothers and sisters say, “a travesty of the gospel and, in its persistent disobedience to the word of God, a theological heresy.”

That language comes from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches’ 1982 condemnation of apartheid and white supremacy as an official heresy.

The WARC (now called the World Communion of Reformed Churches) is an international ecumenical communion and its initials are close enough to those of the World Council of Churches that right-wing American Calvinists can pretend to confuse the two, dismissing this international fellowship as some “liberal” faction that might as well be the Parliament of World Religions. But the WCRC includes many very conservative denominations who look on the Americanized Reformed theology of places like Bethlehem Baptist as suspiciously Arminian. These are churches that — unlike some of their American counterparts — embrace and accept the accountability of Reformed ecclesiology.

And these Very Reformed churches didn’t condemn apartheid and white supremacy as heresies on political grounds or because of some particular quirk of political theology. The Reformed tradition does, indeed, include a long, sophisticated, insightful school of political theology, but the condemnation of apartheid wasn’t based on some arcane philosophical argument from Dooyeweerd. It was based on fundamental, Westminster Confession-level principles. To affirm white supremacy, these dozens of Reformed churches said, was to embrace blasphemous lies about God. It was, they said, error and sin according to Reformed Theology 101.

So while I appreciate all the hard work Kate Shellnut put into her report, I think ultimately it doesn’t so much bury the lede as orbit it from a safe distance.

Here, for example, is Shellnut’s discussion with one now former member of Bethlehem Baptist:

Sarah Brima and her husband were former members of Bethlehem and Rigney’s Cities Church but left in part over his affiliation with Wilson. She described how hard it was to leave a church they’d helped plant, even as disagreements about race and gender emerged. “These churches that are really heavy on theology, we hold our theology so high that when we’re leaving, it felt like we’re leaving orthodoxy by leaving our church,” she told CT. “If that’s how you feel, there’s probably a problem.”

Brima, who is white and whose husband is Black, said she saw the “empathy as sin” idea used as protection from critique and believes it can do “unique harm” to women and minorities, seemingly minimizing their feelings and experiences. “When met with issues that strike at the core of one’s identity, it’s natural to have visceral responses,” she tweeted. “This response, of course, is labeled as immature, manipulative, and reactive.”

Shellnut briefly mentions Brima’s concern about Rigney’s “affiliation with Wilson,” but doesn’t get into why that’s so deeply concerning. (The closest she comes is this uselessly vague description of Wilson as “an increasingly contentious figure in evangelicalism for his teachings on slavery, women, and other issues.”) And all we’re allowed to hear directly from Brima are the most abstract-level reflections about her concerns.

That led her husband to take to Twitter to share what they had to say that didn’t get included in the Christianity Today article. You can read Sahr Brima’s whole thread there, but I’ll transcribe part of it here:

Kate asked me why we left our mostly white church. I told her my pastor said it wouldn’t be sinful for him to own me & my family today (or—he quickly added after seeing the look on my face—vice versa) as long as he treated us like Paul commanded. But this didn’t make the article.

… It was a conversation between me and Joe Rigney re: how his views on slavery were similar to or different from Doug Wilson’s. It was…disorienting.

Joe’s views weren’t entirely aligned with Wilson’s—he thought chattel slavery was evil, and the civil war was God’s judgment on a Christian nation for reintroducing a pagan practice. However, he also believed that it was entirely possible to be a godly slaveholder, and to believe otherwise was bad logic; that NT slavery was equivalent to American chattel slavery, so NT commands still applied (i.e. “slaves obey your masters” etc.). We argued at length and as part of his argument, Joe used the illustration I paraphrased above. This ended our conversation.

I told him I strongly disagreed with him on this and that it confirmed our decision to leave Cities Church because “I don’t want me or my family to be downstream of anything that smacks of Wilson’s views or theology.”

This was not the first time I had to engage over topics dealing with my humanity with my pastors. Me & [my wife’s] concerns with the church’s affiliation, defense, and approval of Doug Wilson + views on the role of women in church & society were met with defensiveness, equivocations, apathy, recommendations to go read Wilson’s books rather than believe the “street level slander” about him (already did), accusations of slander and outright attack. We didn’t leave lightly—I initiated follow up conversations with the 4 main pastors.

But we left exhausted, demoralized, wounded, and reeling from it all; barely able to walk outside our house without re-living all the worst parts & feeling excommunicated from the spiritual community we’ve known for 5+ years (2 of our former pastors live mere blocks from us).

That’s not an abstract difference of opinion about some provocatively contrarian mumbling about empathy. It’s far, far more important — far more newsworthy — than that. Shifting the focus away from this much larger and more consequential story just muddies and muddles the whole business.

And the Brimas*** aren’t alone. Several other now former members of Bethlehem Baptist have also taken to social media to bear witness to their reasons for leaving that they felt weren’t well represented by the CT report.

This is a story about Doug Wilson, white supremacy, and enabling abuse. Not because these are “hot-button issues,” but because they are very real sins, heresies, and injustices that the current leadership of Bethlehem Baptist is determined to “coddle” while exhibiting “untethered empathy” for people like Wilson and Derek Chauvin.

Rigney’s distracting nonsense about empathy has also produced a bevy of fine rebuttals from pastors, theologians, ethicists, and mental health professionals. Many of these are quite good. See, for example Mark Wingfield’s “Have you heard the one about empathy being a sin?” or Scot McKnight’s “Empathy is a Virtue” or Chuck DeGroat’s “Is empathy sinful?” I agree with most of what those have to say. (I wish they’d all been available as rebuttals back in 2009 when the first right-wing trial balloons attacking “empathy” were floated.) But they’re also beside the point.

Ignore the sideshow. This is a story about church leaders refusing to condemn white supremacy and abuse.

* These guys are all middle-aged now, but in white evangelical circles that still counts as “young.” In any case, for most of these folks, age is irrelevant to their fervent desire to pose as an enfant terrible kicking against the establishment. They’re still striking that pose even though by now they’re all well established as parts of that very same establishment.

** If I haven’t yet conveyed the full import of that, just imagine that Rigney had chosen to sit down for a long chat with Richard Spencer instead. That’s what’s going on here.

*** The Brimas apparently also make excellent cookies. If I ever find myself in the Twin Cities, I look forward to sampling them, probably more than once.

Previous Post

August 31, 2021

'The Fright Peddlers' (1963)

Next Post

September 2, 2021 'It can be a soft exorcism'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who dreamed of a ladder reaching to heaven?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joseph Isaac Abraham Jacob