Josh Benner

Category: Worldview

  • Research says white Christians have become less motivated to address racial injustice

    Research says white Christians have become less motivated to address racial injustice

    I saw an interesting article from Barna Research a few weeks ago titled “White Christians have become even less motivated to address racial injustice.”

    From the article:
    “One might assume that the events of 2020 have increased awareness of racial injustice in the United States and motivation to address it. But the story isn’t so straightforward, new Barna research (conducted in partnership with Dynata) suggests. Yes, there are signs the past year has clarified how Americans think about racial injustice—but that doesn’t mean they see the issue, or their role within it, with greater urgency. In the Church especially, there is a sense that people are doubling down on divides.”

    The article looks at a couple of data points. They polled different racial groups with the question “do you think our country has a race problem?” Across all respondents, 46% affirmed the statement, slightly higher than 43% of self-professing Christians. When broken down by race, 33% of white professing Christians affirmed that statement (a 7% drop from the same survey a year before).

    In another survey question, Barna asked self-professing Christians “how motivated are you to address racial injustice in our society.” In the survey, the number of white Christians who felt “not at all motivated” to address current issues doubled in the past year from 11% to 22% (compared to 3% of African American responders).

    I distinctly remember earlier in the summer when there were people who refused to call out the rioting and looting. In fact, there were those who justified it. People talked about this as a response to injustice because of all of the hurt and pain. There were people who wanted to compare the protests to the Boston Tea Party. We needed to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Christopher Columbus. We needed to

    But all of this was counterproductive. Violence does not engender public sympathy. It turns people away. That’s why people are less likely to talk about these issues. Because Americans have seen months of looting, fires and destruction in major cities. We’ve seen dramatic increases in crime and murder rates in major cities. We’ve seen story after story of black children being killed in the crossfire of inner city violence without groups like BLM ever protesting those deaths. We’ve seen roughly a billion dollars in property damages this summer.

    Whose lives have all of this violence and destruction helped? Who has this advanced? Who has this empowered?

    We’ve seen a rise in police officers being shot.

    Americans have been lectured all summer from the media, from sports, from Hollywood, from music, from our education systems about how racist we all are.

    So yes, its’ not a shock that some people are less likely to address these issues given the destruction that has come forth from the radical movements who are beating the drums the loudest. And this is a point which many thoughtful people have brought up which is that this summer is creating greater racial divides not helping to heal racial divides.

    I believe the these poll numbers will continue to trend in that direction.

    We’ve seen calls to defund police in democrat controlled cities. Meanwhile, all of these efforts disproportionately harm inner cities and disproportionately harm black communities. All of this works against public support. We see increases in violence and destruction. There have been young black children all over the country who have been killed in the cross-fire of inner city violence, without a word from BLM. And I think a lot of people feel like black communities are being used as political pawns to advance an agenda.

    As far as why many Christians are less likely to discuss these matters, I think there’s also the concern that the movement is ultimately supporting an ideology which is contrary to the world view of Christianity and find it unsavory and difficult to support. Critical race theory, which is the overarching ideology behind much of the current racial discussion in our culture, is popular on the political left. Modern liberalism and socialistic policies are influenced by Marxist thought, while religious people tend to be more conservative (not exclusively, but religious people are more likely to be conservative than liberal). So what we are left with is a discussion that is controlled by the left and where religious peel on the right have several areas of disagreement. All that to say: it’s not at all surprising that white Christians are less likely to talk about racial injustice.

    Is it because we’re all racist or prejudiced? The cultural Marists would say yes. Which feeds into this vicious cycle of diminishing interest in discussing these matters. Interest will continue to wane in the face of radicalism.

    Thanks for reading! Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe!

  • 7 problems with prosperity theology

    7 problems with prosperity theology

    The prosperity gospel is a movement that has its origins in America about a century ago and came to greater prominence after the Second World War. It has largely grown out of pentecostalism and the Word of Faith movement. 

    It is the idea that it is always the will of God for genuine believers to be materially blessed and physically healthy. It’s essentially preoccupied with material blessings. 

    In John 6, Jesus has just fed a large crowd of people. They’ve wanted to make him king. They’re drawn to his teaching and signs, yet Jesus rebukes the crowd when he says: “you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.” 

    I’m not saying that this first century audience had a 20th and 21st century notion of a health and wealth gospel. But they’re drawn to Jesus because of him fulfilling a physical need. There are elements of what they believe which are picked up in the prosperity gospel movement. 

    It’s not the only place where we find this attitude in the New Testament. Paul addresses a similar issue within the church at Philippi. Philippians 3:19-20: 18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

    They’re not looking to take up their cross and follow him. They’re not looking to die to themselves and their sinful ways. They’re there because of a free meal. 

    The theology that looks merely at the material blessings of God has many problems. 

    First, it’s not the gospel. 

    The gospel is the message of Christ crucified and his redemption of sinful people for the glory of God. 

    He died to save souls. 

    The purpose of life is knowing and enjoying Jesus Christ forever. The purpose of life does not revolve around material blessings. 

    Secondly, prosperity theology teaches things that are not Biblical. 

    It undermines the doctrine of suffering. The Bible does not hide from suffering. 

    Prosperity theology believes that it is never the will of God for a person to be sick, to die from cancer, to struggle with depression.  

    The Bible teaches that the Christian life does involve suffering. 

    God uses it and works all things together for good for those who love him. Romans 8:28. 

    God uses suffering to work his purposes. Story of Joseph. We referenced it last week. Joseph is betrayed by his brothers, but through that betrayal, it brings Joseph into Egypt which allows him to be in a position years later to save his family during a time of famine.

    But we also see God’s providence and goodness through that evil. 

    Genesis 50:20: As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. 

    God uses suffering to sanctify and perfect his people. 

    James 1:2-4: Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 

    Notice that James says to count it all joy WHEN not IF you meet trials of various kinds. 

    To quote my professor D.A. Carson, if you’re not suffering, just keep living. 

    Romans 5:3-4: we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope

    God uses suffering so that we can have a positive influence on others. 

    Wonderful passage. 2 Corinthians 1:3-5: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 

    God uses suffering to remind us that our ultimate need is in him. 2 Corinthians 1:8-9: 

    8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. 9 Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.

    And we could talk for hours on many more passages. 

    God allows suffering. In his sovereign will, God allows it. It is talked about constantly in the Bible and especially in the New Testament. 

    And you have televangelists and authors of popular Christian books who say the opposite of that. 

    They’re teaching an idea that is not Biblical. 


    Yes, God does ultimately promise healing, in heaven. But there is no promise given in the Bible that all true believers or faithful Christians will always experience healing in this life. 

    The third problem with prosperity theology. It turns God into your genie. 

    God does not primarily exist to fulfill to give you everything you want. 

    A lot of times the things we want are not good. 

    If you have a child and just gave them everything they ever wanted, would that be loving? Of course not. Because a lot of things kids want aren’t good for them. 

    Prosperity theology views giving not primarily as a way of giving back part of what God has given for the purposes of his kingdom, but as a way to receive material blessings back as a result of your generosity.

    Prosperity theology views prayer as a way to force God to give you what you desire. 

    Prosperity theology believes that faith is rewarded by leading to prosperity. 

    Fourth, it teaches untrue things about the world

    While turning God into a genie and believing in a theology where good things happen if you’re good enough or if you have enough faith, what that essentially teaches a person is that they’re in control of their own destiny.

    Not Biblical. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign. 

    Fifth, prosperity theology actually distracts us from true riches. 

    Ironically, God actually wants to give us so much more than what prosperity theology focuses on. But if we just focus on this world, on materialism, on what’s physical, we lose sight of that. 

    Christ has blessed us with every spiritual blessing. 

    Sixth: prosperity theology distorts the teachings of scripture and takes the Bible out of context 

    It cherry picks the Bible. We’re going through the Gospel of John. Prosperity gospel preaching churches don’t go verse by verse through books. Because they have a theological belief system that is not supported by the whole of scriptures and so they pick and choose what fits their system. 

    You don’t have great scholars or theologians of prosperity theology. Because honest reading of the Bible tears it down. 

    The seventh issue with prosperity theology is that it relies heavily on special revelations from God. 

    I know I’m hammering on this topic this morning. But it’s a highly influential, unbiblical movement that influences Christians here in America and across the world. 

    Many of the best-selling Christian books are written by prosperity teachers and preachers who do not teach or preach the Word but preach a worldly message. Many, I would say most, televangelists fall into this camp. 

    Our world eats up prosperity theology because it tells us that it’s all about us. It co-opts the gospel and replaces it with worldliness. 

    As Jesus said, “you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.“

    Why are you a follower of Jesus?

    Is it because he is the way, the truth and the life? Is it because he is glorious? Is it because he’s worthy? Is it because he’s the savior of the world? Is it because of the gospel. That you were dead in your sins and that the only way to redemption was through his life, and death and because of the shedding of his blood? 

    I’m hoping that I’m preaching to the choir on this. For those of us who love the Word of God, who have reverence for the scriptures, the prosperity gospel must be seen as a counterfeit gospel. 

    But here’s my challenge. 

    Because while we might not buy into a health and wealth gospel, we have so many blessings in our country that there can still be a temptation into falling into the trap of thinking that we’re good and that our lives should be good. We should have good families. We should have happy marriages. We deserve to not really suffer. 

    It’s a constant temptation. But the Bible makes no such promises. Why are you a follower of Jesus? 

    The Biblical message is not that we should follow Jesus so that everything will be easy. It’s that when you follow Jesus, you’re taken from death to life. It’s not a promise of ease but it’s a promise that the difficulties have a purpose. It’s not a promise of getting what you want, but it’s a promise of all things working together for your ultimate good. People wanted to follow Jesus because he took care of a physical need, but Jesus came in order to tend to our spiritual needs.

    Final verse of the passage. Jesus has given his rebuke to the crowds. He’s exposed their heart and the real reason they’re following him. 

    27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” (John 6:27)

    Jesus tells them to work for the food that endures to eternal life and that is the food which Jesus came to bring. 

    Not only did Jesus come to bring it, but it can come only through Jesus. As the end of the verse reminds us that it is Jesus upon whom God has set his seal. Jesus is the one who has come to bring eternal life to a sinful world. 

    And he offers that life to you today if you believe in him by faith. Know that you are a sinner and that Jesus has come to forgive you of your sins and reconcile you to God. 

    Thanks for reading! Make sure to subscribe, like, and comment!

  • Gospel Coalition article sees “egregious contrast” between Jacob Blake and Kyle Rittenhouse

    Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

    The Gospel Coalition website ran a piece last week titled “Why I hate August” by Illinois pastor K. Edward Copeland. I strongly disagree with many of the statements in the article.

    At the beginning of the piece, Dr. Copeland talks of good experiences with August. It’s his birthday and wedding anniversary month. He loves the summer. But then the article shifts “I hate August because it reminds me that some view bodies like mine as disposable.”

    The piece quickly turns into propaganda as Copeland irrelevantly brings up the weather. “As Hurricane Laura decimates the South I’m also haunted by the black and brown bodies that were stranded on rooftops during Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.”

    What’s his point? That the weather is also racist?

    Copeland talks about the seven shots from the police which struck Jacob Blake, whom Copeland describes as “unarmed” and points out that the now paralyzed Blake is handcuffed to his hospital bed.

    Couple of points to be made in response to that. While Copeland jumps to assuming that this was racially motivated, there is still dispute as to whether or not Blake had a knife or if he might have been reaching for a knife prior to being shot. But that’s part of the issue. Blake was not compliant, he had been tasered twice, he was a felon with warrants, and he was either reaching into a car or was trying to flee in a car with three kids in the vehicle. Copeland brings up that Blake was handcuffed to his hospital bed. Once again, he’s giving propaganda and appeals to emotion. Blake may be paralyzed but he’s still a criminal and there are protocols. The rules for how prisoners are restrained in the hospital are not up to the whims of the staff or how practical or necessary they think the restraints are.

    When Copeland talks about Rittenhouse, he calls that an “egregious contrast.”

    Copeland talks about how Rittenhouse “killed people in the street” and then was able to calmly approach the police. In my opinion, Copeland does too much to assume the mindset of these men, especially Rittenhouse when he says things like “He assumed there was something about his person that would allow him to approach law enforcement with a visible automatic weapon that had just taken lives.” We can’t know his thoughts.

    Then Copeland compares Rittenhouse to Dylann Roof as another mass shooter. And this is where I must call Copeland out. That is absurd. I get that his point might have been that they were both people who were peacefully taken into custody but to compare the two is insane. Dylann Roof attended a prayer meeting at a predominantly black church and then murdered nine people in an effort to ignite a race war. Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were attacking him. More information will need to come out about Rittenhouse and if he had motivations for violence beforehand, but there is also a legitimate argument that his shootings were a matter of self-defense. You can see video of people attempting to assault Rittenhouse (some of whom also had guns).

    I’m not positive, but Copeland seems to be implying that Rittenhouse wasn’t afraid of the police because he’s white.

    Copeland says “The inconsistency between how these two bodies were treated in Kenosha reinforces my childhood suspicions.”

    Copeland is taking these two events and acting like they’re a case study in how white and black people are treated by police. Nevermind that there is a longstanding standard of situations when officers are legally justified to use deadly force and that Blake’s situation pretty clearly fits that criteria. No, let’s just push the narrative that Blake was shot purely because of race, not because he was resisting, had weathered tasers, was reaching into his vehicle, and posed a threat. Rittenhouse was peacefully arrested because he was white, not because he surrendered.

    Copeland says, “Those who claim my same convictions about Christ will be the first and loudest to castigate me for these observations. They’ll be the most proficient at finding some excuse for Rittenhouse, the most cavalier in discounting my trauma, the most eager to somehow find a “Marxist” or “Critical Race Theory” connection in my reflections.”

    When you ignore facts and simply go with a narrative and attempt to make what appears to be a justifiable use of force into another flash point, it’s hard to not feel that you’re perpetuating the agenda of critical race theory.

    There are absolutely egregious injustices which have happened to African Americans. But not all uses of police force are unjustified. And in line with the critical theory agenda, Blake’s actions have no relevance in this Gospel Coalition article. He’s purely the innocent victim. It’s nonsense.

    Thanks for reading!

  • Supreme Court strikes down abortion restrictions

    United States Supreme Court Building

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down June Medical Services v Russo, a Louisiana law which required doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s four liberal justices. Roberts said he disagreed with the ruling but voted with the majority because of a legal doctrine of stare decisis which calls for following establish precedents.

    Opponents of the law argue that admitting privileges are unnecessary and that it adds an extra layer of difficulty for abortion providers and reduces wren’s ability to pursue abortions.

    In 2016, the Supreme Court overturned a nearly identical Texas law. For that decision, Roberts had ruled against the majority but overturned his prior ruling to go along with precedent. While the laws of the two states were similar, it has been argued that the situation of the states was different as Louisiana hospitals do not have the same admittance standards as Texas.

    Roberts wrote:
    “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

    I’m not a lawyer or a jurist. I understand that precedents matter. But it’s a bad precedent. States don’t have a right to decide minimum healthcare standards for doctors who perform abortions?

    Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review points out: states regulate the standards for licensed professionals all the time – everything from lemonade stands to mowing grass – even when “an objective assessment might suggest that those same tasks could be performed by others.” But when it comes to the sacred ideals of abortion, the state is somehow powerless to regulate.

    He says that a precedent can’t be changed without special circumstances.

    We can’t overturn a bad decision from four years ago for a ruling which favors life, and safety, and state’s rights? Precedent matters but it’s not the end all be all.

    Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to share and subscribe.

  • Uncivil disobedience: looting and riots are counterproductive

    1024px-A_man_stands_on_a_burned_out_car_on_Thursday_morning_as_fires_burn_behind_him_in_the_Lake_St_area_of_Minneapolis,_Minnesota_(49945886467)
    Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

    Over the weekend, violent protests erupted throughout the nation and in other parts of the world. Parts of large cities have been turned into urban war zones. Much of the country has been put under curfews.

    Any justice loving person was outraged by what happened to George Floyd on Monday. But these riots are not righteous or noble. I see so many people who act as if these actions are above being questioned. It’s madness.

    I see so many friends who talk as if these riots are the most logical response, like there’s no other way.

    I fail to see how looting and destruction will achieve anything positive or win anyone to the cause. How will that make anything better and not worse? You have great cities all over America where private businesses are being vandalized and destroyed. You have law abiding citizens all over this nation who are peacefully protesting and demonstrating. And their efforts are undermined when people riot, burn down, and loot. (more…)