I was reminded today of the author, philosopher, pastor, John M Perkins. I was struck because I hadn't thought of him for some time. But it was reading his book, Let Justice Roll Down, that, in part, helped set my path for where I am today regarding the struggle for justice and the beloved community. Probably even before reading much of Dr King, it was Perkins who helped push this then conservative young man in the pursuit of justice for all.
Sadly, I hear he is in ill-health. Prayers for him and his loved ones.
Some quotes, then, from Dr Perkins:
"Come dream with me. Dream of a fight for something bigger, something more important and worthwhile. We need to fight for justice and peace, for the walls between us to come crashing down.”
“And it requires that we make some uncomfortable confessions. G.K.
Chesterton said, "It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that
they can't see the problem." I believe this statement can be applied to
the lack of reconciliation within the Church today. We've not been able
to arrive at the solution because we haven't seen or acknowledged the
problem.
The problem is that there is a gaping hole in our gospel. We have preached a gospel that leaves us believing that we can be reconciled to God but not reconciled to our Christian brothers and sisters who don't look like us - brothers and sisters with whom we are, in fact, one blood.”
The problem is that there is a gaping hole in our gospel. We have preached a gospel that leaves us believing that we can be reconciled to God but not reconciled to our Christian brothers and sisters who don't look like us - brothers and sisters with whom we are, in fact, one blood.”
“If we have been silent and have chosen to ignore the mistreatment
of others in the past, we should begin to speak up and challenge
injustices. If we were racist and bigoted in our speech and actions,
there should be a radical change that is observable. If we have been
angry and spiteful toward the other, there should be a radical change
that is observable.
And, yes, if we have an abundance of wealth and we have the opportunity to use this blessing to encourage those we have previously been prejudiced against, we should open our hands in Christian love and brotherhood. We should tear down the walls that have separated us for so long.”
And, yes, if we have an abundance of wealth and we have the opportunity to use this blessing to encourage those we have previously been prejudiced against, we should open our hands in Christian love and brotherhood. We should tear down the walls that have separated us for so long.”
“Throughout Scripture we read about God's concern for people who
are vulnerable or suffering - the poor, the widows and orphans, the
foreigners in the land, and so on. All Christians should feel a sense of
calling to where there is pain in our society.”
....
And yes, I know that Dr Perkins is probably (way?) more conservative than many others in the Civil Rights movement... he may still be anti-LGBTQ (as he would almost certainly have been in the first more than half of his life, as was I...), although I don't know that. Still, his words moved this conservative Southern Baptist boy towards a more justice and beloved community direction and I'm thankful for that.
....
And yes, I know that Dr Perkins is probably (way?) more conservative than many others in the Civil Rights movement... he may still be anti-LGBTQ (as he would almost certainly have been in the first more than half of his life, as was I...), although I don't know that. Still, his words moved this conservative Southern Baptist boy towards a more justice and beloved community direction and I'm thankful for that.
10 comments:
“The Seattle youth group went to Mississippi in July to spend a week learning about racial reconciliation. Each morning, Dr. John M. Perkins spoke to the group about Christian perspectives on reconciliation. Dr. Perkins is an 85-year-old civil rights leader who has received an astonishing 13 honorary doctorate degrees for his work.
On the first and second mornings of the youth mission trip, Dr. Perkins gave an overview of racial reconciliation to the group. Both mornings, as an aside, he mentioned how deeply disturbed he was by the recent Supreme Court decision about gay marriage.
The views on gay marriage in the youth group covered the entire spectrum. Some of the teenagers were glad that Dr. Perkins reinforced their views, but others were quite offended by his words, and the adult leaders of the trip spent time talking through the issue with those students. On the third day, two of the adult leaders – Scott Gronholz, the youth pastor and Lynne Blessing, the church missions pastor – talked with Dr. Perkins about what was going on in the group, simply to encourage him to avoid the topic of gay marriage for the rest of the week.
Here’s what happened next, as described by Scott, the youth group leader, in a church newsletter article:
On Thursday morning Dr. Perkins’ words altered the entire trip for the better and probably altered the lives of everyone in the room. Dr. Perkins sat down and read from 1 Timothy 1:15 which says, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” He then slowly lifted his gaze to us and gently yet deliberately said, “I have sinned this week.” There was an audible gasp from the audience and the energy in the room instantly transformed. I don’t know how to describe what it felt like. I can only say that the room suddenly felt Holy; like the presence of the Holy Spirit was instantly palpable and something special and important was happening. Dr. Perkins proceeded to spend the next 45 minutes apologizing to our group. He said that he had vowed early in his life to be an instrument of love and that he had not done that on this trip. He said that he was sorry and that he needed our forgiveness. To be clear, throughout his entire talk he never once said that he was changing his opinion on gay marriage or that he felt sorry about his convictions and interpretation of scripture. He did humbly admit that the Supreme Court decision was a paradigm shift and that he has inadequate language to talk about it. Finally, he got on his knees in front of us and again asked for forgiveness. He then said that he was going to broaden his ministry to emphasize reconciliation for all people and not just different races. He said that this next phase of his ministry was going to take a lot of work and asked us all to pray for him. At that point he laid flat on the ground and asked us to lay hands on him, which of course we did.”
https://www.lynnebaab.com/blog/john-perkins-listened
Wow. When was this?
2015
I hope you don’t mind me asking, but I’d love to hear your thoughts when you have a moment.
When you’re studying a passage that has several possible interpretations, how do you personally discern which one best reflects the text and God’s character?
Are there any biblical themes you feel the modern church tends to overlook or misunderstand?
How do you balance the historical context of Scripture with applying it faithfully to believers today?
What spiritual practices do you see as most essential for someone who genuinely wants to grow in maturity?
How should Christians navigate situations where obedience to Scripture conflicts with cultural expectations?
What does genuine repentance look like beyond just feeling remorse?
How do you explain the tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will in a way that helps people live faithfully rather than feel confused?
Is there an aspect of God’s character you think Christians often misunderstand?
How do you approach doctrines that faithful believers disagree on without compromising truth or unity?
What do you see as the biggest theological challenge facing the church today?
How do you discern when the church should adapt its methods versus when it should hold firmly to tradition?
What role do you believe the church should play in addressing social or moral issues without becoming politically driven?
Lots of questions. Thanks, I love good faith questions.
Some thoughts on the first two.
When you’re studying a passage that has several possible interpretations, how do you personally discern which one best reflects the text and God’s character?
These are not unique to me (many of them, I learned in my very traditional/southern baptist church growing up), but for what it's worth:
a. As a follower of Jesus and one who loves the teachings of Jesus, I start with the clear messages of Jesus and try to understand any other passage through the teachings of Jesus.
b. Strive to understand the difficult through the clear.
c. As a follower of/believer in the notions of commonsense love, grace and justice, I look to what the passage may or may not be saying with an eye towards those themes.
d. There are some known things - we have to begin with reality as a given (the earth is not flat or 6,000 years old, for instance) and other known things like, over-eating and under-exercising is not healthy, auto emissions are not health, etc - we have to begin with that reality as a given.
And there are some unknown and unknowable things (Is there a heaven after life? What is it like? etc)
e. Putting all those things together, if it's a difficult passage that seems to be justifying slavery or forced marriage, for instance, I recognize the commonsense notions of love and justice, as well as the biblical teachings of Jesus, are not obscure or hard to understand: CLEARLY, we should never defend or support things that are human rights abuses, lacking in love and grace.
If, on the other hand, it's a passage about the age of earth, for instance, well, that really doesn't have anything to do with Jesus' teachings or love or grace, etc, in and of itself. That interpretation/understanding is a much lower degree of importance for me. On the other hand, given the known reality, the earth is not flat or 6,000 years old. I'm not really that interested in debating that reality, it just is what it is. The things worth debating are about how we best love one another, how we best show grace and forgiveness, how do we work for justice? Those are things to ponder.
Are there any biblical themes you feel the modern church tends to overlook or misunderstand?
"The modern church" is a wide array of beliefs, worldviews and human traditions. I personally think the more traditional, conservative, evangelical church (and sometimes, the Catholic church and others) overlook the vital importance of starting with love and grace and reason. I think the more literalist of those groups have clung too tightly to human traditions (ideas like the virgin birth, the Triune nature of God, the theories of an everlasting hell and penal substitutionary atonement) and overlook the more basic questions of "How do we best support and love one another? How do we best show forgiveness, especially in complex situations where the person in need of forgiveness is, for instance, an unrepentant abuser or oppressor... or DO we show forgiveness? What does that look like?" Those sorts of questions.
I also think that much of the church, especially the more conservative traditions, miss how very vital the Good News of Jesus and God were good news specifically for and to and with the poor and marginalized. Taking that starting place out of the discussion has allowed a whole lot of "missing the point."
cont'd...
Now rather than me going on and on, tell me, what do you think about your first two questions. I'd like to know. Also, it would help to know where you're coming from, philosophically, geographically, theologically.
If you've seen my blog, you probably know, but in case you don't: I come from an exceedingly traditional, conservative church background, spending the first 30 years of my life deeply immersed in those traditions. Since then in the 30+ years since, I have not rejected the Christian religion, at all - I'm a huge love of Jesus and the bible - BUT, I no longer think that many of the human traditions coming from the more traditional/conservative systems are a great understanding of love, grace, God, Jesus or justice. I'm what most would call a wildly liberal person, although I tend to identify mostly with the more progressive elements of the anabaptist traditions. I believe much of what I believe BECAUSE of what I learned from my more conservative teachers.
Thanks.
Dan, I really value the way you lay out your interpretive approach. You’ve clearly spent years thinking through these questions with seriousness, humility, and a deep commitment to Jesus’ teachings, and that gives your perspective a weight I want to honor. What strikes me most is how consistently you return to love, justice, and the lived example of Jesus as the interpretive center. That’s not only thoughtful—it’s responsible, and it reflects a kind of moral clarity that many people never reach even after decades in the church.
When I think about how I approach passages with multiple possible interpretations, I find myself leaning toward several of the same instincts you’ve articulated. I try to read any difficult text through the broader story of Scripture, but I’ve come to appreciate how grounding it is to start with Jesus’ character and teachings, much like you do. If an interpretation requires imagining Jesus acting in a way that contradicts his own words or his posture toward the vulnerable, that’s usually a sign I need to rethink it. I also try to pay attention to the fruit an interpretation produces—whether it leads toward compassion, justice, and human dignity, or away from them. That’s something your framework highlights well, and I think it’s an area where your experience gives you a kind of clarity that’s worth listening to.
On the question of themes the modern church tends to overlook, I think you’re naming something important when you point out how often love, grace, and reason get sidelined in favor of defending inherited doctrines. Your emphasis on the poor and marginalized as the starting point of the Good News is something I’ve seen echoed by scholars, pastors, and communities who have spent their lives immersed in the social and historical context of Jesus’ ministry. It’s a perspective that feels not only biblically grounded but morally compelling, and I appreciate how you keep that front and center.
I also hear the significance of your background in how you speak. Coming from a deeply conservative tradition and still holding onto Jesus and Scripture—not out of obligation but out of conviction—gives your reflections a depth that’s hard to dismiss. You’re not reacting against your past; you’re building on the best parts of it while refusing to ignore the harm that certain interpretations have caused. That’s a kind of integrity that deserves respect.
Something I’d genuinely like to hear more about, given the care you bring to these questions, is how you personally hold together your love for Scripture with your recognition that some passages reflect the limitations of their time. How do you discern when a text is revealing God’s heart versus when it’s revealing the cultural constraints of the people who wrote it?
I also sent you an email if you have the time to read it. Maybe it got stuck in the spam box or you're simply too busy to get back to me on that issue there. There's really no rush regardless.
David:
How do you discern when a text is revealing God’s heart versus when it’s revealing the cultural constraints of the people who wrote it?
It would be my opinion and I think a reasonable conclusion that the biblical authors are ALWAYS revealing the cultural constraints of the people who wrote it. None of the human biblical authors make any claims that they are somehow removed from their cultural constraints, nor is there any evidence I can imagine where ANY mortal is somehow removed from our culture, our upbringing, our time, our traditions.
Having said that, do I think that some humans might state opinions or tell stories that reveal something divine... something consistent with God's Will? Of course. I'm sure that happens with the biblical authors and I'm sure it happens today.
One of the testimonies from more than one biblical author is that we are created in the image of God... but nowhere do these authors explain what that means. There are biblical texts that refer to God as being a Spirit and I think most Christians would affirm that, whatever their tradition. So, it's not like we look like the image of God in body and facial hair or expressions.
I would imagine that most theologians would say that this refers to us being created with an understanding of morality, the ability to reason, to make choices. It's what I would say. I think that we have That of God within us, as the Quakers might say. I think we are created a little lower than God, as the Psalmist said.
And thus, I think, to some degree, notions of love, justice, grace, forgiveness and other divine characteristics are "baked in" to humanity (while recognizing that many of us often get all of that quite horribly wrong.) So, having That of God within us, I think the biblical writers and others since HAVE said things that reveal God's heart.
And how do we know? When it's saying things, taking actions, promoting ideas that are OF love, grace, forgiveness, justice, kindness, welcome and goodwill.
What do you think?
A couple more of your questions:
How do you balance the historical context of Scripture with applying it faithfully to believers today?
I think I've addressed most of that in my last comment. Use common sense and love as a guide.
What spiritual practices do you see as most essential for someone who genuinely wants to grow in maturity?
Spending time in the woods.
Writing.
Meditation.
Art.
(All of which, for me, is prayer.)
Being an ally and friend with and alongside those who are poor, marginalized or disempowered.
As you are able and have time, reading, beginning with what you trust as promoting love and understanding, recognizing that we are made in the image of God, a little lower than God, having that of God within us. Reading the Bible, reading poetry, reading the news, reading great classics, reading that which makes you laugh and cry. Reading from those not of your own race, background or context. Reading for understanding.
What about you?
So, for you and David and whose ever eyes see it, I've written 5 somewhat lengthy posts on the inferred but unspoken question he seemed to lob at me: how do we understand the Incarnation by scripture alone. Your answer was that it isn’t necessary.
Mine, in terse summary, is that it is absolutely necessary for faith to seek understanding. Scripture alone won’t do it. So radical protestants are screwed. Simple trust alone won’t do it and is not exactly what we are called to settle for.
Knowing and loving are the same things, mutually increasing and making effectual our relationship to god and each other.
Post a Comment