You’ll have to forgive me, but I am a bit confused. For a while now we’ve heard it said that racial reconciliation is not a gospel issue. That’s been applied more broadly recently. It’s said that doing justice is not a gospel issue.
Essentially the argument is this: Salvation is by grace through faith. Jesus lived in your place. He died to pay for your sin. He was raised from the grave three days later. Repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved. If you add anything to that, you are adding to the gospel.
And all the people said, “Amen!”
I know of no prominent evangelical leader who has rejected any of these fundamental truths. Thabiti Anybwile tweeted out some of his own writings on the topic today encouraging people to compare his writings to the Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel. He then said, “I suspect you’ll find that the differences are not theological but practical and political.”
I think that is an accurate assessment. Are there real and substantial differences? Of course there are. But the differences are not theological. They are practical and political differences. These practical and political differences exist even among those who find themselves of the same general mind on this subject. Example: Thabiti voted for Clinton in the most recent presidential election as a way of opposing Trump. I voted for neither as a way of opposing both Trump and Clinton.
But now we have a group led by John MacArthur saying that they are defending the gospel from people who believe the exact same gospel. MacArthur wrote in his blog series, “It’s my conviction that much of the rhetoric about this latest issue [social justice] poses a more imminent and dangerous threat to the clarity and centrality of the gospel than any other recent controversy evangelicals have engaged in.” This tone and language of defending the gospel is present throughout MacArthur’s recently published blog series.
Then you have the Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel that was released this week. The introduction equates the disagreement over social justice with the Colossian heresy which was a disagreement over christology. The social justice statement has also been equated to important past statements like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This comparison also gives the impression that those responsible for drafting the social justice statement believe they are defending the gospel.
But I’m left asking, “Which is it?” Either this is a gospel issue or it isn’t. You can’t say it’s not a gospel issue and then say that you are defending the gospel by opposing any emphasis on social justice.
My intent here is not to minimize the disagreement at all. I think it is a very real disagreement. I think it is a very serious disagreement. But I am tired of orthodox brothers and sisters being accused of heresy because they apply the second greatest commandment differently (and I would argue more holistically) than these self-identified defenders of the gospel.
We would all do well to tone down the rhetoric. We would all do well to listen more than we speak. But if we’re going to do that, the accusations of orthodox believers being a threat to the gospel will have to be set aside.
Micah 6: 8/Matthew 22: 37-40/James 2: 18. In my humble opinion, the issue here is not whether ‘social justice’ is part of the gospel—to me this is the wrong question…the wrong emphasis. Rather, ‘social justice’ is a result of the gospel…it is a result of the fruit of the Spirit. Justice comes through God’s work in our sanctification process. Without God there is no justice. But the Christian world has adopted the term ‘social justice’, a term used by secular liberals (mostly politically liberal) from the world and applied it to the Bible teachings. The Bible calls for ‘justice’—and justice for all, not only justice for the weak and vulnerable (love your neighbors, not just some of your neighbors by classification) Much like the old Moral Majority couched their patriotism in the Bible (sometimes acting as if patriotism IS the gospel), liberals come across as taunting ‘social justice’ AS the gospel. Perhaps if Christians would stop hiding their alleged works for God in the secular, liberal vocabulary of modern times it would help the discussion. I cannot help but sometimes believe that like the Christian Right before them, the Christian Left is hiding their secular political agenda in the gospel. This is the same false angst that some say evangelicals ‘can’t’ or ‘won’t’ criticize President Trump.
I think Brian has made an excellent observation here, especially about the end game of both the old Moral Majority and the new liberal left, both of which had and currently have adherents within the ranks of the SBC.
Brian’s comment should not be kicked to the curb. It should be granted the thoughtful interaction here that it deserves.
I would like to ask the “side” that prepared the statement to tell me what they think of the book of James: how does the book of James fit into the gospel? Because, at the core, that is what this seems to be a disagreement about. The group that prepared the statement is afraid that the group advocating for justice in this current world (social or otherwise) is behaving like preachers that came into the Galatian church: “you need Jesus AND…” But the group advocating for justice are actually in the church preaching: “you have Jesus and because you do…” in much the same way James did:
“You are Christians, and because you are, your lives ought to look like people who oppose favoritism. (among other things)”
When I was a seminary student, I served at Calvary Baptist Church in Dallas. My senior pastor, Dr. Dan Kent, often took me to the pastors’ fellowship, which met at FBC of Dallas at noon time on Mondays. One day a pastor arose and encouraged the pastors to involve their churches in the annual food drive for the Buckner Baptist Children’s Home. He declared, “This is a missions effort.” His remark troubled me. I thought to myself, “This is a benevolence action, not a mission effort.” Of course, I favored the activity. Caring for orphans is commanded in the Bible and an important expression of Christian love and compassion. My concern pertained to his description, not the activity. There are lots of essential matters that require preaching, teaching, and action that are not “gospel” ministries. For example, it is essential for pastors to preach on the doctrines of the Bible, stewardship, the devotional life, etc. However, I would not class those as gospel messages. In gospel preaching we proclaim the vicarious death of Jesus, his resurrections, and the necessity of believing in Him for salvation. In the same way we should preach on ethical issues–racial equality, world hunger, conservation of creation, etc., but those would not be gospel messages. They would be needful and important, but not “gospel.” I guess I don’t understand why classifying a topic as “ethical” rather than “gospel” diminishes the importance of the topic. Now, some readers are thinking–But our speech and actions in regard to those issues affects how people receive our gospel preaching/sharing. Yes, I’ll grant that; but if everything becomes “the gospel,” then soon “the gospel” will be diluted. Some years ago the main line protestant churches declared that they were “on mission” for God. It turned out that their “mission” was anything and everything the churches did. In the end they did much less for “missions.”
Thank you for your response. I agree with your stance. Would it be fair then, to draw a distinction in what we do as Christians between things that are biblical but not specifically gospel and things that are “gospel”? And then, if so, would it also be fair to draw distinctions even in the scriptures themselves between passages that address the gospel and passages that address biblical behavior (getting back to my original question of whether the book of James is about the gospel)?
I have very much appreciated the commenters below who described this issue as two sides of one coin – root of the tree versus fruit of it, one commenter said. Very helpful.
Stephanie,
Re: James.
We proclaim the Gospel out of love for God and our fellow man. But if we say we love our fellow man and yet see them with a need and assume that our responsibility of love only entails meeting their eternal needs while ignoring their earthly needs, we are not really loving them.
Jesus said that as we do for the least we do for Him. Like visiting a prison. Like walking an extra mile.
But those good works are not meant to give justice to society. We can feed a homeless man, but can a church of 200 working class people feed 100 homeless people 3 meals a day? Can we all visit every prisoner in every jail cell in our geographical area? Can we walk extra miles or give extra claoks to everyone who needs them? Of course not.
We shoud seek to treat the symptoms of injustice one person at a time as our resources allow. But we cant stop the injustice of the world from continuing to happen. We can’t stop racism by our good works. We cant stop rapists with a ministry. We cant feed all of the poor or give shelter to all the homeless. We can’t sit with all the lonely people.
Thus social justice is a myth. It has nothing to do with what we as Christians are called to do. Our good works or deeds can not and do not transform injustice into justice.
But the Gospel proclaimed and believed does transform lives. And while we speak the eternal words of the Gospel in our homes and communities, and wherever we go, we are to also seek to meet the needs of those we come across or live next to. Not to make just their lives from the injustices they have suffered, but show them the love we have for them that we first recieved from Christ.
Mark,
Certainly sin shoud be called sin.
And certainly we should help meet the needs of our neighbors, whethwe find them along the way, like the Good Samaritan, or they live in our own community.
But there is a big difference in between what is preached against sin and what changes sinners.
Our good works dont change sinners. We might help those they have oppressed -treat the symptoms/consequebces of sin- but the cause of the trouble, unregenerate hearts, are not transformed because of our good works. Aiding a rape victim doesnt change her heart or her assailant’s.
That doesnt mean we dont preach against rape and sexual sin. That doesnt mean we dont help the abused. But our good works dont actually bring justice. Our good works do not transform our communities. Social justice doesnt work.
Exactly right, Stephanie. And, the Statement group doesn’t want that. It seems that is because they want to be considered to be defenders of the gospel while also defending the political/social status quo and those admitting there are problems that need addressing are a threat to that. Since you can’t argue with them honestly, practically, or Biblically, the next move is to delegitimize their ministries and put them outside of orthodoxy. That seems to be where we are now.
You cant claim social justice is a gospel issue the try to divorce it from the gospel.
Agreed. Neither can you claim that it is not a gospel issue and then try to wed it to the gospel.
.
For me, concern about this social justice impulse in our ranks arises from two issues.
First, the term “social justice” has a long, sordid, and antithetical history in relation to the gospel. SJ is a thoroughly secular ideology arising from Enlightenment philosophy and progressive politics. Further, SJ lies at the very heart of Liberation Theology, and one need read only a handful of blogs coming out of the CBF to realize that this group–which spilt off from the SBC after the CR–has completely forsaken the gospel to embrace SJ issues. Despite these realities, many among us are using and defending the term “social justice” with impunity. When concern is raised about the use of the term, many become indignant.
Given the history of SJ, my question is simple: Why do our brothers and sisters appear to be completely incredulous when we voice our concern?
Secondly, the groundswell of support for and promotion of SJ issues within the ranks of conservative evangelicals has produced some startling results. On this very site I have read OPs and comments that seem to embrace the secular #metoo movement. The heads of entities within the SBC have stated that we are now having our own “metoo” moments in the SBC. Further, this site contains OPs and comments promoting and defending the election of a female SBC president–leaving the appearance that some are now embracing secular, SJ-oriented egalitarianism. Our own ERLC, in the name of racial reconciliation, recently held the MLK50 event, celebrating the life of a man who demonstrably embraced Liberation Theology. These issues are only the tip of the ice burg. Many more examples of questionable ideologies/statements/arguments/tactics etc. arising from this SJ impulse can be (and have been) named.
Given these realities, my question is again very simple: Why do or brothers and sisters appear to be completely incredulous when we voice our concern about these issues?
I have, over the years, grown to love and respect many who are now involved in this movement, including my brothers here at Voices. Many who are now defending this SJ impulse in our ranks have richly blessed me through their ministries and writings. But I have, over the course of the past 3-4 years, become increasingly concerned. I have questions. I have concerns. Something is amiss in our midst when we begin to embrace the SJ mantras and tactics of a corrupt and godless culture.
To be clear, I detest sexual abuse wherever it is found. I am a thoroughgoing complimentarian. I find racism repulsive. And I stand with anyone who is willing to wage war against these issues in a manner that honors the primacy of Scripture.
But I am deeply concerned about our current trajectory. With respect and with a willingness to engage in rational dialogue, I assert that if we continue following the path we seem to be following, this will not end well.
This. So this!
Randall, you’ve mentioned 3 specific examples of your concern so I’ll address those.
1) Dr. Mohler said that the SBC is having its own #metoo movement. His article on the subject is quite clear what he means. The problems we have seen in the culture with regard to sexual misconduct and the abuse of power are also present in the church, including the SBC. Do you deny that is true? I’m not sure how you could.
2) Regarding SBC President, it is my position that we are typically best served by having a pastor in that role. But were we to elect a layperson for the role as we have done in the past, I see no reason why that couldn’t be a woman. While I would normally prefer that we elect a pastor (and thus a man) as SBC President, it is definitely not egalitarianism to say that a woman can be SBC President.
3) Have you listened to any of the sermons or panels from the MLK50 conference? I have. The conference was not a celebration of Dr. King’s theology. A small part of it was a celebration of his impact on Civil Rights in this country. Most of it was looking forward to how the church can continue to pursue racial reconcilation going forward. Do you disagree that racial reconcilation is something worthy of our attention?
Hi Adam,
My concerns with your responses are as follows:
1) I stated clearly where I stand on sexual abuse/misconduct. It is the apparent embrace of the cultures’ initiative and tactics that concern me.
2) While I think your personal position is a step in the wrong direction (hence my concern), yours is not the position being argued by many, even here at Voices.
3) I stated clearly where I stand on the issue of racism. But brother, the event was billed “MLK50.” Liberation Theology drove MLK’s impact on civil rights. Surely you see the problem. Did nothing at MLK50 cause you any concern?
Blessings to you in Christ.
1) You stating where you stand on sexual abuse doesn’t substantiate your concern.
2) You are the one who used the label egalitarianism. That cannot be substantiated either.
3) You didn’t answer my question. Have you listened to any of the conference messages or panels?
Adam, I’ll not trouble you further, brother. Thanks for the exchange.
Grace to you in Christ.
Randall: By you not engaging Adam, and in fact shutting him down, it is you being closed minded not Adam. Your arguments have already been addressed many times and those answers are ignored because I think it shoots down those who are concerned as making things up to be concerned about . Frankly it’s ridiculous and once again keeps us from doing the important things. Social Justice is a huge part of missions and has been done by missionaries from our denomination for centuries.
To rail against Social Justice, It’s just another fight to be involved in, just another argument to be had by those who love to fight and argue. And it really doesn’t matter whether you are against it or not and it really doesn’t matter whether James White or MacArthur or Doug Wilson is against it as they are not Southern Baptist. I think Social Justice will continue regardless. I think this is more about trying to control rather than making a sensible Biblical argument. Because there is no sensible argument that can be made and using the Bible would make the argument against even more fruitless. The work will carry on regardless.
It is advocating breaking established USA law, non citizens protesting and advocating protesting in DC. Connected to World Relief an foreign entity in the US.
I am so glad you can get your points posted. I agree wholeheartedly.
As the mother of adult children who are living their lives as kingdom builders and disciple makers [who have been id’d as SJ], I have to ask myself and you, so what does it mean to “stand with anyone who is willing to wage war against these issues in a manner that honors the primacy of scripture”? The radical obedience to Christ displayed by my kids has confronted me with my own hypocrisy, of the “Go in peace, be warm and well-fed” variety. I’ve observed that those working to put feet to their faith in practical ways to the hungry, hurting and marginalized, are often mis- labeled as gospel-weakening Social Justice heretics. But the folks they’ve led to Christ, and those they have fed, dialogued with, and partnered with to do justly, have seen them as bridge builders and agents of mercy.
I have to ask myself: where does my personal rhetoric about “standing with” intersect with the reality of following Jesus wherever He leads? I am coming to realize that my talk is cheap, like whitewash.
It’s been said here many times on SBC Voices in the last couple of days; but if you want to continue to make semantics and the term “social justice” a key part of the discussion, I think you must respond to Joe Carter’s article first: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/faqs-christians-know-social-justice/?amp
David,
I read the article. It certainly promotes some splendid thoughts and is worthy of reflection by those who desire to maintain the purity of the gospel when sharing it to our community and to the nations
and seek biblical justice for all people.
Yet, it is my opinion that due to the baggage garnered by the phrase “social justice” since the early 1900’s to this present time, Christians should either abandon its use or take the time when we use it to be pristine clear in what we mean by its use.
Hi David,
I have read Carter’s article. It is an admirable attempt to rescue the term “social justice,” from its historic philosophical, secular, and Liberation Theology roots. One article, however, cannot undo 400 years of sordid history. If my brothers and sisters continue to insist on using and defending the terminology, it is incumbent upon them to do the laborious work of clarifying what they mean when they use this baggage-laden term. The current dismissiveness that often accompanies responses to expressions of concern accomplishes nothing.
That being said, it is useless to contend that we should not be concerned given the developments in our midst over the past 3-4 years, some of which I noted above and many others that have been noted elsewhere ad nauseam. I have tried for some time to convince myself we don’t have a problem, but to no avail. Some of the issues arising from this movement are troubling. That some of my brothers and sisters in the SBC do not find them troubling is even more troubling.
Blessings to you in Christ Jesus
If the concern is terminology, then the article MacArthur should write is “Why We Should Prefer the Term Biblical Justice Over Social Justice.” Instead, he’s arguing that people advocating justice are in danger of abandoning the gospel while he’s defending it. It’s nonsense.
The concern over terminology is a legitimate concern.
CB: No it isn’t. As Adam and I have pointed out it’s nothing to do with the words used. The argument is over the doing. Randall Cofield admits that in his comment below. It’s a smokescreen to say it has to do with terminology.
Adam.
Your disagreement with Dr. jmac does not alone necessarily make that with which you disagree – or persons articulating similar positions – actually ridiculous.
There are lots of your brothers and sisters who find great merit in JMac’s cautions.
…except [at least in my remote circles of the world], the term is being applied in broad strokes/foisted on gospel workers, rather than being voluntarily carried. That, too, is troubling.
The concern about terminology is not the only concern that is being expressed, though some here are trying to limit it to terminology only.
CB and Randall are correct.
The concern/disagreement with terminology is quite legitimate – but it’s not the only concern/disagreement that are legitimate.
It seems rather dismissive and divisive to pretend otherwise.
Thank you, Brother Randall! Amen!
Adam,
“Agreed. Neither can you claim that it is not a gospel issue and then try to wed it to the gospel.”
To engage with your article and your comment to Mark in the comment thread at the same time…
I don’t see the statement as doing that. In fact, I see it as an effort to keep SJ, where it should be, as NOT part of the definitional gospel.
The sense in which I see the statement – as you’ve suggested as wedded to the gospel –
is the desire to keep “social justice” and the gospel separate.
I agree with that desire.
The two can’t be separate. The way to Christ is still preached. There is only one way to God is still preached. But justice is also practiced. Help for the helpless, voice for the voiceless. Sound familiar? It’s in the Bible. What is the big deal?
Then what is the big argument Dave Cline? What is the purpose? To shut down good works toward racial issues, women sexual abuse issues, immigrant issues? I don’t get the purpose of those who object? If you don’t feel led to do anything then don’t. Quit arguing against it. What harm is it doing. This is what I don’t understand. It just seems like another way to fight for those who like to fight.
The “big deal”is to assure that the lost and dying do not receive a deluted gospel. The gospel is the gospel. To seek justice for all image bearers is a result of one’s having been converted by the gospel. The gospel is relavant to justification. Justice is relavant to sanctification.
.
Debbie,
CB articulates a good, reasoned and quite sufficent response to your comment.
CB: It is a big deal over nothing and I think you guys know this. It’s just another thing for you to stomp your feet and fight against. Fighting makes you happy. Controversy a good day. Gaining control makes life even more worthwhile.
Listen if anyone has been zealous it has been the die hard anti- abortion advocates such as yourself, the anti-liquor movement, the Trump supporters since last couple of years. Does this mean that you do not preach the Gospel first and foremost. My own minister, Wade Burleson is anti-abortion and pro-Trump(much to my chagrin on the pro-Trump) but he still preaches the Gospel every Sunday. He goes out and lives that Gospel while giving it in our community and elsewhere, so I know the answer is no. Same with social justice.
The Gospel is still being preached, which is that Christ is the way to salvation. Social justice is a result of the Gospel. It’s the gospel lived out. I don’t know how anyone can make it any clearer. It is a made up concern. You guys don’t see your own hypocrisy in this.
Debbie, thus far, to the best of my ability to understand, you are the only person in this comment thread who wants to do nothing but “fight.”
Frankly, this comment thread has been one of the better I have read in a while here at Voices. The comments, other than your which are unreasonably accusatively, have been respectful and focused on the subject of the post.
Therefore, please stop calling people who have differing perspectives on the subject names and join the conversation in a respectful and sensible manner.
CB: You and others know that we believe in the giving of the message of Christ and salvation. You, Randall, even Dave C know this yet you act like that is not something we believe in or want done. I say act as if it is a concern, because you do know differently.
You and others “perspective” is more than differing, this is making up reasons to be against something. Again. You know that and I know that. You call it fighting on my part, I call it seeing through the smokescreen. There has always got to be a controversy or you and others are not happy. I could begin to list the controversies you guys have made out of nothing, but the list would be longer than all these comments and I’d have to keep going until you all retired.
Debbie, the first comment in this thread is by a guy named Brian. I encourage you to read it. That comment articulates the concerns many of us have with this issue.
Mark Terry’s comments also expresses reasonable concerns regarding this issue. Give his comments some thought if you are willing. I think both Mark and Brian do an excellent job of expressing the general components that I have with the subject of the post.
Debbie,
I doubt there’s any readers of this blog who doubts my ability and tendency to speak for myself.
It’s not necessary, or proper for that matter, for you to convey your thoughts about what I desire, know and mean by my comments – as I said – I’m highly capable of and very willing to handle and express that for myself.
Thank you.
Debbie,
You are wrong.
We dont accomplish social justice by living out the Gospel.
We do help people affected by injustice but that does not stop the injustices.
And we should help those affected by injustice.
But the root of injustice is not eradicated or even if barely affected by us living out the Gospel.
Our good works do not stop injustices from happening. We might slow them a bit here or there, but the same injustices, maybe in another form, will pop up again.
Our good works were never meant to transform a sin filled society into a just society.
The only hope for such a society is not living out the Gospel, but proclaiming it, for it is in proclaiming it that people can hear, and the Spirit can bring new birth and faith.
Well said. The gospel of repentance of sin and confession of Jesus Christ as Lord is the “biggest deal.” The SJ tendency to assign victim status to every group that has suffered any injustice (real or perceived) drives people away from the gospel, not to the gospel.
One who has their victim status constantly and fawningly affirmed will naturally shift the blame for their own sin onto someone else (i.e. “the serpent made me do it” or “this woman you gave me made me to it”). They will be far less likely to understand their need to repent of their own sin and confess Jesus as Lord.
These comments will likely draw a great deal of ire here.
Tarheel and Adam,
I agree with Tarheel. There are many, but not all, maybe not even most, but many, who wish to make social justice a Gospel issue. They say things like: White Evangels have never had the Gospel, maybe they will finally get it.
It is to that kind of thinking that the statement was written.
I think Brian has made a valid comment here. I think it to be so valid that it cannot be refuted. I think that in Brian’s comment we find the reality of where we find ourselves as Southern Baptists.
I guess I don’t understand why some feel the need to make “gospel” an adjective and attach it to everything they consider important. The Apostle Paul defined the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. When we preach the vicarious death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the necessity of belief in Him for salvation, we are presenting the gospel. Preaching, teaching, and acting on ETHICAL issues is essential. That is part of preaching and teaching the “whole counsel of God.” I do not understand why an ethical issue, like racial inequality, should be classified as a gospel issue. To classify it as an ethical issue does not diminish its importance. Now, I’m sure some readers are thinking that our speech and actions in regard to racial equality and injustice affect the way our gospel presentations are received. I’ll grant that; however, the same could be said of lots of things. The language we use, our appearance, the form of communication we employ all affect how folks respond. When everything become the “gospel,” then soon the meaning of gospel is diluted.
Another comment worthy of reasonable reflection is Mark Terry’s.
Is biblical justice—let’s lay aside the controverted term “social justice” for the time being—in our racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender-based relations a gospel issue?
In order to answer this question correctly, we must divide correctly between the root and the fruit of the gospel. The root of the gospel is not what we do as followers of Christ, but the free gift of salvation that God in Christ bought for us through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus accomplished at Calvary, to which we must respond with repentance and faith. The fruit of the gospel is a life of faithful obedience and discipleship lived out as a result of a changed heart indwelled by the Holy Spirit in grateful response to what God has done for us and is doing in us.
So, while a lifestyle of biblical justice (as described above) is not technically the root of the gospel, it is most definitely a significant component of the fruit of the gospel—and as such, we are correct to call it a gospel issue. The whole gospel tree, as it were, is comprised of both root and fruit.
I agree with you, David. Well said.
Good point as long as we distinguish between the tree and the fruit. We cannot blur the distinction between the two, else we have a diseased tree and fruit with harmful “additives.”
The gospel is relavant to justification. To seek justice is relavant to sanctification.
He or she who has embraced the biblical gospel will certainly be compelled by the Spirit to pursue biblical justice for all people. She or he who does otherwise is in rebellion to the teachings of Scripture and is therefore a rebel to his or her personal God mandated process of sanctification.
Its not our fruit that changes society for the better.
Good point, David. What you have said is what we have said here at Voices and what I have said for many years. Biblical Justice is an implication of the gospel.
A truncated gospel is the kind that preaches personal salvation and then a resulting form of sanctification that only concerns itself with the personal behavior of the adherent in his own family, church, and ministry pursuits. What happens in the larger society, even if it is largely run by Christians and he has a significant role in it, is of no concern to the church and the gospel, lest the pure gospel tree be confused with its fruits of justice, mercy, and humility and a works based theology emerge or some kind of liberation theology creep in. Sure we are to personally love people, but any concern about how they are treated in the larger society is seen as a distraction and is not our issue.
Hog. Wash. The call for Biblical Justice that has been going on for awhile now is calling that lie out and saying it is unbiblical. It isn’t surprising that makes people angry. We’re saying that the idea that a whole community, town, and region can just fall into the abyss of sin, crime, violence, and dysfunction and the only role of the church is to preach salvation to sinners and then move to chase the fleeing wealthy white people (or black people) to the suburbs to build megachurches “built on the Word,” is a biblical fallacy. Maybe we shouldn’t just leave every place because things get hard and maybe churches full of wealthy conservative suburbanites isn’t all God had in mind when He sent Jesus to die on a Bloody Cross? Maybe we should also look at what is creating the problems in our communities that lead to family breakdown and community disintegration and maybe we should apply ministry in those directions too?
Alan,
Good works dont transform lives.
The Biblical call is to love ones neighbor. To reach out to those around you in need and seek to meet the need of those you can reasonably meet.
But you make political hay out of that call. Right?
You call for Christians to take sides on a political issue like children at the borders as if it were a Biblical issue.
And certainly some churches do move out of dysfunctional neighborhoods, but most do not. Most are too poor to move. Their congregants live and work there. Most SBC churches are small, with many not even able to afford a full time minister.
We already know what is causing family breakdown and community disintegration and problems therein: its sin.
And Alan, our good works do not stop the sin problem.
At best, they alleviate the suffering of some, mostly only partly and temporarily.
So at best, the good works, the social justice, we do in our communities to meet the needs of the oppressed and downtrodden, the hungry and homeless, the abused and forsaken, only treat the symptoms of the problem and then only for some.
Social justice is not going to bring about justice.
And the good works foreordained for Christians to do were never meant to do that.
But what does transform lives but the Gospel preached and believed! The Gospel can give hope and strength and peace in the MIDST of trouble and stromy circumstances.
Again, the good works we are to do because we are believers are not meant to transform our communities.
The proclaimed Gospel believed does transform lives.
The Lord tells us:
“For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.”
Michael,
I understand the gospel as the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. I know what the gospel is and I’ve seen people from all over the world and many cultures personally respond to my proclamation of the gospel. I believe the gospel and confess Jesus as Lord.
I stand by my previous statements and have no desire to go round and round with you on everything you would accuse me of. It is unprofitable for both of us, and since the only thing that matters to you is preaching the gospel, I’d encourage you to either do that or attend to your life so you will have more time to do it. Please don’t waste another moment responding to me. I’m not worth your time, bro.
David Rogers, CB and others:
You guys have summarized this well.
There are some in the religious world who really do want to add to the Gospel.
The other day an SJ friend, but who is solid on the Gospel, posed a question to me and a pastor who were discussing SJ and the Gospel. He asked both of us to define the Gospel. I promptly responded from Paul’ summation in I Cor 15.
The SJW pastor, who was not SBC, refused to answer the question even though my friend was originally disposed toward his side. The SJW pastor had been saying that any Gospel preached without SJ is a truncated Gospel, and those who did so in the past were heretics etc.
I think the SJW pastor’s failure to respond made an impression on my SJ friend. Hopefully, he will discard categories and remedies from Critical Theory, and will stick with biblical justice.
That, in my opinion, is what the statement is driving at.
We don’t have in the SBC a bunch of solid guys who are jumping off a cliff.
But we do have a bunch of folks who are not being theologically careful.
And, again, many of the remedies proposed are inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.
We should love each other and extend that love to everyone regardless of ethnicity, gender etc.
We should not be in the business of discrimination or employing unhealthy methods of bringing justice.
Adam,
Great read. Totally in agreement.
Two things:
– In every age, a social issue arises that seems paramount. Civil war was paramount. Slavery was paramount. Genocide is paramount. Starvation, abortion, marriage. Life & death issues, issues of survival and sin, human suffering and injustice..and people’s ability to receive the gospel. Whatever the issue of the day, someone is oppressed like the Israelites in Egypt, while some believers are declaring “THIS is what matters, you MUST speak out and act!!” It must have been difficult for Billy Graham to keep the gospel message central in the 1960’s. But he did.
– I’m to go, speak & do as God calls & leads me with the gifts he gave to me – not as He gifted and called someone else. That is His design. This doesn’t excuse me from the issue of the day, (and I don’t mean to minimize ANY issue of human suffering or justice or dignity); but it helps me prioritize. I may have a role in a movement. I may not. Whatever God says.
I wish we would not argue, accuse, or patronize based on how much we appear to care relative to one another.
Karen,
I agree with you.
And let me add that God has our good works ordained for us to do. But that doesnt mean that we all are to visit the sick or have a prison ministry. Or protest at abortion clinics.Or be foreign missionaries. or lead the singing. or help the homeless.
God doesnt expect EACH one of us to do everything. But He does have us congregate and thus together we can meet many needs. And as there are many churches, together, we can meet much more ore needs.
Thus the litmus tests that are being proclaimed that unless we fight for this cause or that cause we aren’t being faithful are simply untrue.
Whenever there is freedom, there is the possibility that some will abuse that freedom in egregious ways.
But we all violate the freedom we have in Christ whenever we choose to sin. Why then are pointing fingers at our brothers and sisters for their failing to meet the ‘standards’ of social justice?
I’ve checked out of the discussion on these racial issues. I honestly have heard plenty from both sides and don’t care anymore. Much like the Cal – Trad banter, the racial discussion has gotten old. Insensitive, maybe? But I’m only commenting to say I didnt read this article and any time an article on race pops up in future, I’m likely to skip it. I’ve had my fill. Please SBC voices, let’s get back on track.
Hi Adam,
You wrote “I know of no prominent evangelical leader who has rejected any of these fundamental truths. Thabiti Anybwile tweeted out some of his own writings on the topic today encouraging people to compare his writings to the Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel. He then said, “I suspect you’ll find that the differences are not theological but practical and political. I think that is an accurate assessment. Are there real and substantial differences? Of course there are. But the differences are not theological. They are practical and political differences. These practical and political differences exist even among those who find themselves of the same general mind on this subject.” What? – they are practical and political – nonsense. If one is regenerated, then to live is Christ. There is no separation into categories that do not apply to Christ. This start with voting for two individuals that we assume are not regenerated yet. Pastor, do you think that Mr. Anybwile should equate the murder of children – Mrs. Clinton with what ever social injustice Mr Trump exposes and then vote for Murder? No! Now I am going to give one of his non-Biblical utterances. All whites are complicit in MLK’s death. It is not about applying the second greatest commandment differently. And of course, this second greatest commandment cannot even be done properly to God’s command without the First being done be a regenerated soul – Martin Loyd Jones. I am going to define ethnocentric oppression of African Americans. Ethnocentrism is the emotional attitude that one’s own ethnic group, nation, or culture is superior to all others (Taylor, 1998). Ethnocentric Monoculturalism refers to a strong belief in the inferiority of all groups or cultures that extends to their customs, traditions, language, beliefs, values, ways of thinking, and behavior. Ethnocentric denigration is the tendency to view differences in a negative light, which results from an attempt to validate and reinforce one’s own values and beliefs (Taylor, 1998). With definitions out of the way, I am only addressing this issue to Christians like you Pastor. This is not meant for the unregenerate. First, any ethnocentric oppression by an unregenerate soul should be expected since there is no “good” in them. So what do you expect out of an unregenerate soul? Now, if the ethnocentric oppression is from a Christian brother or sister, then one must confront the brother or sister – not in public – one on one and then bring another brother or sister to bring about repentance. This is pretty simple. Now back to the very first question and God’s Providential Will. The Bible is crystal-clear that God is the ruler, that God does what He will, that no one can thwart His purpose, no one can stop His hand.And so when you look at the problem of evil, you don’t ask “Well, this seems unfair to me because of how it affect me, or how it affects people”. You have to ask the question, “How does it affect God”?
https://rberryblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/an-open-letter-to-john-macarthur-about-social-justice/ This is a post I agree with and has the answers to all “concerns” on social justice in a well worded post. It begins:
“Dear John,
You don’t know me, but I have been aware of you for years as a well-known Evangelical pastor, radio personality, and an author. I’ve listened to “Grace to You” and read your fierce defenses against anything you’ve deemed a distraction to the Gospel with appreciation for your convictions, even if not complete agreement with your conclusions. Recently you took aim at what you believe is the most dangerous heresy you’ve ever faced: the growing Christian advocacy for “social justice”. I read your string of posts making the case that the Church is being lured away from the Gospel message and down a road that leads to destruction with great interest and greater disappointment. As an African American pastor who has studied and experienced this issue personally, I believe your post, and the Statement on Social Justice launched in tandem with it, are the actual dangers to the Church in this moment. I have taken the time to respond with as much detail as I can because I, too, love the universal Church, and I also believe in this particular moment she is in danger of falling away from a clear understanding of the Gospel in the United States. We need to talk more and do more about social justice–not less. I’ll explain with specifics. “
The Gospel does have its fruit.
But the exact fruit or the good works one is to do may or may not be what another is to do.
The ministry one church is called to do may be different than another church.
We are not going to eradicate suffering and injustice, like the pain and heartache racism brings, by our good works, that is by the fruit of the Gospel working in and through us.
Our good works do not change the lives of sinners.
Only the proclaimed and believed Gosel changes lives.
So let us not be weary in doing good works but it is not our good works that change society
The apostle Paul didnt go to a city and do great works of righting wrongs to transform that society to make it just.
Nor did he do good works to enable a platform where he could preach the Good News.
Rather he went and preached the Gospel.
From city to city he preached the Gospel.
Was there injustice in those towns? Yes.
Slavery? Yes.
Women treated as possessions? yes
Child labor? yes.
Corruption in government? yes.
Racism? yes.
And what did Paul do about injustice?
He preached the Gospel, proclaiming that Jesus, the crucified one was risen from the dead, and that only in bowing to Him as Lord could one receive forgiveness from sins, peace with God, and everlasting life.
Did he collect money for the poor? Yes, for the poor believers in Jerusalem.
That is how the pagan Roman Empire was transformed and turned upside down.
And beside emulating Paul and proclaiming the Gospel, what did the churches do, or were supposed to do but love those around them, especially the poor and downtrodden and forgotten, by meeting their human needs as best they could. And of course by loving their brothers and sisters in Christ first, and meeting their needs and the needs of their familes first.
But many are saying unless we corporately and as individuals do not seek to speak out [or act?] on the great issues they declare as important, that we are not being faithful to the Gospel. Manyof their issues are political in nature, like separated children at the border, or they seek toright past wrongs, like a person is unfaithful because their seminary didnt include the contributions of dark skinned people.
And they declare that you white skinned Christians are to blame, and that you need to get woke.
But none of that lines up with the history of the early church and what the early church did and also ignores the victories of Christianity wrought by the early church in transforming society and the thinking of man.
And which woud better make our society more Christ like:
SBCers [and other believers] getting woke and preaching the evil of racism and the evil of the president DT, or…
SBCers [and other believers] going into their own homes and neighbrhoods, jobs and stores, schools and rec centers, and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
IF IT IS THE LATTER, THEN WHY IS SO MUCH ENERGY AND HYPE BEING PUT INTO THE FORMER?
We’ve recognized for a long time that a gospel witness looks different 2000 years after Jesus in a country and culture that claims a 400 year old Christian heritage (longer than that in Europe).
By your reasoning, there is no basis for church buildings, full time staff, or most of what the “church” does today. It didn’t happen that way in the early church, right? The early church was a very small, persecuted minority that lived in an utterly pagan society that had never heard the gospel. This idea that we are to treat American Christians 1800 years after Christ or 2000 years after Christ the same exact way Paul addressed the pagan society of his day while not uttering a word about taking advantage of the excess trappings of acquired Christendom that we enjoy today, even though Paul said nothing about it, is curious, at best.
As I see it, we are saved for three purposes:
1. To assure a home in heaven.
2. To proclaim salvation to those who do not yet believe.
3. To do good works.
Social justice, or whatever you want to call it if the term offends you, falls under #3. I think we need to keep in mind that #3 is doing good works, not saying good things. I don’t care if we call racial reconciliation a gospel issue or not, it is certainly a Christian issue. And even then, not all proposed solutions to racial divides are created equal. We have to use discernment.
I think the biggest force for racial reconciliation is a whole lot of Christians, living their lives not being racist.
You might also add glorifying God in there somewhere. 😉
I’ve never bought the unspoken but clear perspective of those in the Evangelical branch of American Christianity that Republican party platform principles are equal to Christian principles. I could spend hours pointing out the parts of Republican party practice and belief that are not anywhere close to being consistent with biblically based Christian belief. This is one of those places where partisan politics prevents Christians who are deeply partisan from doing the right thing, and causes “big name” well known Evangelical “leaders” to re-interpret terms and language, or to get completely off track when it comes to specific issues, simply because in the political world, those issues are owned by the “other side.” Social justice and racial reconciliation are at the top of that list.
If you want an honest list of the evils that are inherent in Republican politics, and from a biblical perspective, evils that are equal to the pro-choice, pro-LGBT positions that are just about the only things cited by the “religious right” in opposition to the other side, I can point you to a dozen African American pastors, and about that many Latino pastors, who can cite them and show you from scripture how wrong those things are. There’s a reason that those groups vote in percentages as high for Democrats as white Evangelicals do for Republicans. Note that there is a higher percentage of these people in churches that are identified as solidly Evangelical by theology and practice than whites, and that if you don’t make the distinction of “white Evangelicals”, “Latino,” and “historically Black” denominations, the percentages of Evangelicals that vote Democratic rises to about half, and the percentage of Republican voters drops to a little less than half. I think you’ll also find statistically that while the white Evangelical church membership is declining, there is growth taking place among ethnic congregations.
If you want to claim that racial reconciliation isn’t a biblical ministry, then I think those issues are right there in front of you. Evangelical Christians are more segregated by race than any other branch of the church in this country, and it is partly because of past history, but mainly because of present politics. Our goal should be preaching the gospel, glorifying God and baptizing those who proclaim Jesus, not trying to get someone to vote the way we think they should. And developing an understanding of each other has to be an equal proposition, not one in which one view dominates the other. Social justice should be rooted in biblical truth, not defined by a political agenda.
The racial segregation in church is real. And my friends who are sending me articles on racial injustice, and the need for social justice, are members of all-white churches in racially diverse towns. That, I don’t understand.
Bill Mac said:
“As I see it, we are saved for three purposes:
1. To assure a home in heaven.
2. To proclaim salvation to those who do not yet believe.
3. To do good works.
Social justice, or whatever you want to call it if the term offends you, falls under #3. ”
That is a good point. It’s one many of us too are trying to make.
Good works, including SJ, are discipleship/sanctication issues not gospel (justification) ones.
Playing cute with gospel language can set one (and a denomination) on dangerous trajectory toward diluting the gospel message – let’s not pretend It’s a new phenomenon to see that take place…
When people say “implication of the gospel,” that is what they mean. What it means to follow Jesus. The life that flows out of Union with Christ.
Who is “playing cute with gospel language”?
Alan, bud….
“Since you can’t argue with them honestly, practically, or Biblically, the next move is to delegitimize their ministries and put them outside of orthodoxy. That seems to be where we are now.”
Am I understanding you correctly that there is an effort to “delegitimize” JMac, and to place him outside Orthodoxy?
Or are you contending that’s what they’re doing?
The way you worded that I’m not sure?
Tarheel and Alan,
Alan’s exact words:
“Since you can’t argue with them honestly, practically, or Biblically, the next move is to delegitimize their ministries and put them outside of orthodoxy. That seems to be where we are now.”
Its not what “they’re doing”, its what, according to Alan, “where WE are now.”
By using the pronoun “we”, he is including himself.
Also, Alan said:
” It seems that is because they want to be considered to be defenders of the gospel while also defending the political/social status quo and those admitting there are problems that need addressing are a threat to that. Since you can’t argue with them honestly, practically, or Biblically, ”
The problem I see is that no one is actualy engaging in a dialogue with ‘them’ either practically or Biblically.
basically its: “You’re wong so repent.”
Alan, please direct me to references that back up your words and I will be glad to engage with them.
Also, Alan said:
” It seems that is because they want to be considered to be defenders of the gospel while also defending the political/social status quo and those admitting there are problems that need addressing are a threat to that. Since you can’t argue with them honestly, practically, or Biblically, ”
You cant solve sin problems with good works.
To seek to solve sin problems, like racism and oppression of women and human trafficking or whatever, by good works IS a threat to the purity of the Gospel.
That doesnt mean that as Christians, we shoudnt seek to aid those affected by sin problems, like minorities and immigrants, but our good works [including our good words] will not bring social justice to the afflicted.
Thus the idea of social justice is a false one. It doesnt work and it wont work. It wont bring justice. It wont stop injustice. But it coud make people think that by doing the good things promoted taht they are right with God.
That is the defacto religion in America: by doing more good than bad God will accept me into heaven. Certainly that seems to be the religious creed of the mainline churches. It also seems to be the creed of the non church going people I have met. And i wouldnt doubt that it is the creed of many of our own in the SBC. Maybe they don’t proclaim the Gospel because they really dont believe it.
So only half show up for church on Sundays because what God wants is whatever they say He wants. And they believe that He doesnt want them to be ‘too’ inconvenienced but only somewaht inconvenienced, and to treat people right as lng as they treat us right first].
And that is why the Gospel proclaimed, with its declaration of the sinfulness of man, and the need for surrender to the Lordship of Jesus is the only means to transform lives, and the only means to treat the sin problem in our communities.
At best our attempts at ‘social justice’ are bandaidsand never stop injustice or bring justice to a community.
As long as I’m complaining:
1. Hate the “load more comments”
2. Hate the “view replies”