Introduction
I was really pleased when I heard that Kevin De Young was selected to be the moderator of the PCA. I like his work, and really appreciate a lot of what he has done. Nancy and I are currently working through his recent book, Daily Doctrine, and it is filled with truly valuable stuff. And, of course, I really appreciate the invaluable gift he gave to the world by naming the Moscow Mood the way he did. So hats off, and all that.
But with all that said, it turns out that the whole “mood” question might have more going on with it than just a mood. There appear to me to be much larger issues under the surface. This exchange below was not a trifle.
The Problem, Which Might Fairly Be Described as “Glaring”
After Kevin De Young assumed the role of moderator, the following interaction happened. It was not a good look for Kevin at the beginning of his tenure, not a good look for the PCA in the midst of all their ongoing travails with the kultursmog, and especially not a good look for those four guys sitting around Kevin in the shot—all four practically exuding a presbyterianesque decorum, a decorum radiating from them all like heat from a stove.
How could anybody ever think about possibly disturbing something like that?
In the first place, and I just mention this in passing, who on earth thinks the Presbyterians need more decorum? That’s like thinking the Pacific is running low on salt water.
In the second place, this is a real test for the watching world. Who are you going to believe? A judicious moderator toning down an intemperate pastor attacking somebody else recklessly from a floor mic . . . or your lying eyes?
I’ll Show You a Lack of Decorum . . .
Now what was Pastor Brindle objecting to?
He was raising an objection to an ethnically divided worship space. The director of the PCA’s Mission to North America (MNA), Irwyn Ince, was supporting “affinity groups” that were hosting “evenings for black worshipers.” Pastor Brindle began by quoting James’ rejection of “partiality,” and went on to say that to gather black worshipers together in a way that excluded him simply because of the color of his skin—because that color made somebody feel “unsafe”—was a denial . . . and when he got to that fatal word denial, he was Shushed by the Moderator. He was told that his comments were “intemperate,” lacking “decorum.” He was hereafter to refrain from “personal attack.”
We will come back to all of that business in a minute.
What was the controversy at Antioch, the one that precipitated the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? It was all about an ethnically divided fellowship space. It was about seating arrangements at the potluck. Before certain men from James arrived, Peter had been willing to share table fellowship with Gentile Christians. But after the false brothers arrived (James was not a false brother, but the men “from him” were), Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, and even Barnabas briefly did the same. So the problem was that Peter “withdrew,” doing so on the basis of ethnicity.
And that is when Paul showed us all what a lack of decorum at a church function should really look like.
“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.”Galatians 2:11–13 (NKJV)
Crucial Side Note
Now it should go without saying—but in these demented times very few things go without saying—that there is nothing wrong with a congregation that happens to be ethnically monochromatic. Say that you walk into a Korean service in Los Angeles, and you notice that every last soul in there is Korean. This should not be shocking because the service is being conducted in the language of the Korean people, and this acts as something of a limiting factor.
Or say you happen to attend a country church in the nether regions of Bonner County, Idaho, and you can see at a glance that every last person in there—all seven of them—is white. This is not surprising because the nearest representative of a different ethnicity, with the possible exception of Bigfoot, is about 85 miles away. There is no reason, you think to yourself, why some certified minority guy would need to drive for three extra hours on a Sunday just so that your little church in the glen might look a little bit more like Heaven. Constraints like this are perfectly natural, and nobody is being bad by being good with it. The constraints can geographic, or linguistic, or some other practical variation on demography. Under such conditions, you could have twenty-eight all-white worship services in a row, and all of it would be perfectly acceptable, and blessed by God.
Japanese churches have, as it turns out, an under-representation of Hispanics.
The problems, when they do arise, are in the hearts of bigots, or in the heads of morons. The bigot starts a church in Los Angeles, and puts up a sign that says, “No Koreans.” And when someone objects to this, as I would object strenuously, this does not necessarily make the objector into one of those rainbow-festooned “Stop Asian hate” guys. No. Rather, it quite possibly makes him one of those “I read the book of Galatians once” guys.
The moron doesn’t start a church, but rather a podcast. Church life is not his jam, as expositional preaching and psalms don’t provide nearly same amount of dopamine that outrage clicks do. Once in possession of a microphone, he discourses learnedly all the way down the wormhole of his choosing. And one of his favorite jukes is to use the self-evident truth of natural and innocent demographic constraints, mentioned above, as an argument for setting up artificial and malevolent ones. This rancid thinking in turn supplies ammo to the squish evangelicals at Christianity Today who want to discourse learnedly as they go down the wormhole of their own choosing. The only difference between the wormholes is the sourcing of the inspirational posters on the walls as one descends—do they quote Goebbels or Gandhi?
False Brothers Are a Big Deal
Paul does not hesitate to call out his Judaizing opponents as “false brothers” (Gal. 2:4), intent as they were on bringing men and women who were freed in Christ back into bondage. He does this even though Acts 15 acknowledges that they were at least professing Christians. “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).
So this was an error that arose from within the church, and it was the kind of error that Paul was willing to fight with everything that he had. If they messed with this gospel, the one that had been preached already, Paul was ready to damn angelic messengers. If they messed with this gospel, the one that got him stoned in Lystra, Paul was ready to anathematize any of the apostles (Gal. 1:8), not excluding himself.
In short, the gospel as represented in ecclesiastical ethnic arrangements was a big enough deal to bring a little adrenaline into the life of any parliamentarian.
Back to Pastor Brindle
What all this means is that Pastor Brindle was perfectly correct to see this movement within MNA—particularly in the light of the broader movements in our culture—as a soul-destroying, gospel-denying heresy. The ethnic fragmentation that identity politics has jammed down our throats out in the culture wants to gain a more secure entry point in the church. It has already gained entry in many evangelical churches, including in the PCA, but it is not absolutely secure yet.
So identity politics is knocking on the church door, and is requesting baptism. But this personified ethnic fragmentation is refusing to take the new members’ class, and in a move that comes as no surprise at all to certain authors, is suddenly demanding to teach the new members’ class.
Whatever Pastor Brindle was going to say after that word denial, I am sure that it was going to be on point, and pretty spicy. To outlaw such on parliamentary grounds is to elevate the dignity of process over the pungency of truth, and is a mark of how easily cowardice can drive hypocrisy. Paul says that Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles because he was fearing those who were of the circumcision (Gal. 2:12). Fear was the motive, but hypocrisy the result (Gal. 2:13). It is the same thing here.
The gospel that can bring Greek, Scythian and Jew together (Col. 3:11) is a gospel that can actually save sinners. A gospel that carefully segregates them from one another so that no one need ever deal with that icky feeling they get when around “that ethnic other” is a gospel that itself needs to get saved. It is a gospel that needs to go forward and sign that little card. It is a gospel that needs to repent and believe, and then to request baptism. And no, it doesn’t get to teach the new members’ class. It needs to be a Christian for a while first.
Back to Kevin De Young
In his famous Moscow Mood article, Kevin made bold enough to rebuke me for my tone. Turnabout is fair play, and so I think that it is now necessary for me to rebuke him for his.
If you are like me, you watched that exchange, and thought something like “what the heck just happened?” And, since I have pondered it a bit, and since you have asked sweetly, I will take up the task of explaining what just happened.
Both Pastor Brindle and Pastor De Young voiced personal criticisms of fellow ministers on the floor of the General Assembly. Both of them did this. Pastor Brindle did this with an open Bible, and was in the process bringing his criticism against someone (Irwyn Ince) by means of an honest argument. And anyone who is even remotely acquainted with the damage that identity politics is currently doing out in the world knows that there is an argument to be had there. Please remember that Peter could not have fixed anything at Antioch, as far as Paul was concerned, by calling his move the formation of an affinity group.
And Pastor De Young made some pointed criticisms of his own. He said that Pastor Brindle was being intemperate, and that he lacked decorum. There was no argument involved in this, just a raw parliamentary assertion. It was an act of naked authority, a pronouncement. And this is what left so many viewers of that video clip blinking, and thinking to themselves something like wut? It was a pronouncement that was not backed by Scripture or common sense. There was no argument. There was absolutely no prima facie case for what the moderator asserted . . . but he nevertheless asserted it.
So this was a charge made publicly against Pastor Brindle, and on top of everything else it was a false charge. He was told to stop being intemperate when he wasn’t being intemperate. He was told he lacked decorum when he didn’t lack decorum. He was simply objecting to the establishment of a group within the church that had a “no whites” sign posted—one that Pastor Brindle’s wife could attend because she is black, but which he could not attend because he is not.
If some rogue PCA church down south somewhere had had the temerity to create a “whites only” affinity group, one that Pastor Brindle could attend and his wife could not, I can assure you that the General Assembly of the PCA would have resembled something closer to one of those fist fight scenes in a third world parliament somewhere—with any sense of decorum gone all to blazes.
And I am still one step ahead. This is the point where someone will say that this attempt of mine at “whattaboutism” doesn’t work. A “whites only” affinity group would be obnoxious to all right-thinking people precisely because of . . . wait for it . . . white supremacy, power differentials, centuries of white privilege, and all the rest of that egalitarian goo. That would be the point where the identity politics that is driving all of this would take off its mask, and reveal the face of a grinning Mephistopheles.
Kevin De Young is no liberal, but he claims to see something about Pastor Brindle that none of us out here in Ordinary Land can see. What is making him do that? But again, turnabout is fair play. I can see something that he can’t see. De Young is no liberal, but there is certainly an invisible and imperious progressive standing right behind him, and so De Young is very much operating under the authority of what Joe Rigney calls “the progressive gaze.”
Given his disposition, Kevin De Young made a serious mistake in accepting the role of moderator. No longer will he have the luxury of speaking only for himself, and only in his own voice. That is how he was able to put daylight between himself and the nonsense that was going on at the Gospel Coalition, for example. He was able to speak only for himself, and he, when by himself, is fully orthodox. But he is now the umpire, and that means he has to call balls and strikes. He has to call balls and strikes between contending parties . . . and this first nakedly bad call has revealed the presence of that progressive invisible umpire standing right behind him, and looking over his shoulder. If all this seems a bit cryptic, check out Rigney on the progressive gaze.
There will be those who reply to all this by saying that those who are WOKE are in no way numerous in the PCA. So why does Pastor De Young fear them then?
A Personal Note
Back when Kevin De Young objected to the Moscow Mood, there were various observers around the country, not all-in fans of mine, but not woke haters either, who nodded at his article. They honestly thought there were times when I might have mixed a little too much jalapeno paste into some of my adjectives and metaphors. That is a point of view, certainly.
And so they naturally thought that all Kevin was doing was asking me to tone it down a little. Is that too much to ask? And so this little episode reveals how much it would have to be toned down to become acceptable (that is, with intemperance gone, and decorum everywhere), and yes, it was clearly way too much to ask.
What this incident has shown is that any inconvenient criticism leveled at anything progressive could be functioning at the level of a bowl of tapioca at room temperature, and still be declared out of order. “We will have to ask TE Tapioca to be a little less inflammatory.”
The issue with all of this is content, substance, the heart of the matter, and not the adjectives. The jalapeno paste levels are fine. Whatever happens, if the progressive gaze squints at it, then pretty soon the moderator will be squinting at you.
We have clearly been left with no choice. We have to Moscow Mood even harder.