Paul Tripp, Wokism, and Tri-Perspectivalism

I wish to offer just a couple of initial thoughts on the psychology of conversion towards woke and social justice ideologies. The task seems rather complex, and I do not wish to offer the final word but a mere word on a somewhat layered conversation. This is a primer’s worth of articulation on the subject.

This post stemmed from some questions raised by some fine people in my recent post on Paul Tripp. Some sent me private questions, and some others opined on the note. The gist is that several people expressed how much they have appreciated Paul Tripp’s work in the past and cannot understand how he could make such dramatic shifts culturally. They are wondering what causes such magnificent theological and cultural changes. For the record, I restate my level of appreciation for Tripp and his labors on a variety of counseling themes.

Nevertheless, trajectories are a real thing, and some prophets can see these things more accurately and astutely than I do. My own assessment is that these trends stem from a set of priorities.

Over the years, many of us have been completely shocked by movements among Reformed people who hold to the Catechisms, Confessions, and Creeds, but yet have sold their ideologies to the biggest woke bidders. I have detailed many of these over the years, but I want to offer just a brief summary as to why this manifestation is so evident in our day.

It is first and foremost essential to note that these movements happen slowly for most and are fast-paced for a few. These theological movements generally occur when perspectives begin to change in little things. Big changes occur through a thousand microscopic ones.

The classic example of this is the Republican political leader who makes remarkable speeches on the dangers of leftist sexual ethics and how modern attempts at distorting traditional marriage are dangerous. That healthy dogma begins to lose stamina when his son comes out as a homosexual. Suddenly, the strong assertions rooted in Genesis 1-2 begin to lose their vigor and eventually–as we have seen many times–that politician succumbs to social pressures and changes his view of sexual ethics affirming that homosexuality is something brave and bold and that we ought to listen more attentively to those in that community.

I argue that these changes are perspectival. If we break them down to existential (experiences), situational (cultural-historical), and normative (the authority of the Bible) we can arrive at a more accurate interpretive model for how these stalwarts move incrementally towards woke and BLM rhetoric.

As a pastor and counselor, I know that there is an inherent power in the emotional dimension of any encounter. I should also add that I struggled greatly with such temptations when confronted pastorally with people who have suffered great hurt by people in authority. The urge to despise institutions as a whole because of the pain caused by one leader is great. The Mars Hill debacle is a classic case of how people turned off the Christian ecosystem in favor of other voices.

People are moved by such experiences and too often people are moved theologically to re-consider their once-firm perspectives based on changes in life. For example, an abused victim who was not treated well by her leadership can feel isolated and therefore deeply troubled by what she once considered to be solid affirmations by the local church. But if she feels devalued and overlooked by the leaders, she may often go back to the basics and change her entire orientation and perspective on the whole structure. She may grow up in a high-church Lutheran environment to now considering whether the Charismatics offer something more cheerful: “Perhaps I was too harsh on Charismatics;” or, “perhaps I need to consider their perspective anew;” “If these folks disappointed me, then there is no way I can trust the other things they say.”

I have witnessed these changes many times. In sum, drastic changes in life can cause drastic changes in interpretation and cause you to reconsider something that was once inconceivable theologically. In the video I linked from Paul Tripp you can see that perspective unfold quite clearly. It was not until he started attending a church with an overwhelming number of African Americans that he began to consider anew the plight of black folks in this country, and that changed him dramatically. It was also a powerful transformation when you add that his pastor is a crucial voice in the woke movement within evangelicalism. This explains quite a bit of the shift among recognizable names in our Reformed community. The existential perspective becomes supreme and the source of major reconsiderations of theological paradigms.

I argue that we need a more holistic approach embracing a tri-perspectival model that considers the situational (cultural-historical) and centrally the normative (the biblical context and content). If we fail to do so, we relegate the situational and normative perspectives to the detriment of the existential perspective.

While many may affirm that situational and normative play a role also in their change, it’s very evident that there is no attempt to engage the text of the Bible seriously, but there is a concerted effort to recruit critical models from unorthodox voices to make the point; to assert that the problem is, after all, whiteness/European by nature. This allows the conversation to produce a broader enemy, and consequently, this enemy is big enough to find plenty of problems. If the enemy is European Protestants, then the warts are visible at some level, whether they are prevalent or not. If the enemy is big in America, then we can preach infinitely on the woes of whiteness and what it has produced.

Therefore, the preeminence of the existential perspective allows these critics to see faults everywhere in history and the biblical interpretations of godly men. If white theologians didn’t say enough about race in 1926, therefore, he is not to be trusted and neither is the historical lineage of his theological tribe. If modern black conservatives don’t stand for their colored brothers, they are also accursed and anathematized. These assessments lead men like Jemar Tisby to assert when Trump was elected that he needs to feel safe and to be safe means to isolate himself from white people.

These assertions immediately create a culture of division. Incidentally, what these critics assert is that the concept of unity in the Bible is the overarching theme that needs to be inserted, but unity only happens when everyone succumbs to certain historical narratives in totality. You either submit 100% or else you can never be one of us.

What CRT, WOKE and BLM advocates demand is a kind of top-down repentance from everyone. It does not matter whether you curse the perpetrators of such crimes or whether you overlook them. Even if your family line was involved in stopping such egregious behavior 70 years ago, still you are complicit in the current tide of racism, however that situational perspective is defined.

The motivation can be diverse, but the general trend among these movements of evangelical icons toward liberationist and leftist ideologies stems most often from existential battles that they have faced personally or corporately. While I–as pastor and counselor–affirm the power of the drama of change in traumatic occurrences, my goal is to draw people back to the basic knowledge of the normative and situational perspectives and to keep things grounded in all three rather than allow the overpowering praxeological effects of human emotions to guide decisions and trajectories.