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… Read more »
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…”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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)… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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 &… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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 –… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
As long as I’m complaining:
1. Hate the “load more comments”
2. Hate the “view replies”