This article originally appeared at Ryan Burton King’s website and is crossposted here with permission. We’re thankful for Ryan’s thorough and strong response to the statement released yesterday.
Throughout history, Christians have banded together to examine and respond to various crises, real or perceived. Creeds from the days of the Church Fathers, and confessions from the time of the Reformation are joined by petitions and tracts from the Puritan era into our own, local church confessions, associational, conventional, and denominational resolutions, and parachurch statements from a variety of pastors, scholars, and concerned parties: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood(1987), and the Nashville Statement among the main ones representing conservative evangelical Christian belief derived from the pages of Scripture. Now a new statement is live and being circulated for signatures, but this is one that I would rather history forgot.
Purporting to address an alleged shift in evangelical circles away from the biblical gospel towards a false social gospel, the new Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel is driven by people I would like to believe are well-meaning but frankly not at all “getting” what those whom it primarily addresses are saying. That is at best. At worst, it represents a toxic agenda to discredit and undermine godly men and women crying out for biblical social justice, national and ecclesiastical repentance, and meaningful reconciliation. I certainly hope that this statement will not become a litmus test for orthodoxy, as if those who don’t sign it should be written off as “not sound”. If so the people implicated would include (barring the unlikely event one of them were to sign): Danny Akin, Thabiti Anyabwile, Matt Chandler, H. B. Charles, Charlie Dates, Ligon Duncan, Mika Edmondson, Carl and Karen Ellis, Steve Gaines, Philip and Jasmine Holmes, Eric Mason, Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, Trillia Newbell, Preston and Jackie Hill Perry, John Piper, David Platt, Kevin Smith, Robert Smith, Walter Strickland, Ralph Douglas West, and so on and so forth. These are names of people off the top of my head listed alphabetically, all of whom have spoken out on abiding racial sin in America and its churches this year and many previous years. In their number are the very people the statement erroneously has in view as in some way abandoning the gospel for a social gospel. An examination of their ministries, their sermons, writings, music, and so forth should decisively demonstrate their Christo-centric, gospel ministries and serve as the context within which, the backdrop against which, the lens through which their (in my estimation very helpful and necessary) contributions should be understood.
Others will doubtless speak out on various part of the statement that concern them – and I may be inclined to later add their contributions as a post-script at the bottom of this post. For now though, here are some by no means exhaustive points on my behalf. I wrote and sent these by email several weeks ago, after receiving a draft of the statement with the request that I sign. I could not in good conscience sign then, and despite areas where the statement has been tweaked and in one instance substantially revised (revisions that I have taken into account to amend my response), I will not now. The statement remains in my view a cynical, misguided document that has been pitched by the wrong people, at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and with wrong ideas and understandings in the background.
A response to points in the Social Justice and Gospel statement
1. We deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching.
True enough, but these terms have been weaponised against godly men and women who are simply seeking justice and reconciliation. The godly men that the preamble says “we have long regarded as faithful and trustworthy spiritual guides.”
3. We affirm that societies at times must establish laws that correct injustices that have been imposed through cultural prejudice.
I am glad to hear it, but… establishing laws is not enough. Implementing those laws and their implications across the states of the nation and its structures and systems is very important. Unfortunately some of the people involved in this statement have indicated their belief that America’s systemic racism problem ended in 1968 as though the mere introduction of a law is enough to undo centuries of white against black racial prejudice. Also, when people discuss ways in which existing laws ought to be implemented and the damage of the past undone, some of the people involved in this statement have leapt to exclaim “Cultural Marxism!”, “Critical Race Theory!”, “All Lives Matter!” and similar.
We deny that true justice can be culturally defined or that standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture. We further deny that Christians can live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standards of righteousness.
I agree. The problem again is how in practice some people who are here saying we should not impose or operate on merely socially constructed standards of justice have spoken against biblically derived efforts to reform justice at a social level. If their fire were reserved for mainstream theologically liberal churches in America I would have less of an issue, but the context of this statement is, as made clear in the preamble, faithful and trustworthy spiritual guides who are and been for some time standing up and speaking out. They are finally being noticed, leading especially months of unfair critique of the MLK50 conference and a couple of messages at T4G. At these conferences, theologically conservative brothers from a range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds prophetically and practically addressed one of the most abiding sins of the nation and how for centuries it has infected churches across the USA. They did not present “merely socially constructed standards of justice”, but stood on the basis of the authority of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ. They were written off and decried, again by some of the very people involved in this statement.
4. We affirm that God’s law, as summarized in the ten commandments, more succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, is the only standard of unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.
Yes, but the problem with reducing God’s law to its summaries is it misses the sermons. The prophets expounded the Law, particularly concerned with addressing the injustices that permeated their and other societies. Jesus expounded the Law, exposing the injustice run riot in the power structures and people of the Jewish nation. Historically, and doubtless still in the present, racists (especially of the white supremacist or nationalist variety) have taken comfort that there is no “Thou shalt not enslave/segregate/hate/mistreat/needlessly offend black people” in the Ten Commandments. They have also distorted Jesus’ command to “Love your neighbour” : as one Southern Sunday School teacher was recently quoted in the press as saying, he meant “Love your American neighbour.” If the summaries were sufficient, we wouldn’t have all of the writings around them, and we wouldn’t need to preach expositions of them.
We deny that any obligation that does not arise from God’s commandments can be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living. We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or necessity of repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.
I fear slave-holders, segregationists, white supremacists and white nationalists of today could say exactly the same, again because they reduced/reduce the law to its summaries and think “I’m not a murderer” all while hating their brothers and treating them angrily for the colour of their skin. The last sentence sounds good but is a sentiment that has been weaponised against brothers biblically seeking justice and reconciliation in our society. The Calvinists among the signatories will have no problem affirming that people are totally/radically depraved, with every aspect of their being somehow tainted by sin and that from birth we have a nature inclined to sin. They would say that we are sinners not because we sin but we sin because we are sinners, and have been since birth, no commandment needing to have been clearly broken on our part. And yet here is a phrase that has been and doubtless will still be used to shelter people from the charges that their sinful nature is shown in prejudiced, xenophobic, and racist perceptions, attitudes, and actions. A black man says “I’m offended by the Confederate flag, and what it represents” and the response is “There’s nothing sinful about flying a flag”, ignoring a host of heart, congregational, pastoral, personal, and missional issues derived from Scripture. The furore at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in 2016 is a case in point. A resolution against the Confederate flag was finally (after embarrassing and prolonged deliberations) passed, to be met with online hot takes from professing Christian people defending the flag as though it were the gospel. Why? They heard charges made and didn’t believe they arised from a violation of God’s commandments so felt justified in their foolishness.
5. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.
I am pleased to hear they believe this. The language of many of the critics of the racial reconciliation movement and social justice has sometimes denied this. Indeed, I have heard people say “Individuals are sinful/racist, not systems”. They make such assertions based on sound bites from the ministries of some of the signatories of this document.
We deny that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin.
Agreed, people are not morally culpable for another person’s sin but due to the federal relationship of all humans with one another in Adam, and the resulting collective, societal, structural link we have one with another what one person is morally culpable for may have meaningful consequences for others. For example, when the British government abolished slavery in 1833, they used £20 million pounds, 40% of the national budget, to buy the freedom of slaves throughout the empire (of course, this money went to the slave-holders not to the slaves which exhibits sinful mankind’s unflagging ability to include injustice in the exercise of justice). British tax-payers only stopped paying off the debts incurred by this transaction in 2015.
Although families, groups, and nations can collectively sin, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins
I am pleased they admit this. I have been told by devotees of James White that there is no collective sin, only individual sin. It beggars belief, as it is so contrary to Scripture!
subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.
Yes, so long as such a thing as collective guilt is granted (again, it has been denied quite forcefully to me) and the insidious, subtle ways in which people approve, embrace, and attempt to justify those sins is recognised, owned, and repented of (without the disrespect, disingenuity, deflection, and at times out right dishonesty of some of social justice’s critics represented here). I would rather people veer away from “that’s not my sin problem” toward more invasive self-examination and radical repentance.
6. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.
I get what is being said here, but Jesus is the good news, and in Jesus is righteousness, purity, faithfulness, love and so forth. A critical part of the gospel missing from their brief explanation is union with Christ and the work of the Spirit to make us like Christ – if these things are not present then we are not saved and we do not possess good news. While the word “saved” is used, the justification, sanctification, and glorification aspects of this crucial gospel word are not at all unpacked and it would seem that as with the law earlier, the understanding of gospel is unhelpfully reductionist – focussed simply on salvation “from” the bad works of sin and their consequences but no reference regarding salvation “to” the good works of Christ as per Ephesians 2:10. Good works are not definitional of the gospel, but they are demonstrable of the gospel, and this is the last thing we need to be watering down now.
8. We affirm that when the primacy of the gospel is maintained that this often has a positive effect on the culture in which various societal ills are mollified.
Yes and no. Read any history book. The primacy of the gospel was maintained in theory by the Reformers, but not in practice: the at times violent and murderous persecution of peaceful baptistic believers they commonly but falsely called Anabaptists is a case in point. The primacy of the gospel was maintained in theory by the Puritans, many of whom were led astray into wickedly enslaving black men and women. The primacy of the gospel was in theory maintained across Bible-belt Southern USA where people died fighting to keep their slaves, and spent a century oppressing and segregating them once freed. I believe the gospel, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, not an atheist sceptic but what on Earth was that all about? And please do not with the Southern gentleman of the 1850s argue that slavery was a more positive life for the slaves than what they would have had otherwise. Tragically today, people who do believe in the primacy of the gospel and are applying its implications to real everyday life are being maligned as embracing a false social gospel, while the real enemies (including real adherents to the social gospel) go ignored.
We deny that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church.
Agreed, but it may very well be an integral component of the ministry of love and compassion given to the church. My Bible does not only tell me of a “Great Commission”, but a “Great Commandment”, and acting like our focus on the former can excuse our horrific inattention to the latter would doubtless raise Christ’s righteous indignation. The scribes and Pharisees preached the Law, but they didn’t have love for their fellow man. “Woe to you”, Jesus cried.
The draft I first received continued:
Believers can and should utilize the means, such as voting, that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, but we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ.
My response to this:
Nor is not voting, or voting differently evidence of lack of saving faith, as has been insinuated and even stated by some in the circles represented by this statement. Also, voting is not the only means to have some effect on the laws of a democratic society. Marching, picketing, sit-ins, and so forth are all valid as well in the fight against injustice in an allegedly free society (a far cry from imperial Rome) and not sinfully angry, counter-gospel behaviours as claimed by people particularly in MacArthur’s circle in recent days. The statement has been amended to say:
Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head.
I suppose the addition of the important word “central” toward the end leaves room for scenarios like when MacArthur used his platform to talk about why he was not voting for Trump when in fact, equivocal semantics aside, he was.
We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.
No one that I have read or listened to is saying that they do. But they are saying laws and regulations need to be made and enforced anyway, because that is how God has designed things.
9. We deny that the charge of heresy can legitimately be brought against every failure to achieve perfect conformity to all that is implied in sincere faith in the gospel is heresy.
Heresy is an overused word in some circles. But it is not overused with reference to racism and its underpinnings. This really is where the mask of this statement well and truly falls off, and once again we see the ugly monster of self-righteous, unconfessional, nonrepentant deflection. Racism is not only hateful – it is heretical. It is not only bigotry – it is blasphemy. Ligon Duncan has said it well: “Anti-racism is not the Gospel, but the Gospel is anti-racism, and racism is anti-Gospel, hence heresy of the deepest dye” (Defending the Faith; Denying the Image – 19th Century AmericanConfessional Calvinism in Faithfulness and Failure). Perhaps read literature that further demonstrates this – I would also recommend “The Heresy of Racial Superiority: Confronting the Past and Confronting the Truth” by Dr. Albert Mohler and “Frederick Douglass: America’s Prophet”, a spiritual/theological biography by D. H. Dilbeck as introductions to this quite biblical idea. Really I cannot fathom why anyone would deny the heresy of this wickedness, which is precisely the subtext going on here.
10-11 are on Sexuality and Marriage, and Complementarianism
I agree with the points made but this is a bizarre conflation of racial reconciliation and biblical pursuit of social justice being promoted in Christian circles with a wholly separate and quite dangerous cultural shift on matters of human sexuality. Matters of skin and sin are totally separate and the insertion of an important but bit of a pet theme for conservative evangelicals into a document critiquing the social justice and racial reconciliation movement in the church shows that the point has been completely missed. What hath MLK50 to do with Revoice? My black brothers and sisters would look at them and for the most part probably say “Nothing.”
12. We deny that Christians should segregate themselves into racial groups or regard racial identity above, or even equal to, their identity with Christ.
Indeed, but there are as stated different ethnic groups and nationalities. In the US context where everyone’s heritage – except First Nations’ – involve people who either left their nation or were stolen from it, colour has historically till today been more important than national origin. Unfortunately, at least some of those involved in this statement have used the idea stated to support the privileged false narrative of people who may suffer but not for the colour of their skin: the idea of “colour-blindness”. Furthermore, they have unhelpfully critiqued the messages of faithful brothers who insist that Sunday morning still hosts “the most segregated hour in America”, and have been quite vocal in arguing against the importance and pursuit of biblically multi-ethnic churches.
We deny that any divisions between people groups (including everything from an attitude of superiority to a spirit of resentment) have any legitimate place in the fellowship of the redeemed.
Indeed, but sadly the focus in white majority circles is on criticising the perceived resentment of black brothers and sisters, instead of rooting out the causes of that resentment – attitudes of white superiority in church and state.
The original draft went on to read:
We further reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as entitled victims of oppression. We further deny that one person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice.
To which I replied:
But what if they have been oppressed? What if they are victims? What if there is a wealth of statistical, anecdotal, experiential, photographic, and recorded evidence to prove it? When white men like Matt Chandler and David Platt tried to sprinkle such evidence into recent sermons, they were lambasted as more like Marx than Moses, followers of James Cone not Jesus Christ. I wonder if this is the first confessional example of gaslighting (look it up)? May God have mercy!
Whether in response to my protestations or not, this section has been reworked to appear much more even handed:
We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep, we deny that a person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice.
Better, perhaps, but based on the writings and clear agenda of some of the initial signatories, I fear the draft version more accurately represents the spirit of the document, and certainly the way it will be used. Also, better is not best. Red scare paranoia seems to have blinded people to the brutal oppressor/oppressed reality of America’s racial history and its ripple waves – the aftershocks of a mere few decades ago that continue to have serious implications for the present.
14. We affirm that virtually all cultures, including our own, at times contain laws and systems that foster racist attitudes and policies.
True enough, working with the broad definition of racism that encapsulates all ethnically-oriented prejudice. Problem is, the authors here don’t live in “all cultures”, making such a statement far too easy to use as a deflective device against honest evaluation of racism’s foremost expression in their culture. This is the equivalent of an “Everyone’s a sinner, we all fall short” response when the pastor calls out a particular sin on Sunday morning. Sadly in their own number are people who deny or at best sit on the fence with regard to the real racial shift in the nation – not as many paranoidly fear towards black nationalism but white nationalism and indeed supremacy.
This leads into a series of denials that have mercifully been reworked. To provide context for my misgivings with the document as it is, I must include the original.
We deny that today’s evangelicals as a group have failed to condemn partiality and prejudice toward various ethnicities; much less have they callously and collectively practiced those sins. We deny that systemic racism is endemic in evangelical churches.
For people who normally have tended away from collectivism to individualism, how convenient that they can now look at evangelicals “as a group”, as though they can take in the height, width, and depth of professed evangelicals and accurately make an informed statement. It’s also interesting from people who have made highlighting unregenerate church membership and unrepentant but tolerated sin in churches a major theme in ministry. That may be beside the point though… Is it enough to condemn once, or should we not ever be condemning partiality and prejudice as people drift, as new generations are born, as blowing cultural winds threaten to reverse or accelerate for the worse? And if endemic, systemic racism is not a problem, why is Sunday morning still scene to the most segregated hour in America? Why are pastoral staffs, seminary professors, conference speakers, committees, and so forth disproportionately white in environments that are far more diverse? Why, when a black man is invited to preach in “white spaces”, has it often tended to be one of two people – leaving some of the black brothers and sisters I serve with the impression that there aren’t many sound black preachers? Why has Africa been scrubbed from our ecclesiastical historical memory? As though there were no Simon of Cyrene and his sons, no Ethiopian eunuch, no Simon the black man in leadership at Antioch – where the disciples were first called Christians! Why does nobody know pre-Arab invasion North Africa was a stronghold of Christianity, that Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, and plenty others were African men? That Luther was drawn to the Ethiopian church, and inspired by a black man – Michael the Deacon? I could go on, but I wonder if anyone is listening, because godlier, better-known men than me have said these things and so much more only to be railed against. Those who want to learn more can watch the MLK50 conference for a start.
This has wisely been scrapped. In its place is
We deny that the contemporary evangelical movement has any deliberate agenda to elevate one ethnic group and subjugate another.
It should, though, be noted that I saw who signed the statement with the initial, highly problematic remarks intact. They know who they are, and my response stands as testimony against any lingering heart-agreement with the draft.
And we emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture; historically such an inversion of priorities has tended to lead to departures from the gospel.
It has been common to describe any sermon or biblical address with practical application to America’s racial ills as a “lecture”, a word most often said charged with negative meaning. In any case, none of the people who have been most targeted by some of those involved in this statement are replacing preaching with lectures or evangelism with activism. They are, in light of so much biblical teaching, seeking to redress the balance from preaching and telling the needy and oppressed “be warmed and filled”, to preaching and giving the needy the compassion and help they require. This does not lead to a departure from the gospel (examine the lives and ministries of William Carey and Charles Spurgeon for example) but leads to a demonstration of gospel-transformed love in the life of the church that further adorns the gospel tree with branches laden with good fruit.
Reading this statement was a bit of a sad experience for me. The addendum also. Why? A few reasons.
It links this quite problematic statement with two other imperfect but good statements, Danvers and Nashville, that speak to real issues of our time and churches. I hope putting this statement alongside those statements will not be used to discredit the biblical truths therein. Sadly I think it is more likely that Danvers and Nashville will be seen to give this statement credibility, and the real losers here will not be these statements and what they represent, but our black brothers and sisters and their allies in the fight for racial reconciliation – once again set back by the white majority culture’s denial and deflection.
Then I read the initial and early signatories. Some of them I know. Some of them I consider friends. One of them I have known since I was three years old, went to the same church with, and was shaped in my approach to preaching in ways I probably do not fully appreciate or realise. A reminder to me, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).
Others I am not as fond of – initial signatories include
- the man who recently disparaged what he called “the angry civil rights movement” of the 1960s
- the apologist who has spent absurd amounts of time critiquing what he perceives to be mission drift by social justice advocates not at all seeing the irony in his own mission drift
- the entrepreneur and conservative social activist who ranted to me about an Islamic invasion of London engineered by George Soros, lectured me on my naivety in have a gospel-centred compassionate approach to Muslim refugees, and when asked when he last shared the gospel with a Muslim told me about a conversation he had with a cab driver about Donald Trump. While he was busy writing these things to me, I was busy actually doing real evangelism on the street and met a Muslim refugee who has since trusted Christ, been baptised, and is a faithful member of the church.
I do not know what the critics of social justice want – surely not social injustice? I do not understand why Christians would push back against those of us who long for racial reconciliation in America’s fractured society and churches – would they rather persist in racial division? Why, at a time when
- nationally and globally, alt-Right to far-Right, white nationalist to white supremacist movements are on the rise
- pastors are still getting fired for trying to reach black communities
- churches are being disfellowshipped from associations and conventions for congregation-wide anti-black racism
- black brothers and sisters are saying they are not so sure reconciliation with white brothers and sisters is practically possible since they often don’t feel welcomed and loved
- Those evangelicals who voted in the presidential election did so overwhelmingly for the most all-around unpleasant and distasteful president in America’s modern history, who routinely and crassly denigrates human life, especially that of foreigners
- the list could go on…
Why, given the above, is this the statement that people think we need? Great damage is being done. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. May God have mercy!
Though I’m tired – and don’t intend to comment on this matter endlessly – God helping me I will continue to seek the peace of my city, to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with my God. With the Spirit’s help I will continue to listen and continue to learn, so that my heart will not grow hard and cold to those who suffer, and I will seek to order my life by both the great commandment and the great commission, leading my church to do likewise till I am disabled, die, or Christ comes again.
PS: For anyone still wondering what social justice is, exactly, Joe Carter’s article at TGC is probably the best summary I’ve seen: The FAQs: What Christians Should Know About Social Justice. Also, a must read from Carl Ellis Jr.: Biblical Righteousness Is a Four-Paned Window.
- Ryan Burton King is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church Wood Green (gracebaptistchurch.org.uk), team-leader of Grace Baptists in Europe, Central District Secretary – Association of Grace Baptist Churches SE, and local community worker. You can connect with Ryan on Facebook (ryanburton.king) or Twitter (@RyanBurtonKing).
I’m really thankful for Ryan King taking the time to respond to this statement – and allowing us to crosspost. It’s a conversation that indirectly and, in some ways, directly affects Southern Baptists, so we felt it was well worth your time to read and consider, and it reflects well the views that many of us at SBC Voices share.
Please comment with a goal of healthy dialogue.
Breaking my comment rule, but i was told by a JMac disciple yesterday that I was liberal and a blot on the name of Christ because I wouldn’t sign this doc.
That is how toxic many of these folks have become. Bow the knee or be anathematized.
The sad fact here is that those who wrote the doc preach the gospel and those they accuse ALSO preach the gospel.
Turning friends and brethren into enemies of the gospel is wrong and has to stop.
Most of the JMac accusations are false accusations and they should stop.
So it’s only the “Jmac side” who does those things??
Dave C: You are starting to get on my last nerve. You are on my last nerve. The worst annoying comes to mind.
Debbie, please keep comments substantive. Whether or not Dave Cline is annoying is not the issue. What did he say that annoyed you and why?
We try to keep discussion on a RATIONAL level, though obviously we often fail.
There seems to be a lot of tension here. People (not just Debbie – this is general) need to take a deep breath and either walk away or comment without the angst.
“So it’s only the “Jmac side” who does those things??”
Questions and those like it divert completely from the important parts of this conversation, such as why Social Justice is the opposite of what the signed statement says it is. It is a question that is asked everytime we have this conversation. It’s not a serious question because Dave C knows the answer. It is a diversion. Again. We need this conversation. We need to have it. Diversions are frustrating. I would like to see Dave Cline reread this post. It is that good.
And why are those who wrote and signed this statement so bent on stopping those who do practice Social Justice and those that are practicing it are making changes for the better. Why is that “unbiblical” in the eyes of those who believe in the written statement.
It’s not a diversion. It’s a rhetorical question – consider or dismiss it if you will – but don’t accuse me of having not read the document or being against justice as such actually illustrates the point of the rhetorical query.
In fact, Debbie – What you’re conveying here
(As well as in your comment also on this thread that “anyone who agrees with or signs this document is an enemy”) is *exactly* what Dave decries in the comment above – that being That everyone *must* ascribe hook, line and sinker to your definitions and your applications… else they be one who opposes the right and the good – and to use your very words… an enemy.
Like I said both “sides” wrongly anathamatize. I strongly contend that it’s not healthy for either side to do so.
Bingo Dave Cline! The “Jmac” side or was demonized before the statement even dropped. The “SJW” side was demonized before they even got to clarify themselves and whether they were for or against things accused quickly.
I think both of these factions have aims that Christ and His love rule the world, but very different ways of talking about that and the language is definitely becoming a barrier.
Then truly divisive small elements – let’s call them “Alt-Somethings” and “Alinskyish somethings” – seize on these differences in language and foment division.
As the writer said – and I do not agree with him and have signed the statement myself – God help us.
James
God help us with what James Ellis? Obviously you do not want Social Justice by Christians to be done, so God help us with what exactly? To be honest the fact that you say this after the way the author of the post used it, bothers me a lot.
And you know that how, Debbie Kaufman? And from what evidence? I want justice for ALL. I want Christians to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Perhaps I don’t subscribe to everyone’s particular notion of what might be just or unjust, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want justice to be done by Christians.
God help us. Help us trust Him. Help us do His will on earth as it is done in heaven.
I’d suspect you and I want many of the same things but have different ways of speaking of it and asking for it from our fellow believers and society as a whole. I’ve met many far right folks and most of my friends lean left or are far left and at the core, most want many things in common. At the very fringe you have folks who aren’t willing to reconcile anything with anyone and everyone who doesn’t see any issue just as they do is persona non grata.
That doesn’t help. Though I signed the statement as a believer and churchman, I can appreciate those who’ve held off or won’t. I’m not gonna vilify them or excoriate them for having a different approach than me to this statement.
I repeat, with no ill intent to bother anyone – God help us. As a denomination, we need conversations and and clarifications. Perhaps this statement can avail some of that. We shall see, and God help us love one another in the mean time.
Dave Cline: If you will read my comment, that is not what I am saying. If someone has a problem with social justice, do nothing. Don’t say anything. That is probably more in line with what I am saying. You can disagree, but to write things like the document referred to in this post, that is enemies talking. And they don’t even tell the truth in this document. That certainly is not a friend. That is people who want to destroy. They are wrongly anathematizing. Not me. I am condemning the unnecessary drama that MacArthur and his supporters bring to this. BTW does it bother you that James Ellis who signed the document is amening you?
And why would you want to stop the good being done here in the name of Jesus. Someone said that it is the natural result of having Christ in us. I agree. It is what has been taught by James White and John MacArthur, that somebody mentioned, good works flow from the heart change of Christ. Why would you want to stop that? That is beyond my realm of thinking. And this Social Justice/Gospel document is horrible. Yet you have never mentioned that one way or another which causes me to think you have not read this article at all. Or not all of it.
I count at least six comments below that demand a definition of social justice or accuse those targeted by the statement of being unwilling to define it. Please note this quote from the OP:
Thanks Brent,
I disagree with Joe. I respect him, certainly think him to be a gospel loving individual… but I disagree With him and his analysis on this issue.
The truth is that the term “social justice” is based in and comes from its longstanding roots in liberation and liberal theology.
I still contend it is a very reasonable concern/objection many of us have …..that such an historically commonly understood and gospel antithetical term is conveyed as a gospel issue by Gospel loving evangelicals.
So am I understanding you correctly that your sole objection is to the use of a term? That the historical use of the phrase “Social Justice” by left-leaning progressives precludes its use and (re)definition by conservative evangelicals?
That’s part of it.
There are other objections as to process (not principle) that we’ve discussed numerous times.
For example – in political realm – We agree that racist discrimination still exists today and that it is always wrong – we disagree that affirmative action (I believe it’s just another form of somewhat more palatable discrimination) is a good and just solution to the problem.
As to the gospel – I do not believe that anything outside of the actual gospel is rightly labeled a “gospel issue.” I think, instead, teaching and admonition toward justice and treating others as neighbors and loving them (the second greatest commandment) is a discipleship/sanctification issue. (I realize this is another issue with nomenclature)
I’m also not sure we can or should separate Christian unity from theology and morality.
I understand that everyone has warts and imperfect people can do good things… I Have mentioned many times about Martin Luther King Junior… Being an adulterous man with suspect orthodoxy he still accomplished a very good work with leading the peaceful and important aspects of the civil rights movement… But when A conference by leading evangelicals (headlined by our very own ERLC) celebrates his accomplishments while absolutely down playing and even defending known theological and moral issues creates great concern in my mind… If we don’t clearly say That we do not accept the theology/morality of an individual but recognize certain good works… We run the risk of sending the message that we embrace the theology and are willing to look the other way in morality.
We Rightly admonish Christians who look the other way (and even defend) with regard to the morality of an occupant of the White House… I also think that we should admonish the looking the other way with regard to the morality and theology of civil rights leaders.
I agree with you that litmus tests are not good ways to interact with brothers and sisters.
I hope that the position poiseted in this article isn’t viewed as a litmus test for “soundness”.
I think that’s my major fear: your signature, or lack thereof, will be used to group you into one of two camps that are supposedly “opposed” to one another. Each side stakes out the view that they hold “Biblical orthodoxy” and therefore, if you’re not with them by visible declaration (and watch, a counter statement will show up soon), then you must be an enemy not only of their position but of the Gospel itself.
I’m for Biblical fidelity and for living out the implications of the Gospel in my own life and striving to see the Father’s will be done on earth as it in heaven, whatever that may mean.
Agreed completely, Doug.
It’s not at all uncommon for “both sides” to anathamtize others. It happens way too much.
And in all honesty, that is how I would view those who did sign. I would view them as the enemy so to speak. I would view that as being against it. I feel so strongly that this needs to not be signed with no hesitation. Especially in light of MacArthur’s scathing and inaccurate posts of late.
Annnddddd……there ya have it.
Hey, I am being honest Dave C. We really should have sat down and had a conversation in Dallas. I don’t know why I didn’t. But we should have.
It begins in the title, “For the sake of Christ and His Church.” which how could one argue with that? That is like arguing with the Bible right? Well, of course I could be the one to argue with that as this is not from the Bible. But it is meant to come across as if it is. This is where discernment is a must and I too am thankful for this post. I am answering from my phone so forgive any typos. Or don’t. 🙂
I rescend this statement. Eric Atcheson did write things unbecoming a minister. I give those against Social Justice that.
Alan Atchison?
Was his name Alan or Eric? His tweet was rather raunchy. James White of who is opposite me on this issue pointed it out.
Could be wrong, but I don’t believe Alan is a minister
I looked it up. Debbie has this right – It’s Eric and he has Rev In his twitter handle.
Debbie,
And you call the trad’s closed minded……..
Benn: They are closed minded. I don’t want them to be enemies but they are so bent on destruction even to the point of making things up that they see those of us who do believe in Social Justice as the enemy. Anyone who will believe they can do whatever they want to stop Social Justice is certainly not my friend. Friends don’t destroy me. And at the risk of being called holier than thou, I would never do or condone ends justifies the means.
And I am tooting my own horn here but that’s ok with me, if I were close minded I certainly wouldn’t say that Eric Atcheson said anything wrong in his tweet, but he did. Using the language he did is wrong on many levels even though in principle he agrees with us.
I wouldn’t sign any of the statements mentioned in this article.
I made a statement of a statement James White made on a pastor who spoke out against this statement. This pastor used words that no Christian should use.
The real problem as I see it is that so much of the social justice movement as practiced by many modern Christians often seems indistinguishable from the Social Gospel movement of the early 20th Century as prescribed by Walter Rauschenbusch et al.
How many of you refusing to sign the so called Dallas Statement would be willing to sign a statement that point by point condemns the heresies of Social Gospel?
Should not true ministers of the gospel be more than willing to be transparent with the flock and let them know where they stand? If not, then you have no right to protest having a cloud of suspicion hanging over your heads. Doctrinal error loves to hide behind ambiguity; the wolf prefers to be mistaken for a sheep when amongst them.
I’ve not seen anyone involved in this discussion hesitate to condemn the social gospel. In fact, several of the linked articles in this post do exactly that. That is a false charge and bearing false witness.
Please post in the future using your real name, first and last.
Tandt,
An SBC pastor should not be required to confirm any other document other than the BFM. Why should they?
Woody
Hmmm…but some among our seminaries thought it essential to affirm various sundry of the self-aggrandizing statements to supplement the BFM. Not sure if faculty are required to do the same. Pandora’s box.
I think anyone should be transparent in what they believe. But I object to people drafting statements and demanding people sign them “or else”. If people are willing to jump on the bandwagon without coercion, well and good, as long as they aren’t denigrating those who refused to jump with them.
This is a giant red herring and shows that there is a lack of listening on the anti-SJ side. Virtually every person that is pro-social justice in the TGC / T4G / SBC (the prime targets here) has unequivocally condemned the social gospel already.
I would easily agree that the social Gospel and social justice are distinct.
On can believe that the Gospel is as defined by Paul in First Corinthians.
But I have heard many SJ proposals say if you don’t agree with SJ, you preach a truncated Gospel. That means the Gospel you preach is lacking. So they are seeking to add SJ to the Gospel in some way.
All SJs may not say this, however.
Louis, I think what people mean by “truncated gospel” is really the same thing that JMac meant when he wrote “The Gospel According to Jesus” in response to the antinomian gospel that was coming from some sections of DTS at the time. JMac argued that the true gospel will lead to good works – though the gospel is not gained through good works. Likewise, those using the term “truncated gospel” are not saying that the gospel is gained through social justice, but that justice is a natural and integral consequence of the gospel (the “good works” that JMac would say flow from the gospel). They are actually using JMac’s own argument, but for some reason JMac and the rest exclude social justice issues from “the works accompanying repentance.” It seems to be a really odd position for him to take unless he’s repudiating his own book. It also seems to be an odd position for the SBC reformed groups to sign off on given that (as the blog article referenced here points out) many have built their ministries around the idea of regenerate church membership – which they indicate is evidenced in…the fruit of repentance. Is working toward justice in the public sphere not an evidence of the fruit of repentance just like…church attendance, tithing, etc.?
Your explanation is better. They are linguistically challenged.
“but for some reason JMac and the rest exclude social justice issues from “the works accompanying repentance.”
Speaking of a false charge and bearing false witness…..that’s exactly NOT what is being done. The objections to SJ are founded in its proponents argument (made here on voices, actually) that without aspects of social justice – the gospel is not being fully presented (gospel issue). I (as I can only speak for myself and certainly wouldn’t try to put words in JMacs mouth) reject the SJ gospel issue argumentation exactly because I believe working toward SJ to be a discipleship/sanctification issue and not a justification issue.
To me when someone says that something is a gospel issue they are conveying that it must be part of the gospel proclamation…THEREFORE I disagree with the notion of any social issues being gospel issues.
Justice on earth cannot happen apart from laws – and laws don’t change hearts – only the gospel does that. We can and should favor laws that are just – but having just laws Isn’t the power of God unto salvation… That is only… The gospel.
Desire for biblical justice a result of the gospel taking root in ones life? Yes. essential to the gospel itself – nope.
(And even within that principle desire we will still have varying consciences and some will favor some processes over others)
“Is working toward justice in the public sphere not an evidence of the fruit of repentance just like…church attendance, tithing, etc.?”
Sure…. like I said it’s a sanctification/discipleship issue not a salvation (gospel) issue. Unless, of course, you’re wanting to argue that church attendance and tithing are salvific.
This is why I think there is another reason to the writing and signing. Doug Wilson signed it of course and his writings on slavery are simply horrible.
It certainly shoudnt be used as a litmus test.
One way or the other.
Blind lead the blind thinking they can see.
Just an observation, I think, worth noting. Like many discussions where two passionate sides are arguing a point, it seems the two sides of this discussion may be talking past each other. It could be that before either sides start dishing out the anathemas, that someone define “social justice” as they are using the term. Like Inigo Montoya, you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it does.
Editor: an entire article was offered defining the term and giving its history. See this comment: https://sbcvoices.com/why-i-cannot-and-will-not-sign-the-social-justice-and-the-gospel-statement-by-ryan-burton-king/#comment-365559
I agree John… The historic and commonly understood usage of the words “social justice” Seems different than the way some people are trying to use it today…Full and complete definition of what is meant by it would be helpful in the discussion.
Editor: an entire article was offered defining the term and giving its history. See this comment: https://sbcvoices.com/why-i-cannot-and-will-not-sign-the-social-justice-and-the-gospel-statement-by-ryan-burton-king/#comment-365559
Very wise.
Great statement.
Editor: an entire article was offered defining the term and giving its history. See this comment: https://sbcvoices.com/why-i-cannot-and-will-not-sign-the-social-justice-and-the-gospel-statement-by-ryan-burton-king/#comment-365559
It’s kinda like in the 70’s, when talk about what is art, and what it is pornografic,
I can’t explain it, but I know it when I see it..
if was hotly debated in Gwinnett county Georgia, in the 70’s at the Larry Flynt trial.
I was but a lad then…..
To define it ( social justice) today, and to come to an agreement on what it is, is akin to nailing jello to a wall….
Editor: an entire article was offered defining the term and giving its history. See this comment: https://sbcvoices.com/why-i-cannot-and-will-not-sign-the-social-justice-and-the-gospel-statement-by-ryan-burton-king/#comment-365559
I am not a big fan of statements. There’s no way that my feelings or the way I would say things can ever be captured.
But I believe the issues addressed in this statement need to be discussed more, not less.
As I read this response, I did not see that much actual disagreement with the statement, but qualifiers.
The statement is a response to many unwise things that have been said in recent years following the protests over certain incidents involving police shootings etc.
In my view, MacArthur and Co. are responding, not starting anything.
Frankly, I am sill at a loss for what a lot of the proponents of “social justice” want.
If it is the correction of the unequal treatment of people, count me in.
If it is treating people unequally on the basis that it needs to be done to correct statistical disparities caused by the sins of the past 1000 years, I cannot find scripture calling anyone to do that.
I listened to some of the speeches at the MLK50 meeting and am actually bewildered at some of the things that were said by men whom I admire. For example, to employ racism in hiring makes no sense to me. To employ attractional church models in a disingenuous way is not wise. To confuse statistical disparities with ongoing racial discrimination is not smart.
To accuse living “white” Christians of needing to apologize for the complicity of the parents and grandparents in the murder of MLK.
Finally, it really still torks this guy that so many people voted differently than he thinks they should.
If we can’t extend enough freedom in Christ to people in their voting choices, and still carry a grudge about it 2 years later, we have a real problem.
I recall a time when supporting Obama was nigh on a sign of apostasy.
Bill Mac- Obama was a political figure. Supporting him or not has nothing to do with theology. It does say something about your political position and social values. The same goes with Trump by the way 🙂
I am a conservative in politics and by nature. I was against the Moral Majority concept even though I agreed with most of its agenda. I was opposed to people of faith getting into politics in such a heavy handed manner. I felt then as I do now , that as a faithful SBC member who went to a church grounded on the Bible, did my Bible study and followed events coupled with my religious learning I would vote for the candidate that represented my beliefs and who I thought best to lead the nation as a political leader who I could support or at least live with as a Christian.
I still feel the same. This undercurrent that is bubbling up as evidence by the statement and this article high light the issue. Personally, I tend to agree with a lot of McArthur points but do not feel a statement is needed but I am not a leader or in the loop as many of those who authored the statement are. If I am against illegal aliens coming into the our country am I making a political decision or not following the teachings of the Bible and who is going to decide what is gospel and what is secular?
Again, my own personal opinion is that the majority of SBC members would agree and sign the statement. That to me is the disconnect between some of the leadership and a generational split that is becoming evident. This is what happens when proclaimations, reports, studies, polls and resoltions replace decisions based on reason and leading by teaching the Bible.
Luckily for the SBC, most SBC members trust their leaders and are unaware of this and many issues but it does foretell a deepening divide in the SBC .
I would like to see Christians stop even referring to race. There is one race: human. We have different ethnicities. I would like to see Christians of different ethnicites start to worship together. A lot of biases and misunderstandings would smooth out if that all happened. In my opinion using “social justice” in the way modern progressives do enhances our differences, rather than healing them.
That is not going to happen.
SJs are especially going to refer to race. That’s the point of SJ – to emphasize race more.
I’m not sure which side of this I fall on. But I would hope that the substantive arguments of both would be considered (and the emotional, shallow rhetoric dismissed). I think such cogent and articulate voices as “Initial Signers” Darrell B. Harrison (blogs at https://justthinking.me/ ) and Voddie Baucham–both are Black–make a case for a view that deserves serious consideration.
Ken, thanks for that link, it was well reasoned. Is there a concise counter point that anyone is aware of that would challenge Harrision views on this? , that is as concise and well written?
No. Harrison and his views will not be mentioned or discussed or perhaps acknowledged.
The SJ activity in SBC life quarantines the views of guys like Harrison.
It would be very interesting to have brothers from all perspectives at some of these SJ gatherings. That would produce a more informed people.
But if you go online and look at conferences, panel discussions, it is a one sided discussion.
The “How Not To Talk About Race” panel at MLK50 is an excellent example of a one sided presentation. And in my view it was a total opposite of I Corinthians 13, and loving others as we would love ourselves.
This panel is really worth watching.
Agreed….let the document rise or fall on its merits or lack of merit.
I personally sought to assess the document on its own merit, irrespective of initial signers as much as I could, and actually found it to be very good.
The affirmations and denials are sound in my view and articulate a fidelity to biblical teaching. In fact, specifically, I don’t think I saw anything in the text of the document that would run counter to other documents that have been agreed to by most of us regularly posting here on this blog.
Now whether we like or don’t like the signatories (or some of thier writings on issues) is a different story.
Speaking for myself. Let me be clear – again – I do not consider the vast majority (almost none in fact) of those with whom I’ve regularly bantered and discussed issues here to be heretics or enemies of the gospel. To be even more specific – I do not consider any of the members of the editorial team to be heretics or enemies of the gospel.
Obviously, there are disagreements and moments (sometimes long ones) of frustration with one another – these are highly emotional issues after all – but let us not forget that those who hold God breathed inerrant scripture to be the measure for all matters of faith and practice and believe that the embracing of the biblical gospel is the sole means of salvation – we are on the same team.
Concern over real or perceived trajectories of thought among our brothers and sisters (and denomination/evangelicalism) can and probably should be shared with one another – but does not have to end up in enmity and strife. All too often it does…and, of course, I know my tendency can be to engage in such when I find myself on an internet spat. We must do better. I must do better.
Good word Ken. I found the statement to be very good. And, I do think it is a needed statement at this time.
And I hope all arguments are considered, even those you consider shallow, rhetoric and emotional. Emotion has a lot to with Social Justice. You may want to dismiss it, but it is a substantial part of this argument. Emotion is why Social Justice is even done by believers in Christ . I still don’t understand why Voddie signed this document. This document is full of errors and untruth. This is more of a travesty than the above arguments you speak of dismissing Ken.
Debbie,
Specifically, please. What about the text of the document itself is “untrue and erroneous”?
I would say page one word one, to the end of the document, last word. The only thing I read as true, is the punctuation. The punctuation was correctly placed.
Read the post as the reasons line by line, paragraph by paragraph agree with my own thoughts aka “emotions” on this subject.
Debbie you said when I ask you specifically to point out But in the document is “false and erroneous”:
“I would say page one word one, to the end of the document, last word. The only thing I read as true, is the punctuation. The punctuation was correctly placed.”
So NOTHING is accurate in the text of the document? NOTHING!?
You don’t/can’t/won’t affirm, for example, the first affirmation regarding scripture?
“WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.”
Then you said:
“Read the post as the reasons line by line, paragraph by paragraph agree with my own thoughts aka “emotions” on this subject.”
Problem with that is ( as Dean Stewart aptly pointed out) the author of this post acknowledges that he Actually agrees with the text of the document… But objects to what he perceives as the agenda and some of the actions of some of the authors.
This discussion is useless. This is what we need:
1: A definition of Social Justice. How can people be for or against it if we don’t know what it is?
2: Specific examples of promoting or enacting social justice. Once we have those, we can then argue about whether they are good or bad for Christians. All this vague talk accomplishes nothing. I’m positive that we are all in favor of some things that people would consider social justice and against others. It is ridiculous to lump all SJ things together and then expect people to vote yea or nay on the whole package, especially when no one seems to know what SJ is in the first place.
Editor: an entire article was offered defining the term and giving its history. See this comment: https://sbcvoices.com/why-i-cannot-and-will-not-sign-the-social-justice-and-the-gospel-statement-by-ryan-burton-king/#comment-365559
I concur.
Bill Mac:
Spot on.
Do you agree that people who believe in SJ should explain what they mean, what remedies they are seeking, and whether they believe SJ is a necessary part of the Gospel such that if a person does not teach that, they are teaching a truncated Gospel?
I believe SJ opponents have been thorough in the statement.
Yes, if you are going to criticize people for not doing something you want them to do, you need to explain precisely what you want them to do, and why. (that includes signing “statements”)
Let’s take racial reconciliation for example. That’s a hugely broad and vague SJ concept. There are some activities that would fall within that category that I would affirm as being consistent with Christian life (like opposing racial discrimination) and others that I would not (reparations, for example). Like I’ve said in other threads, Social Justice is a continuum, like Gun Control. Everybody is for some of it, they just disagree how much.
Bill Mac:
Exactly.
1. If this article and others like it in response to the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel (SJ&G) are any indication there is a major divide (perhaps multiple divides) amongst evangelicals on this topic. I think that was obvious before but if there were any thoughts that perhaps greater clarity or unity had been achieved, they were put to rest with the publishing of the statement and subsequent responses. That should cause us some level of regret and longing for greater unity.
2. As I have come to learn from personal experience and from watching others, trying to engage even with other Christians with charity, love, grace, gentleness, patience, and the truth is difficult indeed. This issue in particular creates a unique opportunity for the flesh. As Christians, we must love our neighbor even when, perhaps especially when, we disagree. This will happen not by misrepresenting or avoiding the issues, but by interacting meaningfully and substantively while demonstrating the aforementioned traits. That is why I have to say unfortunately …
3. Brother King, in my opinion, demonstrates the opposite of what we need in this discussion. There was no substantive reply and no meaningful argumentation. There was not a spirit of fairness or charity but an utter unwillingness to believe that fellow brothers had the best of intentions. In fact, the worst possible intentions were assumed. There was a presumption that particular individuals and audiences were the focus of the SJ&G but a charitable reading would take the statement as intended, a broad approach allowing for distinctions in application to differing groups. The most common clarification/rebuttal offered was essentially, “yes … but this truth has been and can be abused,” or “yes … but I choose to ignore what is being said and read this through a prejudicial/negative lense.” This is not a meaningful response and besmirches the character of the men who wrote the S&JG.
4. I know that there have been those who are on the side of the S&JG who have said and written with the same level of misrepresentation and lack of charity. Granted. In the words of King “An examination of their ministries, their sermons, writings, music, and so forth should decisively demonstrate their Christo-centric, gospel ministries and serve as the context within which, the backdrop against which, the lens through which their (in my estimation very helpful and necessary) contributions should be understood.” Ironic that King seems unwilling to do the same to the signers/drafters of this statement.
5. Whatever side you land on in this complex topic, I believe we must demand more from our dialogues and responses than what is represented here. I am not arguing for the SJ&G, merely voicing my opinion that we as Evangelical Christians need to do better in loving God with our minds and loving our neighbors better. The gospel demands such and our Saviour deserves as much.
I think you’ll find that your #3 needs some work in light of your #1 & #2.
Brent,
How would you say Alex’ “point 3 is in need of work, in light of 1&2”?
Alex, I agree with many of your observations.
Several here have called for a clear definition of social justice as it is being used in this kerfuffle.
I suspect such a definition will not be forthcoming, because the term has deep roots in Enlightenment philosophy, progressive politics, and Liberation Theology….
Which rather proves that those who are troubled by this trendy evangelical impulse have more than reasonable warrant to be concerned.
Editor: an entire article was offered defining the term and giving its history. See this comment: https://sbcvoices.com/why-i-cannot-and-will-not-sign-the-social-justice-and-the-gospel-statement-by-ryan-burton-king/#comment-365559
So you can’t define it but you know you’re against it?
Yes sir, I can define it.
The problem is that evangelical proponents of of the term seemingly do not understand what it means.
Then why don’t you enlighten them?
To the Editor,
The OP linked does little to disentangle the term social justice from its Enlightenment, philosophical, and Liberation Theology roots. And the treatment of the Hebrew terms appears to make an unsubstantiated linguistic leap.
Proponents are certainly free to use the baggage-laden term, but should not take offense when sober voices raise concerns—especially when both the term and tactics used to advance the principle bear a striking resemblance to liberal culture.
Exactly, Randall.
Gospel minded brothers using a loaded and emotionally laden term that already has a well established and commonly understood liberal and gospel antithetical root (liberation theology) attempting to convey something different is unwise, imo.
That said. BillMac also Has a good point in noting that “social justice” (as conveyed by gospel loving brothers) is a bit of a continuum…everyone is for biblical justice but even agreeable persons part ways at various points of application along the way.
Randall:
I thought the same thing. Why all the effort to save this term from itself?
That is troubling, isn’t it Louis?
I think it might be helpful if those who oppose this statement would consider the validity of the statement outside of the initial signatories… Pretend that the signatories you have personal issues with had nothing to do with the document… Honestly could you affirm it then? If so, why be so vehemently against it based solely on personalities involved?
A great deal of the authors article above expresses agreement with the actual concepts presented in the statement… But then spends lots of time explaining why they object to tactics/personalities – Or what have you – of the Original signatories…
Perhaps that is a valid reason to personally not like or affirm the document… But is it valid based on that to convey a sense that no one else who is serious about the gospel should sign it either?
Right: The point is, knee jerk reactions for or against are not particularly helpful. I’m just beginning to realize that for all their disdain, Christians are just as susceptible to “triggering” as people on the left. It’s one of the few things our President exploits so effectively.
Bill, I don’t think my reaction is a knee-jerk reflex. I’ve watched the SJ impulse unfold in our ranks for several years with increasing concern, and have only recently joined the public discussion.
As Tarheel and I have noted, the SJ terminology and tactics have a rather sordid history in relation to the gospel and to philosophical, political, and theological liberalism. The CR didn’t happen in a theological vacuum; and no theological conservative can deny that SJ as practiced in present-day American culture is a morally bankrupt enterprise.
I genuinely do not understand why conservative brothers would entangle themselves by appropriating a thoroughly liberal and cultural mantra–and then react with indignation and disdain when sober voices raise valid concerns.
Such is unsettling, to say the least.
Paul’s warning seems appropriate here: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
This captivity can occur just as easily in the SBC as it has in so much of the church through the ages. I pray that this is not happening to us, but there is enough evidence of the possibility to raise concern.
Statements like this don’t happen in a vacuum. You can’t divorce the creators and initial signers of the statement from their history of rhetoric on the issue or the personalities and events that precipitated the document as a response. Pretending that this document has no historical context or intended target and suggesting it should be considered without consideration of that context is foolishness.
Todd,
“Pretending that this document has no historical context or intended target and suggesting it should be considered without consideration of that context is foolishness.”
Given that statement you just made… Can you see how people are concerned with the usage of language given its historical context and how that others might feel that your pretending there is no historical/definitional context to that is foolish?
Dave, I think that (1) the language has a broader historical use than that to which you object and that (2) it would be more constructive to actually address the content of what evangelicals are calling for when they use the term rather than dismissing concerns by getting hung up on dislike of the term they use. Getting upset about using the term SJ or disagreeing about whether and how King should be honored are secondary issues to the primary concerns of our brothers and sisters of color on a host of issues that are very real and relevant to them.
The fact that this document is an attempt to dismiss an entire discussion of these issues by categorizing them as a departure from fidelity to the gospel is problematic at best.
Todd:
The statement is very detailed. It doesn’t just address the term SJ.
There are specific critiques.
Louis,
Based on the original article we are commenting on, and several of the comments made in defense of the article… It has become manifestly clear that the ( at least primary) objection is not to the wording of the document itself… As I think most here actually could Affirm it … The objection is to the perceived or real agenda behind the authors writing of the document – Therefore there is resistance to affirmation and a desire to object to it.
Todd, my brother, castigating personalities–on either side–does little to advance the conversation.
Indeed, such castigation only pits brother against brother. (Prov 6:16-19)
We can do better than this. We must do better than this.
I’m castigating no one. I’m merely objecting to the idea that we consider this document apart from the stated motives and views of those who created it.
Todd,
Do you contend and hold to the notion that all those who affirm the document on its own merit are castigating you, seeking to shut down discussion and are therefore “ so to speak enemies“ like Debbie Mentioned – or are you suggesting that some of the “creators/Original signatories” are castigating discussion stifling enemies?
Or are you suggesting something else?
No, some signers are just misguided. I think that the document itself is premature if discussion is the goal. I think that much of the argument of this document addresses red herrings and/or seeks to correct positions that the people it is aiming at do not hold. I think the backstory of the document is meant to dismiss an entire category of debate by fellow evangelicals by suggesting that giving attention to justice issues on a societal level is somehow adopting a social gospel (it is not) or abandoning the true gospel (it has not). Those who speak of a “truncated” gospel or speak of justice in society as a “gospel issue” are consistent and congruent with what the BFM affirms in article XV including when the social order issues are dealing with race.
Todd,
Could the word rhetoric, also equal- a personally held deep conviction, that can have eternal consequences, that could prompt someone to speak out e.g.
The couple on the freeway in planes trains and automobiles screaming at the top of their lungs to John Candy and Steve Martin as they were in the north bound lane going south bound.
“ You are going the wrong way”……… just saying
Benn, feel free to replace the phrase “history of rhetoric” with “previously stated convictions.” I’ll accept that as a friendly amendment 🙂 as the meaning does not change the point I am making. This document was not created in a vacuum and should not be considered apart from the views (convictions) of its creators and primary signatories.
Todd:
I agree. Another reason I am not a big statement signer.
But I believe the other point raised is engagement with the particular concerns.
A lot of the dismissal is ad hominem.
It’s not really ad hominem because I am not attacking the man, so to speak. Rather, I am attempting to interpret the document in the historical framework and context in which it was written and the recent statements and actions of its primary signatories which I find highly problematic.
I always know I am understanding what people mean if I can say it back in my own words – and in a way that is fair to what they are saying.
Let me try.
You don’t like what some (I am guessing not all) of the signatories have said in the past, and therefore don’t like the statement because of the presence of these people as signatories.
Let me know if I got that right.
A couple of other questions.
Do you consider any of the signatories to be racists or to have racist tendencies. If so, who and based on what?
Tarheel, you are exactly right. I cannot really imagine serious disagreement with the substance of the document. Opposition seems to be personality driven. Sad really. But if there is serious disagreement with the substance, I’d love to see it.
I coined the Phrase several years ago – Directional Theology. This states that ‘what man believes is taking him somewhere.’ Time will tell on this issue. The corruption of Sound Doctrine is not an overnight development. Those who drafted what became “The Fundmentals” (now a collection of four volumes) were also maligned and poo pooed for being iconoclastic and worse. Their concerns were for the most part accurate. Perhaps not in my lifetime but history will declare which perspective has merit. I tried for 3 years to establish a Forum in which all parties.gatheres, sat cross the table, and engages in civil, gracious, and exegetical conversation on the issues that divide us. None were interested in that process so here we are. Pt
The following link From a seminary that exposes “social justice” based in liberation theology as the gospel and such is c a focus of thier theological education… I know that my gospel loving brothers and sisters here would reject this statement…..but when the words “social justice” and “social justice is a gospel issue” – hopefully you’ll understand that this can be confusing and concerning.
https://www.facebook.com/unionseminary/posts/10155357396621548?hc_location=ufi
It’s only confusing if you don’t go beyond the use of the term/phrase and consider the actual arguments that accompany them. Now, you are free to reject the arguments, but they have not been unclear or unexplained.
Todd:
I think by now it’s abundantly clear why many Christians are become increasingly uncomfortable with the term.
What is the attraction to the term? Why not simply use the term “justice.”
I can understand why people are objecting, but I cannot understand what attracts people to use this term, given its history and usage to mean so many things.
I know you can’t answer for others
But maybe you can share was has drawn you to this term and why you think it is so helpful above other terms.
T/D
The link is actually very enlightening, if we take time evaluate this seminary,
We can see what one particular proponent of modern day SJ, holds dear about other primary, secondary issues.
SJ, will be tied to egalitarianism, SSM, and the rest of this agenda.
They are kicking the door open for all these issues.
The other thing that is still informed has to do with the remedies to accomplish this thing called “Social Justice.”
This is where it gets interesting.
When you hear a speaker imply that local churches that are predominantly of one ethnicity are sinful, or that your Christian experience is lacking unless your reading list is ethnically diverse, or that churches should employ partiality based on race when hiring, or that we should be trained in micro aggressions etc., that’s where you see the unhealthy impact of SJ thinking. And all of those remedies come right out of Critical Theory, and they directly contradict teaching from the Bible.
When proposed remedies can be described in that way, we really are promoting something other than what the Lord has given us in his Scripture.
What’s that old song…
BINGO……and Bingo was his name-o.
The only statement of faith I am comfortable signing is the Bible. I am not smart enough to understand what people are saying or wise enough to uncover what they are saying between the lines.
This post is a perfect example, Ryan King doesn’t disagree with any of the published statement. His responses are yes, agreed, yes and no, indeed, etc. He is not rejecting this statement on its merit, he is rejecting the authors of the statement.
We are so divided as Southern Baptist we have at least two views of reality on most every thing. On the topic at hand, one side views themselves as the defender of the Gospel and the other side views themselves as being the purveyors of peace and fairness. Both seem to have grandiose opinions of their side.
I think the document, separated from any baggage from the authors, is hard to quibble with. I think Ryan King’s response is not completely fair. He deals with a rough draft. Anyone who has ever written a polemic knows often it is rewritten to soften the tone. You start out hot and write to you’re cool. The second paragraph is particularly unkind. The implied conclusion of the author is JMAC, Tom Ascol, David Miller, Vodie Baucham, and Justin Peters, and others do not preach against, “abiding racial sin in America and its churches this year and many previous years.” I am certain David Miller, preaching line by line, has covered racism if it is mentioned in Scripture.
I’ve heard David Miller of Line by Line ministries preach numerous times… I love to hear him preach.
I just gladly signed the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel!
I’ve been deeply troubled by the rise of racism disguised as “social justice” and Marxist theory amongst evangelicals, particularly my fellow Southern Baptists in the last three years. Their hearts have been in the right place desiring racial reconciliation, but the prescribed tactics look more like the wisdom of the world to me than they look like the wisdom of the Bible.
Most folks can remember a few outstanding moments when a preacher delivered a message that God used to change your life. For me, one of those messages was Thabiti Anyabwile’s message called “Bearing the Image: Identity, the Work of Christ, and the Church“ delivered at the 2008 Together for the Gospel. I was there in person, and my heart rejoiced as it was a spot on biblical treatment against the man-made category of race.
Yet now I hear very different things coming from leaders in Evangelicalism and the SBC, even from Bro. Anyabwile.
The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel addresses many of my concerns and attempts to bring the discussion back to the biblical singularity of our one race and our one identity in Christ.
Well it says there are 104 comments, but for whatever reason, I cant see them all.
Nevertheless, my great aunt Evelyn used to remind me of an old saying:
The whole world’s gone crazy but ye and me,
And sometimes I wonder about ye.
The Gospel is what we believe and are saved.
The Gospel isnt the good works we do after we are saved. Ephesians 2:8-10.
verse 10: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
I think that there are plenty on both sides who whole-heartedly believe that.
So what are these good works prepared befoehand that we shoud walk in?
Off hand I think of three passages from the New T that speak to it.
One is the parable of the good Samaritan. The other is Matthew 25, speaking about the least of these. and the third is in James 2, which is as follows:
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
In each instance, there is a personal connection between the person in need and the believer.
Thusas we go through life, living, working, resting, we will meet people with needs. They may be the people who live next door. They may be the family whose house burns down a few vlocks away. They be someone who comes to the church looking for money for food.
As Matthew 25 puts it, they are the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger in need, the sick, those alone, those in prison.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, he came upon a stranger who was physically hurt and robbed. He spent his time and energy and money to help the man.
No beiever on either ‘side’ of this controversy denies that we as Christians are to walk in the good works that God has prepared for us to do. No one. To name, two, one from each ‘side’, Dwight Mckissic and John MacArthur. No one on either side supports racism. Or discrimination based on age, skin color, or gender, to name a few. No one.
The good works we are to do are not Gospel issues.
And the good works God has prepared before hand for one may or not be the same as for another. Not everyone is to visit those in prison, nor is to go to Africa to proclaim the Gospel or to aid the Church established there. But we all are to help those we come across who have basic needs that they can’t meet. And if it is too much for us as individuals, than we go to our brothers and sisters in our home church and ask them for help.
Some one please explain to me why there is this division?
The comment stream now shows a few and has a button at the bottom to load all comments.
Looked over pastor Kings response last night,
Exegetically it is very weak.
The statement that pastor King critiqued references a good deal of scripture I.e. Colossians 3, Ephesians 2, Revelation 5;
Pastor King choose to not, and or couldn’t refute the statement through sound biblical exegesis……
With this new format it’s incredibly cumbersome to find and interact with comments making discussion difficult.
Further, the icon to link to a specific comment (the chain link in the top right hand corner of a comment) no longer works accurately…
Not sure why?
We’re trying some new options to discourage the continual back and forth we’re seeing on recent posts.
Yes, the comments under this post are all boogered up. A bunch appear to be missing.
For those who haven’t read it, I saw an article by Jemar Tisby (sp?). He is a leader in the Christian SJ movement. https://religionnews.com/2018/09/06/battle-lines-form-over-social-justice-is-it-gospel-or-heresy/
His response to the statement and the people who have signed it is: “Avoid them.”
That is a disappointing response, and actually one the Scriptures do not give us.
All of this discussion, even if it doesn’t lead to universal agreement, is very helpful in my view. We need to engage with one another on these issues.
Another thing his article mentions is his belief in the good works that are being done by some who are emphasizing the ethnicity, gender, national origin angles.
I agree with that. I would support anyone who wants to do good for any person, even if they are motivated to do so for different reasons.
The disagreement comes when we cannot distinguish charity and charitable acts, from justice.
Charitable acts may take many forms, and different people may decide to do them for different reasons. There is no obligation to do many charitable things that we can do.
But sinning against people by treating them with partiality on the basis of ethnicity, gender, national origin etc., is wrong, and the call to stop is obligatory.
That’s why it’s important to distinguish “justice” from “charity”.
First, as a “drive-by poster” it’s difficult to find time to interact with much depth with most of the issues discussed here. FTR, I’m impressed with those who can crank-out so many well-written posts seemingly real-time. I don’t begrudge them; I’m impressed with them. So thanks to the OP for taking time to write all this.
Two questions:
1) In the OP, it states: ” . . . there is a wealth of statistical, anecdotal, experiential, photographic, and recorded evidence to prove it” (racial group oppression). Can someone point me to the statistics on this?
2) Can someone summarize with say 2 or 3 case studies of how those who sign and those who won’t would act differently in those situations? Or maybe to put it another way, what do you think the ‘other side’ should do differently in those situations?
TIA.
One of the overarching themes in this comment thread and in the debate as a whole is the lack of clear definitions. This leads to a clear problem as the proponents of “social justice” within SBC circles/life seem to be ignorant (either intentionally or unintentionally) of what those words paired together mean within society (in particular American society) in recent years. Simply put, “social justice” in today’s climate is a cause fought for by progressive liberals, feminists, LGBTQect, and activists of all sorts of a similar mind. This reality is beyond dispute. Just like the word “gay” changed in meaning between the 19th and 20th centuries, so too the term “social justice” has taken on a decisively extreme non-Christian connotation. And, from my perspective, it is that which those who argue against “social justice”, are opposed to.
Further, as demonstrated by topics in the past, the vast majority of those within the SBC recognize the need for racial reconciliation. The issue is the methods and ways to go about doing so. Inevitably, during the debates, the result becomes accusations of racism when people don’t agree on the methodologies of change. The exchange puts debates on evangelism/missions methodologies (Romans Road debate, Tongues by Missionaries, ect) to shame.
What is the solution? Simple.
Define terms. Both sides need to do a better job verbalizing what they actually believe and what they actually call for. In absence of the term “social justice” if both sides clearly define how they wish to accomplish racial reconciliation, we would get a lot further towards the ultimate goal.
Target recognition. Both sides need to recognize that for the most part, we are not eachothers enemies. To be sure, there are true racists within the SBC, and there are also likely some true liberals held over from pre-CR too. But just like in the Calvinism/Traditionalist debate, the extreme sides of the debate do not represent the majority. Not everyone who disagrees with the term (or even some of the methodologies) of the “social justice” side are racists. Likewise, not everyone calling for “social justice” are liberals. Both sides need to recognize this if we want to go forward.
In SBC life, “Social Justice” proponents are not liberals.
In the broader Protestant, Catholic, and Baptist worlds, Social Justice is also a big cause and the raison d’ etre, and many in those worlds are liberal theologically.
There is definitely confusion over word definitions. That’s why I have advocated for “Justice” or “Biblical Justice”, not “Social Justice.” We are always better off using the terms the Bible uses when we can do so.
But don’t forget other words and remedies.
When we say “systemic racism”, is this racism that is going on where people are being treated differently on the basis of race?
Or is this statistical disparity?
Let’s say, for example, that Hmong households have a lower income than White households.
To say that is racist, we would need to examine whether Hmongs are not able to get jobs because they are being discriminated against. If that is true, we need to help the Hmong community employ the law (1964 Civil Rights Act) to end that. That would be justice.
If we cannot find actual racism, we can say the income difference is due to historical reasons, which may include racism in the past.
If we find that, however, we cannot claim that God’s justice requires a group of people to be punished today to remedy the statistical disparity.
We can still give to the Hmong community as an act of charity to help them. But justice in the Bible would not require that the Hmong community should be given vouchers, special stipends, etc., paid for by the rest of the community, when the rest of the community has not done them harm.
Critical Theory, Social Justice, Cultural Marxism, however, would insist on redressing this statistical disparity, by the redistribution of wealth, opportunity, and status. In those systems, the injustice is found in the disparity itself. There need be no actual ongoing oppression. The Hmong would be an oppressed group, due to the disparity, and the oppressor groups would need to pay to close the income gap. That would be Social Justice.
This theory developed because the Proletariat/Bourgeoisie construct of Marxism did not work to fix injustices. So the Critical Theory theorists came along in the 40s and proposed this.
We see this throughout society now. It is a philosophical underpinning to many of the debates we have in the larger society.
How to fix disparities between various cultural groups.
I have already shared my concerns directly to one of the advocates but I will do so here as well. One, but not only, of the concerns I have is in the heresy section. The sentence reads – To embrace heresy is to depart from the faith once delivered to the saints and thus to be on a path toward spiritual destruction.
Is this an advocacy of the Armenian position of apostasy or just bad wordsmithing? It is not my job to discern mean and just assume and presume meaning. I know these men and call more than one friend but lack of clarity is troublesome. I am also troubled in general by the need for a Heresy section. Why is this necessary? I know many Evangelicals on both sides of the Social Justice aisle. None of them are heretics.
But… but Amy, if it weren’t for that section, how would we know the signers are the only serious Christians on Earth, and that their opponents are probably heretics?
But…but I know of people who didn’t sign the document who think they’re the only serious and faithful Christians in regard to _______________ (fill in the blank) – so where does that leave us?
This is a Good and balanced article.
http://www.bpnews.net/51566/social-justice-statement-spurs-productive-conversation
Incase anyone wanted to doubt the need to find better terms than “Social Justice”, please take a look at this.
A Statement on God’s Justice
This is what the left (politically, socially, and religiously) mean when they say “Social Justice”. LGBTQ+, Biblical Errancy, ect. I would wager that 99% of those within SBC circles do not agree with anything in this document. And that is precisely why those within the SBC need to come up with better language, and clear definition of terms.
The focus on race and sex is from the Anyabwile/Chandler/Moore/Moore camp. It seeks to divide and not unite. But imbues guilt on people who have NEVER held a racist or sexist attitude. We are ONE at the foot of the cross. United by the blood of Christ. Because we are to love each other, that means we dont imbue guilt on the descendants of sinners (all humans). Let’s be honest here…… the ‘Social Gospel’ crowd is bringing elements of black liberation theology and 2nd/3rd wave feminism into the church — neither of which is Biblical at all. I signed the document, because this line in the sand had to be drawn, and I agree with it completely.
I’m ambivalent about JM on this but comments filled with dog whistles (social gospel crowd, black liberation theology, 2nd/3rd wave feminism), like this one, have little value. Let’s be honest, here…doesn’t address anything of substance but parrots talk show trash talk.
Thank you.
Social justice? Justice would require that everyone be immediately executed and sent to hell. How about social grace? Sounds much better…
[…] Ryan Burton King, who pastors Grace Baptist Church Wood Green in England, in an essay published on SBC Voices last week argued that at best he would like to believe the people behind the statement mean well […]
[…] Ryan Burton King, who pastors Grace Baptist Church Wood Green in England, in an essay published on SBC Voices last week argued that at best he would like to believe the people behind the statement mean well […]
[…] Ryan Burton King, who pastors Grace Baptist Church Wood Green in England, in an essay published on SBC Voices last week argued that at best he would like to believe the people behind the statement mean well […]
[…] Ryan Burton King, who pastors Grace Baptist Church Wood Green in England, in an essay published on SBC Voices last week argued that at best he would like to believe the people behind the statement mean well […]
The Social Justice Movement is rooted in Leftist Cultural Marxism and its introduction into the Church will have the same negative, dividing effect that it had on the United States when when Barry Obama brought it to the political stage in America. It is destructive and not Biblical in any way and should be rejected!
This comment gets through just to demonstrate the mindless nonsense that would easily hijack this site if not moderated. Nothing is contributed to the conversation apart from a breathless Olympian pronouncement before which those not on board can only stand in awe of. Toss in a gratuitous shot at the former president for maximum idiocy.
One notes that the writer uses his own name which is good.
There are gripe sites better suited for this stuff.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck; then surely its a duck. One doesn’t need a drawn out intellectual argument to call a duck a duck. I can be much more efficient in calling this movement out for what it really is; Marxist in origin and destructive to the Church. Here it is already causing division. If this Social Justice movement wants to split the SBC, just as this Country is so broken, then so be it. I abhor racism and sexism! I am not guilty of the sins of others, including the sins of those who sinned before my birth!
I have signed and stand behind the Social Justice and the Gospel Statement.
One certainly doesn’t need an intellectual exchange where there is a lack of intellect. Contribute to an actual discussion. There are places who thrive on your type stuff.
Well aren’t you snarky! Just can feel the Christian love! Would you like to insult me again? Go ahead, it proves my point for me!
Stop quacking and offer something of substance.
I did, you just don’t like what I have to say. You’ve not addressed the points I’ve raised; i.e. corporate guilt, the division this creates, and Marxist origins of the movement.
Too busy insulting my intellect rather than taking what I’ve said head on. Typical Liberal move!
Are you on George Soros’ payroll too?
Fountainhead of Cliches, name-drops, snarl terms. Lacks any context that relates it to us. You demonstrate that you read the shrill sites. Big deal. You signed a statement…profile in courage.
Offer us something….