Regarding "The Bible and Black Lives Matter"

  I was extremely disappointed by the article “The Bible and Black Lives Matter” in the September 2020 issue of New Horizons. The author writes to explain BLM to Orthodox Presbyterians, but as he introduces his theme he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues and terminology which inform it. In discussing whether the death of George Floyd represents an instance of “systemic racial injustice,” he objects that we cannot know the heart of the police officer who killed Floyd and, therefore, whether that man was racially motivated. At the article’s very beginning, then, there is a confusion between “systemic racism” and “individual racism.” This is unfortunate because the two are very different things: as all the relevant literature notes, systemic racism can exist in institutions and societies even when the individuals in them have no racist beliefs.

This error is distressing because it undermines the reader’s confidence in the author’s ability to explain BLM. If he does not understand a concept central to the movement, can he be relied upon to clearly represent anything else about it? This problem is doubly distressing because the reader looks to New Horizons for pastoral guidance on social, ethical and theological issues. Pastoral guidance founded on ignorance may be well-intentioned, but neither can nor should be trusted.

Towards a theory of Church names

 I remember the day in seminary when Scott Clark introduced the chapel speaker, a Lutheran pastor whose congregation was called "Beautiful Savior." "Why do the Lutherans have all the good Church names?" Professor Clark asked rhetorically, and I have wondered frequently. Confessionally presbyterian Churches are notorious for pulling from an extremely short list of names. Leaving aside those with geographic or numerical indicators (i.e. "First," "Greater Sandusky"), there's "Covenant," "Faith," "Grace," Trinity" and "Providence." For those hoping to project a softer image, there's "Harvest," "Emmanuel," "Redeemer" or "Hope." Honestly, that's about it. Despite literally years of my campaigning for it, there's still not one "Big Happy Rainbow Church (OPC)."

This relentless monotony makes sense when one considers the place of confessional presbyterianism in the broader ecclesiastical landscape. While that landscape is littered with Lutheran congregations, there's relatively few from the Presbyterian Church in America or one of her sister denominations. When new OP Church plants are launched, an extremely common reason given is that there are no nearby reformed congregations. While a new evangelical Church can just be itself in all its own idiosyncratic glory, any given OPC congregation feels a burden to represent the entirety of the presbyterian and reformed stream of the Protestant Reformation.

This sociological reality prompts a conservative approach to naming. Employing a "traditional" (i.e., "boring") name sends a clear, if unstated, message to the potential visitor: "You can trust us to be safe: nothing too flashy or evangelicalish here! Just good old hymns and reliable Calvinist doctrine!" Even as I've been openly crusading for more interesting names, I am suspicious of the outlier congregations which use them. Before my family recently visited "Means of Grace Church," I couldn't help wondering what they were trying to say and what potential weirdness lay ahead of us. (Thankfully, it was just as boring as any other presbyterian congregation. We all breathed a sigh of relief!)

One obvious solution is to plant so many confessionally presbyterian congregations through vigorous evangelism and discipleship that individual names won't seem so weighty. Unfortunately, that would require leaving the house and talking to people, so it will be a while until we get there. In the meantime, I suggest a new name which should immediately reassure any presbyterian looking for a new Church home: "Boring Conservative Presbyterian Church (OPC)."