Recently, Dr. Carl Ellis of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), wrote an article designed to clarify his position after some of his comments came to light here.
First, let me state that I am grateful for the time Ellis spent in clarifying what he believes. Second, let me also state that I believe Dr. Ellis to be a brother in Christ. Thus, what follows, though perhaps uncomfortable, is intended for the edification of Ellis and I’s readership. It’s not an effort to tear down a man, or make someone else look ridiculous. It is not an attempt at slander. This article is an attempt at edification (Eph. 4:29).
That said, I have to take issue with Ellis’ article because while it was clarifying, it raised some additional questions. I want to ask those questions here, and also engage some points in the article I find to be problematic if not troublesome. Before you begin reading, I would encourage you to read Ellis’ article in its entirety, and please read this article in its entirety before commenting.
I. His Beliefs
I am grateful that Ellis “stands with the Word of God” as infallible and inerrant in its original manuscripts. This statement is consistent with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I also appreciate his commitment to the authority of the Bible. But, just a few paragraphs later, he says something I find to be problematic, something unclear. He writes:
Finally, I am unapologetically a follower of Christ. I am also, in God’s sovereignty, an African American man who has lived the majority of life in the 20th Century. I believe according to Acts 17:26 that this is the culture, time and place God has given me to do His Kingdom work, and thus I see it as a gift from Him imbued with purpose. That purpose has been to explore His work in the world from a particular non-dominant cultural point of view.
Unfortunately, here Ellis uses the same language he used in the video I linked above where he made reference to power structures, privilege and other concepts original to critical theory. Moreover, his last sentence affirms the legitimacy of standpoint epistemology—the idea that people of different cultures, ethnicities, (insert any distinguishing factor), come to Christian theology from different perspectives and do theology through the lens of that respective set of a priori experiences.
So, Ellis appears to contradict his second paragraph under this point where he says, “Second, my worldview is solely derived from the Scriptures.” His worldview is his perspective if indeed that perspective (culture or ethnicity) is a priori, or prior to the Christian Scriptures—that is to say, if he uses his perspective as an epistemic starting point.
II. Social Religions
Here, Ellis says:
But as a pastor in the seminary setting, I believe they should be studied against a proper biblical Christology and anthropology, with a full understanding of their deficiencies in producing anything close to a Kingdom agenda.
He needs to define his terms. What is a biblical anthropology according to Ellis? Does it include standpoint or perspectival epistemology? If it does, many people would strongly disagree that that constitutes a biblical anthropology. See problems here. What’s a kingdom agenda? If it’s anything like what SEBTS is doing, we need to talk. Mormons, for example, use a dictionary’s worth of the same terms as orthodox Christians, all with different meanings. Just because Ellis uses orthodox language doesn’t mean it’s all defined in an orthodox way. Ironically, he addresses this problem below, but he fails to meet his own standard.
For instance, if the “Kingdom agenda” includes seeking out individuals of color in order to diversify a congregation, a kind of Christianized affirmative action, we have some serious problems. Not only is such an approach completely and utterly racist, it’s totally unbiblical. Ellis needs to work harder to clarify what he means here. Again, I appreciate what he’s written, but it’s simply not enough.
III. The Academy
Ellis discusses the erosion of orthodox thought at the college and university level. Though I am happy to see him recognize the reality of such lapses in biblical Christianity in academia (a centuries-long plague), as with his previous points, he doesn’t go far enough. He says:
Perhaps one of the clearest witnesses to the destructive potential of such ideologies is found in the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Movement.“ The adverse experiences over the last ten years of secular-progressive professors who did not affirm the movement’s social orthodoxies serve as cautionary tales not only for the academy, but for the larger society as well.
In this video, Ellis converses with Dr. Walter Strickland, a professor at SEBTS. SEBTS has launched their kingdom diversity initiative which is no doubt an instantiation of the very thing Ellis is claiming to find problematic. Just look at how they numerize image bearers in their second stated goal: “Southeastern strives to raise historically underrepresented voices on campus by working to be comprised of 20% culturally diverse faculty, staff, and students, and 35% female by 2022.” If this isn’t a product of the “diversity, equity, and inclusion movement,” I don’t know what is. Throw in Sam Alberry and Revoice and it’s all there.
Ellis needs to condemn these particular instances of the concepts he’s claiming to decry as fundamentally un-Christian approaches to things like anthropology, ecclesiology, etc. Only then will we be able to discern the heartbeat behind his ministry.
IV. Our Fallen World
I’m not entirely sure what Ellis is getting at here, so maybe some more clarification is needed. For example, he says:
Yet the genuine people of God have had life-giving responses displaying God’s intent for humanity based on His principles in order to indict the surrounding culture. God leaves such a witness through His people so that those in the surrounding community might “taste and see that the Lord is good.”
What “surrounding culture” is he talking about? Is he talking about power structures controlled by the dominant group (a Marxist approach proffered by the social gospel), or is he talking about the culture of sin, death, and the devil which are rifely found throughout our world regardless of race, economic status, etc., all of which must be fought by the prescribed means of grace in Scripture (emphasis on prescribed)?
Moreover, for Ellis, what constitutes a totalitarian regime? I know he mentions men like Mao and Pol—and other low-hanging fruit—but does he also consider the “dominant group” a totalitarian regime as he seemed to imply in the linked video? If he does, he’s walking in the very footsteps of a man he’s claiming to denounce, Dr. James Cone—author of the black liberation theology.
V. Language Usage
I have more problems with this point than I have the time to set down in writing, but I found it interesting that Ellis writes:
By way of another example, categories of dominance and sub-dominance are used by sociologists who are not Marxists. Language usage is not evidence of ideological affirmation.
Two questions arise here:
The first: Can the categories of dominance/sub-dominance help the church whatsoever? Are they biblical categories, or categories consistent with the biblical data? Earlier on this point, he pulls out the biblical language of oppressor/oppressed and justice; are we to understand these terms to be aligned with their secular counterparts, dominance/non-dominance? Is it automatically wrong for one group to dominate another group, socially speaking, economically? Is the church to see dominance in all its forms as sin? These are the questions Ellis is burdened to answer if he wants people to understand what he means.
The second: If language usage isn’t necessarily evidence of ideological affirmation, then why has Ellis failed to carefully define the biblical language he has used throughout his article? Language like kingdom agenda, oppression, justice, gospel implications, and anthropology need definitions just like the terms in question need definitions. I agree with Ellis that language needs to be defined because of the ever-lurking danger of equivocation, but he fails to uphold this principle in an article meant to clarify.
VI. Differentiating Disciplines
Ellis makes a valid point here that a lot of younger students are failing to rightly differentiate between various academic disciplines, like theology and sociology for example. But then he says this:
In hindsight, during the closing years of the 20th Century it was much safer than it is today to use theological-anthropological terms when writing about social issues. Due to the infiltration of CRT and today’s Intersectionality into the academy, the risk of my ideas being misappropriated and misapplied by both supporters and detractors is far greater today than it was back then.
Apparently, denouncing the practice of appropriating certain terms within Christian thought is a symptom of an inability to distinguish between disciplines. Ellis cites the later 20th century as a period during which it was safer to use extra-biblical terminology that originated in the field of sociology. But, was that because people were better at distinguishing disciplines, or was that because liberalism and neo-orthodoxy was the “cool theology” of the day?
Of course it was permissible to appropriate biblical language into social contexts or vice versa during critical times. And when I say critical times I mean the times preceding an almost 2000-church-exodus from the SBC in 1990 which resulted in the formation of a new liberal denomination called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
VII. Looking Ahead
Toward the end of the article he says:
By God’s grace, I will continue to refine my own feeble efforts to discover and uncover ways to express the reality of destructive social systems and to present the remedy that’s found only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Some will no doubt parse and critique the life out of this statement against all ideologies that set themselves up in opposition to the Gospel. So be it. That is the nature and cost of a public witness.
What “social systems” is he talking about? In the video I’ve linked here, he talks about systems that benefit the dominant group more than the sub-dominant group. Is that a destructive social system against which the church must fight according to Ellis? If so, Ellis has appropriated text-book critical theory into his approach—an ungodly synthesis, to be sure. If that’s not what Ellis is doing, perhaps he could clarify further on this point.
Unfortunately, Ellis ends the article by apparently shaming those who (like me) want to “test all things (1 Thess. 5:21),” and who want to correct public errors publicly (2 Tim. 2:25). Because of the way he concludes his article, many of Ellis’ readers are bound to see any kind of public response as an act of aggression, or an attempt to weaken the body of Christ. Some may respond to Ellis with that intent, but know certainly that this is not the intent of everyone who responds, even of those who respond with zeal and firmness.
We cannot let virtue signalling hinder productive discussion and debate in the body of Christ— something this concluding disclaimer no doubt threatens to do.
This is, if I may be so bold, a cowardly way to end an article that raises a lot of important questions, more questions, in fact, than it answers.
I will end my article in a very different way.
Carl Ellis, if you see my article as flawed—as a detour from the truth of God’s Word—please respond for the sake of our readers. I hope someone out there picks this article apart if it is indeed contrary to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hope someone cares enough about our audiences to correct any errors found in our work.