About two hours ago, I received this statement apparently in response to the Christian Post article about Evans’ statements about slave families. The CP article triggered a post from me on the subject. Evans’ statement:
I never had or expressed a doubt that Evans condemned slavery or racism.
I offered my view in my post on the subject, linked to his full remarks in that post, and I am glad that Evans extended his remarks on the subject. Even though we don’t see this issue the same way, I want to thank Dr. Evans and A. Larry Ross Communications for sending this statement.
Month: May 2015
David Barton Misleads Ukrainian Pastors and Politicians about John Locke
In June 2014, David Barton went with PA Pastors’ Network president Sam Rohrer to lecture Ukrainian pastors and a few politicians on the Christian nation thesis. Nine minutes of Barton’s speech (through an interpreter) is on You Tube.
In the video (at about 4:20 through 6:20), Barton talks about John Locke’s use of Bible verses on the establishment of civil government. Watch:
Transcript:
This man is named John Locke. He was a great lawgiver in history and he was also a theologian. He wrote this particular book on civil government in 1690. This has been used by nations across the world in building their governments. We actually own many of the original works by these lawgivers from four or five centuries ago.
Now if I were to ask us as ministers to name the Bible verses we can think of that address civil government, I would imagine that we could come up with 25 or 30 verses.
In this book here less than 3 cm thick, he lists over 500 biblical references to how civil government is to operate…. No, (interrupting the interpreter) 1500, 1500. I don’t know of a Christian today who could name 1500 Bible verses on how civil government’s to operate.
We may be Christians but we don’t think biblically about government.
I asked Greg Forster, an expert on John Locke (see an earlier critique of Barton’s treatment of Locke), to evaluate Barton’s claims about Locke and the 1500 verses. Forster’s answer is below in full:
Barton does not tell us the title of the book he holds up, but from his description it is impossible that it could be any book other than the Two Treatises of Government. However, his characterization of it is outrageous. Claiming that the Two Treatises “lists over 1,500 biblical references on how civil government is to operate” is not much more dishonest than claiming that the Bill of Rights protects 1,500 rights.
In his edition of the Two Treatises, editor Mark Goldie of Cambridge University lists only 121 Bible verses cited in the entire Two Treatises. And that’s including all the places where Locke didn’t cite the verse explicitly and Goldie “interpolated” the citation. In addition to those 121 Bible verses referenced, Goldie lists six places where Locke cited an entire chapter of the Bible, and one place where he cited an entire book (Proverbs). That’s it. But anyone who has read the Two Treatises will know Barton’s claim is false without having had to count.
Moreover, a large number – possibly even the majority – of those 121 citations are not to passages “on how civil government is to operate.” The Bible references in the Two Treatises are heavily concentrated in the First Treatise. The overwhelming majority of the First Treatise, in turn, is devoted to an extended analysis of small number of selected verses from the first two chapters of Genesis, especially Genesis 1:28-30. That’s a lot of analysis devoted to understanding the biblical text, but it’s not a large number of verses cited. The remainder of the First Treatise, where other biblical verses are cited more frequently, looks to the Bible not primarily for instruction on civil government but almost entirely on the power of parents over their children, especially the inheritance of property from parents to children. Locke is interested in these verses because he wants to use them to refute Robert Filmer’s claim that today’s kings inherit their power from Adam, but these are clearly not “biblical references on how civil government is to operate.” They are biblical references on how families are to operate. In fact, the point that descriptions of the how the family should work are not descriptions of how civil government should work was Locke’s main point!
After all this, it seems trivial to point out that Locke did not, in fact, “write” the Two Treatises in 1690; he published it in that year, but wrote it much earlier.
Perhaps Barton is counting the over 900 verses in Proverbs. However, not all of those verses relate to civil government. Clearly, Barton embellishes and inflates until what he starts with is unrecognizable.
Gospel for Asia Declines to Answer New Questions About Use of Funds
Up until yesterday, David Carroll of Gospel for Asia has responded quickly to questions regarding Gospel for Asia’s disputes with former staff and certain financial policies. However, recently, I asked Carroll questions about substantial reserves maintained by GFA in India and apparent reporting discrepancies in Canada and India. In response, Carroll informed me yesterday that responding to questions had “become a distraction from our mission work” and for that reason, his email would be his “final response.”
Earlier this week I asked Carroll about claims by former staffer Johnson George that GFA founder and Metropolitan Bishop K.P. Yohannan maintained multiple substantial homes (George called at least one them a “mansion”) in India. Then I asked about the existence of a reserve fund in India of about $150 million which is maintained as a balance by GFA. Carroll did not answer either of those questions. He did answer some questions about GFA’s corporate structure and nonprofit status. I reported those answers elsewhere.
Finally, I asked why a 2013 movement of GFA funds sent from Canada to India did not line up in Canadian and Indian public records as required by law. He initially responded by saying, “The Canadian funds were combined with U.S. funds by our auditor in India for various accounting reasons. There is no requirement that they be reported separately.”
I replied by asking for contact information for the Indian auditor so I could clear up what appears to me to be a conflict with Canadian and possibly Indian law. Carroll replied by saying:
No, Gospel for Asia has not violated the law.
When you first contacted us, I mentioned that we would not be able to respond to every question you put before us. Now, with the increased volume and frequency of your questions, it has become clear that this back and forth has become a distraction from our mission work. For this reason, this will be my final response. We understand that you will continue to explore issues around Gospel for Asia and continue to be fed accusations from former employees, and we accept that.
We continue to remain accountable to all applicable laws and regulations, to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability and to independent auditors.
If GFA was accountable to the ECFA guidelines then they would not view transparency as a distraction. However, as we have seen, the ECFA isn’t transparent, nor will the organization disclose any problems it finds with a member organization.
A sizable number of former GFA staff have raised significant and troubling charges regarding leadership and financial practices at GFA. There are many more which I have not been able to look into as yet. Mr. Carroll’s response is not an encouraging sign.
Click here for all articles on Gospel for Asia.
Former Faith Christian Church Members: ECFA Owes Us a Public Apology
After Faith Christian Church dropped membership in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, the point person for former FCC members involved in providing testimony to the EFCA, Rachel Mullis, expressed her disappointment with ECFA’s decision not to publicly release the results of the investigation.
Now joining in is another supporter of former FCC members, Sandy Wade, who said in a comment on this blog:
FCC took the cowards way out and so did ECFA. They obviously feel no moral obligation to protect the Christian community, and they have no interest in telling the truth. Their only public comment was to defend the FCC organization. You would think that after making such public remarks in their defense they would want to complete their investigation and release their findings. Cowards, they owe us all a public apology!
Wade makes a great point. The ECFA publicly defended the church before doing any kind of investigation. Given that the ECFA went out on a limb in the press to defend FCC, it seems reasonable to think they comment publicly now that they know more.
Former member Connie Cohn of Tucson, AZ is not impressed with ECFA’s integrity over the matter:
I believe that if an organization wants to maintain their credibility then, they must adhere to their policies and speak out when those policies/standards have not been met. They say that their mission is to protect the Christian community. To allow a church to resign in the middle of an investigation and not say anything about what was being investigated seems to make us question how respectable they are. They didn’t have to give all the details, but they could have at least said something about them leaving other than that they have decided to resign. They have a responsibility to the hundreds of people who left FCC and are still a part of the Christian community. I, for one, am not very impressed with the integrity of the ECFA.
Another former member said:
To me it shows laziness. ECFA doesn’t want to finish compiling and publishing a report for an organization not under its oversight anymore. But to let an organization just leave in order to halt any investigation is a major loophole that shouldn’t be there. The FBI doesn’t halt an investigation when someone leaves the country and just say “oh well nothing we can do, they left”. ECFA needs to complete what they started ad make the results public so that people will take them seriously. Since this loophole exists the ECFA really isn’t protecting members and donors at all.
Marcus DiMarco
Former Member of FCC
Tony Evans Says African-American Families Were "A Lot Stronger" During Slavery
UPDATE: You can listen to Evans remarks in full at these Dallas Seminary pages (this link has part two and a transcript). He has many good things to say. It is unfortunate that he prolonged the notion of the stronger African-American family during slavery.
………………………………………….
I can’t believe Evans said this. I think I know what he was going for but this doesn’t do justice to the history on the subject and plays into racial politics without any real benefit to his point.
He then made the reference to slavery to highlight the dire condition of the black family.
“The White man is not making you do that. He’s not forcing you into that position. That’s a convenient out. In slavery when we did not have laws on our side, the community on our side, the government on our side, the broader community on our side, our families were a lot stronger. We were a lot more unified and we made a lot more progress. We’re going through regression right now and a lot of that is because of decision-making we are responsible for,” said Evans.
Since African slaves couldn’t marry and were subject to forced separation at any time, this statement really makes no sense. If Evans’ point is that African families were resilient through adversity, I would give him that much. However, his points about strength, unity and progress seem surreal and aren’t accurate in any meaningful sense.
I hope he comes to recognize how such a statement, made in the current scene, takes us backward.