Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong

1. The Gospel isn't only about saving souls.

One of the things that has been misconstrued, particularly by some Protestants, and often by Evangelicals in particular, is the notion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only really about saving souls.  This tends to manifest itself in an abnormal focus on getting people to say a 'Sinner's Prayer' together with a lack of follow-up discipleship.  In other words, it is a focus on the beginning of the Christian experience to the detriment of what follows after, on becoming a Christian but not on being a Christian.  This imbalance isn't healthy, and it isn't what the Scriptures have taught us about how the Church should function. 

Ephesians 2:8-10  New International Version
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Too often, Ephesians 2:8-10 is quoted as Ephesians 2:8-9, but Paul didn't end his thought there, our salvation by grace through faith is the first step toward the 'good works' that we are called to do once we are saved.  These 'good works' are not an optional part of being a Christian, for God himself has 'prepared in advance' what we are to accomplish because of our redemption has made us capable of so doing.

James 2:14-18  New International Version
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Here we see faith in action, knee deep in issues of poverty, those same issues that are often derided as 'social justice' by those who claim the Gospel has no room for them.  Can we afford to address social issues ONLY and neglect the spiritual need of the Lost?  Of course not, but we are equally unbalanced when we, as a Church, put all our emphasis on spiritual needs and neglect physical/emotional/social needs.  Every Christian, and every church, needs to be able to 'show me your faith' through acts of righteousness.

2. The Bible is full of examples of systematic actions taken in response to sinful behavior.

If the only progress we could make in society against evil was to convert the Lost, why in the Bible is God always taking larger, more systematic actions?  The examples are plentiful, from the flood of Noah, to Joseph's program to feed the people during the famine, to Moses leading the people out of slavery (when Pharaoh was in no mood to change his mind), to the punishment of the people of Israel wandering for 40 years in the desert, to the command to Joseph to eliminate the Canaanites as God's wrath against multiple generations of wickedness, to the the Law of Moses' provisions to help the widows and orphans (which benefited Ruth because Boaz obeyed them), not to mention the Year of Jubilee's commands to free all slaves and forgive all debts.  The ideal society, envisioned by the Law of Moses, contained example after example of rules, from God, designed to ensure justice and to eliminate generational poverty.  When the prophets cried out against the mistreatment of the oppressed, they were addressing the spiritual need of the people, because that injustice was one of the ways in which spiritual illness manifested itself.  Pastor Jeffress rightly understands that racism is connected to darkened human hearts, but has decided that only one tool can be used to combat it, thus abandoning the example of how the prophets sent by God addressed the spiritual need of Israel: holistically.  The cancer analogy he uses is a false one.  When fighting against cancer, doctors use everything that will help the patient survive, just because chemotherapy (for example) is what is needed to kill the cancer cells and other efforts would be futile without it, doesn't mean the patient won't also receive IV fluids or steroids; a holistic approach is needed in medicine, and in society as well.
Jesus himself continues this trend, challenging the Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath, overturning the tables in the Temple, and even rejecting the half-measure of establishing a Messianic Kingdom in favor of a far deeper and more systematic upheaval in the form of his own vicarious death and resurrection.  When Jesus saw injustice at work, he confronted it directly on an individual level, challenged those who upheld the system that created it, and ultimately gave his very life to destroy the root of the problem.  Had Jesus followed Pastor Jeffress' racism approach, he would have told those seeking healing that their suffering was a symptom, and thus not his problem, would have ignored the Pharisees (rather than going out of his way to confront them), and would have simply waited until his Passion to address the 'real problem'.  Jesus, of course, did not such thing.  Even though he fully intended to conquer sin and death to set the spiritual captives free, he still did everything he could to help both the individuals who were suffering and to challenge society's injustices.
The Bible doesn't advocate a principle of minimalism regarding societal evil.  It doesn't consider these evils to be inevitable or beyond change.  The reality of human nature, fallen and in rebellion against God, guarantees that we cannot create an utopia on earth, but the impossibility of eliminating an evil entirely in no way diminishes our responsibility to mitigate it in our time and place.  While the Word of God calls for individuals, families, communities, and even whole nations to repent and turn to the Lord (i.e. to have changed hearts), it doesn't hit pause on the need for structural change until that day comes. 

Zechariah 7:8-14  New International Version
8 And the word of the Lord came again to Zechariah: 9 “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry.
13 “‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty. 14 ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land they left behind them was so desolate that no one traveled through it. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’”

Does God care about societal justice?  God was willing to send his people, those with whom he had a Covenant, into exile because they weren't willing to change their hearts and minds, as evidenced by how they treated the widow, orphans, foreigners, and the poor.  Are we to understand that God would have told the Jews living prior to the exile to not bother fighting against injustices because their efforts were only 'a Band-Aid'?  Note also, the entire nation was sent into exile, including the righteous, because of the collective injustice (sin) of the people.  Surely God takes injustice seriously.  Here's the thing, America isn't in the place of privilege of Israel (Judah), we don't have a Covenant with God, which should make us less complacent about injustice in our society, for there is no promise from God to America that would ensure a return from exile should God, by way of administering his justice, choose to punish our nation.  God was willing to chastise his own children, can we expect to escape unscathed?

3. When will there be 'enough' Christians to confront racism in America? 

If America didn't have enough hearts trusting in Christ during the height of the Jim Crow era (when the vast majority of Americans were self-professed Christians), when exactly in the future is Pastor Jeffress suggesting it will be time to confront racism?  If America couldn't mitigate racism through the hearts and minds of individuals, alone, when 75%+ of those individuals claimed to follow Jesus, what percentage is required?  Clearly, the Church is not capable of eradicating racism, even within its own members, through solely spiritual means.  The shameful evidence of our past and present confirms this.  There needs to be an effort, in combination with, ongoing efforts to win souls to Christ  to address the legal and societal frameworks of systematic racism.  That some Christians are unwilling to consider this option, or even actively oppose it, calls into question how serious an evil they believe racism to be.
A parallel might help with understanding the situation.  Abortion has been legal in America since Roe vs. Wade.  Over the past few generations, Christians (and others) have worked continuously to shape hearts and minds on this issue, AND at the same time have opened hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers (We have one here in Franklin, ABC Life Center), have supported adoption agencies, fought battles over school sex education curriculum, put together lists of judges who are Pro Life, and have again and again advocated for and supported political candidates who promise to work to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  In the case of abortion, we are not told to wait until the day when Christ has changed enough hearts, but to fight on every front, to continue the fight year after year until the goal is achieved.  Why can't we wait until the demand for abortion ceases because Christ has changed hearts?  Because unborn lives matter. 
Perhaps you may have heard, Black Lives Matter too.  But with racism the answer is different.  Some say that racism isn't real, and even complain about reverse racism.  Others deny that racism is systemic, claiming that only 'bad apples' exist, and that every law and policy is already as it should be, that race isn't a factor in justice (again, some even going further, claiming society favors minorities above Whites).  Evidence to the contrary is belittled, treated as anecdotal only, or simply smeared with political epitaphs like 'socialism' or 'liberal'.  There is absolutely a different tone and attitude among millions of (mostly White) Christians (going by self-profession) when it comes to racism. 

4. You don't have to wait for the cure to fight against evil.

The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly taught us the need to take steps against it while we wait for a vaccine.  By the same logic employed by Pastor Jeffress, the only cure for COVID-19 is a vaccine, any efforts at social distancing, mask wearing, or therapeutic treatments being researched to keep those infected alive, are only a Band-Aid.  We have already lost 180,000 Americans, and rising, to COVID-19, imagine the death toll if we had taken no measures against it.

The Gospel's efforts to rescue hearts and minds from darkness have not made murder disappear, but it is still illegal, those who commit it are prosecuted, and a myriad of measures are in place to mitigate the risk that those willing to commit murder would be able to do so.  Likewise, after 9/11 we didn't wait to convince the Jihadists of the error of their ways, we took extraordinary safety measures, and took military action against terrorists and their supporters.

The ultimate, final, solution against any evil is the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death.  What Christ has accomplished for us, and what Christ can do for anyone wiling to repent and believe, does not eliminate our responsibility to do our part to fight against evil.

I refuse to believe that we have to wait to fight against racism. 

Open Letter to White Christians: When it Comes to Racism, Changing Hearts Isn’t Biblical Enough - by Pastor Geoff Holsclaw

Paula White:The Prosperity Gospel, Celebrity, and Politics - A trifecta of Gospel compromise

In a recent opinion piece in Christianity Today, Leah Payne and Aaron Griffith, highlight the unholy alliance that has led famous evangelical leaders, Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr. to endorse the latest book by Paula White-Cain.  The theology espoused by Paula White-Cain has historically been anathema among evangelicals, but the appeal of Paul White's power, in particular her celebrity and close association with the President of the United States, have seemingly overshadowed any concerns about Paula White-Cain's personal history and Prosperity Gospel infused theology {9 Things You Should Know About Prosperity Gospel Preacher Paula White by The Gospel Coalition's Joe Carter}.  Before going on, read the full article, it is well worth it, I will interact with specific passages below: Paula White-Cain’s Evangelical Support Squad Isn’t as Surprising as It Seems

On the surface, White-Cain’s support among these conservative white Protestants is surprising. For one thing, she is a prominent prosperity preacher associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, a loosely connected group of Pentecostals and Charismatics. For decades, tongues-speaking, vision-reporting prosperity preachers like White-Cain have been a theological anathema to more traditional white evangelicals.  {The Prosperity Gospel has been making inroads for decades, inching closer and closer to being thought of as acceptable as its proponents' fame grows through their TV/online presence, book sales, and wealth from donations.  Yet, until the events described in the article, leaders like Franklin Graham would have never publicly associated themselves with those selling this Gospel-for-profit perversion.}

Before fundamentalist-modernist battle lines hardened in the 1920s, it was common to see theological liberals and conservatives sharing stages with one another at tent revivals. Conservative revivalists were willing to work with liberal Protestants if it meant that they could achieve their broader aim of preaching to more potential converts with the support of the local Christian community.
To be sure, the revival tent was big, but it still could be contested. For Billy Graham, his continuation of the evangelical pragmatist tradition in inviting Christians of all stripes—from Johnny Cash to the president of Union Theological Seminary—to support his crusades or sit on his revival platforms drew the ire of fundamentalists like Bob Jones, who saw this impulse as misguided theological capitulation. But Graham helped set the stage for later evangelicals to think creatively about how partnerships could widen their appeal.  {Here is the key fundamental difference between the actions of Billy Graham in previous years and those of Franklin Graham (and those of like mind) today: The purpose.  To what end, for what cause, was Billy Graham willing to work with those he disagreed with about theology?  For the sharing of the Gospel message and the saving of souls.  Not for political gain, not for power, certainly not for money, it was a cause about which the Apostle Paul wrote, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)  Should we work with anyone, even non-Christians, including Muslims (for example), on disaster relief or humanitarian aid?  Absolutely, for here we are not making common cause theologically, are not claiming to share a Gospel motivation or mission.  To save lives we ought to be willing to work with whomever is willing to offer no-strings-attached aid.  Should we work with other Christians, of other denominations, with whom we disagree on other issue, but agree upon the Gospel in those same areas, while including a Gospel message, praying, and worshiping together?  Absolutely, for here the common bond of the Gospel supersedes our disagreements.  To save souls we ought to be willing to work with anyone who affirms salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  Should we work with non-trinitarians, with those who deny the God/Man nature of Christ or his resurrection, whose Gospel is man-centered, and though it pays lip service to Jesus, is instead focused upon elevating us to earthly riches?  Should we embrace this false-Gospel for the sake of politics, wealth, or fame?  May God forbid it.  Nor can we work with those who embrace a false-gospel in an effort to share the Gospel, for what would we share?(Obviously, in the 3 questions above we would exclude working with those engaging in moral evil; i.e. we wouldn't accept food aid from terrorists, or Gospel preaching aid from pedophiles, that ought to go without saying, but lest anyone say, 'what about..?')

White-Cain frames her self-help efforts in the contractual language of the “hard” prosperity gospel, a term coined by historian Kate Bowler to denote certain ministers’ emphasis on the direct and specific returns that result from faith. In the words of an offer on White-Cain’s website, sow a $130 “Favor Seed” and reap a “Triple Favor” as money flows back to you. But it is not that different from the “soft” prosperity exhortations of other evangelicals, including many in the SBC, who claim that following biblical principles improves marriages, lowers anxiety, and creates extraordinary lives of success and significance.
Though there are innumerable evangelicals who would eschew prosperity language of any sort, a focus on the personal benefits of the faith is everywhere. Focus on the Family’s aesthetic is certainly different than White-Cain’s, but the organization clearly states that familial and marital thriving is available through adherence to biblical teaching. Likewise, Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University claims that “biblically based, common-sense education and empowerment” will “give HOPE to everyone in every walk of life.” Less overly contractual language perhaps, but health and wealth all the same. {Here is where this analysis ought to be especially sobering.  While James Dobson and Dave Ramsey have some critics, and none of our techniques/methods are beyond criticsm, this is a more fundamental question than that.  Has our comfort as an American Church with health and wealth grown so deep and so widespread that we don't even notice it anymore?  Has it seeped into the fabric of who we are as a Church in America so much that we expect health and wealth to be part of Christian discipleship?  The Church certainly has plenty of issues to be worried about, and many things that need to be corrected so that the work of the Kingdom of God can flourish, this question needs to be on that list.}

Evangelicals also are avid participants in celebrity-driven media culture. Like other Americans, evangelicals buy books, check Instagram, and attend conferences. And the drivers of all these media tend to be big names, authority figures who know how to communicate their signature messages effectively.
As a form of American stardom, evangelical celebrity culture is ruthlessly capitalist. One’s star rises and falls based on how many books are sold or where they are slotted in a conference lineup. Part of building a celebrity brand means creating cross promotions on media platforms and exploring unexpected partnerships to open up new markets. Each can open doors for the other. As writer Katelyn Beaty noted, “so much of the endorsement machine is about maintaining relationships, not giving an honest assessment of a written work.”...
And Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University and another of White-Cain’s promoters, describes himself in precisely these market-driven terms, as a businessman who is to be evaluated by the financial health, growth, and notoriety his educational empire, not his theology. His promotion of White-Cain’s book can be interpreted as a logical follow-up to White-Cain’s presence (in support of her husband, Journey keyboardist Jonathan Cain) at Liberty’s convocation in 2017. With her massive media presence (nearly 700,000 Twitter followers and counting), it is understandable that other evangelicals like Falwell (with around 75,500 Twitter followers) would see promotion of White-Cain’s work as a way to link their name with hers, benefitting both in the long run.
 {As damning as the thought that leaders like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and Robert Jeffress might be duped into not recognizing the Prosperity Gospel danger that Paul White represents, it is far more disconcerting to consider the alternative: they know it but don't care.  The allure of popularity, sales, and access to powerful people is too strong.  I would disagree strongly with someone who made such an alliance for the sake of political gain, such marriages always corrupt those who embrace them, but if any portion of that compromise is being driven by the greed for fame and money, the moral failure is far greater than simply one of being in error.}

For those who do not share her theological disposition, it is wishful thinking to pretend that she is not a major force within American evangelicalism. It is now Paula White-Cain’s world. The question is how we should live in it. {The conclusion of the Payne/Griffith article, one that reminds us that this issue isn't going away anytime soon.}

Conclusions:

1.  The Prosperity Gospel is anathema: The Gospel is about service for God, about selfless sacrifice in this life for the sake of the next, NOT about health, wealth, and fame here and now.
That the Church in America, even where the preaching and teaching remains orthodox, is infected with exceptionalism (i.e. God is for us more than other people, we're the special, chosen nation} and weakened by materialism, where the spiritual takes a back seat to the material, is now beyond doubt.  That we've grown comfortable with a lite-version of Prosperity doesn't make it any less dangerous.

2.  Any preacher who promises blessings from God in exchange for money is a charlatan who should be shunned no matter whether the theology that he/she is promoting is orthodox or not.
In this case, of course, the money seeking behavior is also coupled with deeply troubling theology.  I am well aware that Paula White-Cain's website contains an orthodox statement of beliefs under the heading, her beliefs, but video also exists of her denying the trinity and claiming that we are all little gods (reminiscent of the 'we will all be gods someday' heresy of Mormonism).  The theology is bad enough, couple together with a money-making scheme and Christian leaders ought to be putting up "DANGER" signs, not endorsing the latest book.

3.  Book sales, twitter followers, and appearances on TV are NOT an accurate measuring stick for who ought to be leading the Church.
You may perhaps already be aware of this, but the Apostle Paul wrote extensively to Timothy about the moral character, and lack of immoral behavior, required of those who would be called to lead the people of God.  Popularity is not on the list.

Additional material:

Jeffress Defends Endorsement of Paula White’s Book, But Admits He Hasn’t Read it “Word for Word” or Researched Her Theology by Julie Roys

Televangelist Paula White Hawks 'Resurrection Life' for $1,144 'Seed' by Leonardo Blair, Christian Post {An example of the absolute heresy of promising blessings to those who send you money, no better than the Papal Indulgences that infuriated Martin Luther}

Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore tweeted, “Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.”