Given all of the social justice talk these days, and increasingly more among reformed evangelicals, this is such an important, critical message that needs to be heard. Voddie Baucham breaks down the situation as only he can. Even more interesting is that this conference was prior to the upcoming G3 conference, where many of the prominent social justice promoters, alongside Dr. Baucham, will be presenting.
It’s been a few months since I posted a video in which Todd Friel, of Wretched Radio and Wretched TV summarizes some recent, troubling events within Evangelicalism. As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe that the term Evangelicalism really has any meaning these days, but is instead better qualified as an American subset under Christendom, that which is Christian in name only. Specifically, the troubling events that Friel highlights are occurring with the “Reformed” branch of Evangelicalism. This group can be summarized as essentially those who hold to the sovereignty of God in salvation, which has sadly become the only qualifier necessary to call oneself reformed.
I don’t want to rehash all that Friel discusses (you can view it for yourself here The Gathering Storm) because he does an excellent job of introducing and over-viewing the landscape of these issues, including The Players, The Events, The Worldviews, and The Future. However, in this post, I’d like to simply highlight the three primary issues which have surfaced recently that will likely have, and have had, significant impact on the remnant of what calls itself Evangelicalism.
Before we begin, I also want to draw attention again to the viral post from 2009 by the late Michael Spencer, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” Recall that in that post, Spencer points out 7 critical factors that he believed would contribute to the downfall of evangelicalism, 2 of which have a remarkably profound link to the current issues that we’ll define below. By the way, Spencer thought that this evangelical collapse would come within 10 years. Next March will be ten years since he penned the article. The foundations are already crumbling and becoming irreparable.
Here are Spencer’s words:
1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.
The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.
5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to “do good” is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.
Without commenting further, let’s look at the current issues that are contributing to an evangelical divide at break-neck speeds and will likely lead to its continued demise.
Homosexuality
This first issue has garnered most of the attention over the last decade. However in this short period there has been much evolution on the views and positions of so-called (self-appointed) leaders within evangelicalism and church pastors. The issue of marriage, more specifically homosexual marriage, has naturally led to broader discussions on the sin of homosexuality. I fear that the pendulum is tilting towards supporting a “born this way” biological view of homosexuality that will lead to unrecoverable ground in this discussion.
Even if born this way, biologically, is not fully embraced, nevertheless a shift has already been taking place in clear acceptance of same-sex attractedness. While there is a wide-range of views on this, from those who openly believe that one can be in a monogamous, homosexual relationship to those who believe one can be gay, or same-sex attracted, and simply be celibate while still claiming to be Christian, nevertheless there has been a tendency to soften on the view that homsexuality, even the desires, are sinful and therefore need to be mortified.
Additionally, and equally as troubling, is the effort to normalize the identification of gay or homosexual or same-sex attracted as an adjective describing a Christian. The remarkable thing is that even since the first draft of this post, which began in July 2018, this trend has been increasing to accept same-sex attraction Christian and gay Christian as simply normal, regardless of the end of the spectrum views one holds to. This is a slippery slope, unless of course we are prepared to normalize paedo-attracted Christianity or beastial-attracted Christianity.
Race
The second issue that is and will continue to drive a wedge among remnant evangelicalism, broadly, and the reformed movement, specifically, is race. Over the last few years American society has been shaken and divided over issues of race, specifically in matters involving law enforcement. It was only a matter of time before the social/cultural movements migrated into evangelicalism. The election of a president, by the overwhelming majority of evangelicalism, at least as we have been told, has predictably contributed to this division. Evangelicals continue to hitch their wagon to the political golden-calf in the hopes that government and policy will somehow restrain sin and make this a Christian nation. Law cannot convert hearts. This has kept them comfortable enough not to feel the urgency of spreading the Gospel, so long as a particular party is in charge. The fact that our sitting president has been painted (whether fairly or unfairly) as racist and a white supremacist sympathizer, has predictably led to an overreaction that evangelicalism is inherently racist, has always been, and thereby should repent of their sins and the sins of their fathers.
This issue has been gaining massive speed and I simply do not see reconciliation coming any time soon, if ever. In fact, the division is deepening even in recent days. Earlier this year with the T4G and MLK50 conferences, the issues of systematic racism and white privilege, along with the call for repentance from every non-black white person’s role, and their parent’s role, in racism, hit mainstream evangelicalism. However, I went back and looked at some of the key speakers trajectories over the last few years and this was the path they were on, it was just largely unnoticed.
On the one side, that of racial reconciliation and systematic racism is some of the T4G members (perhaps John MacArthur as the lone exception), MLK50, The Southern Baptist Convention and their seminaries (including the flagship -Southern Seminary), 9 Marks, The Gospel Coalition, the ERLC, Acts 29, Sojourners, and a host of others (essentially all major seminaries, though I’m sure there are exceptions), all represent the recent push for racial reconciliation and an emphasis on social justice. Clearly they hold the majority of the evangelical power, particularly those in the reformed camp.
On the other side, the ever-shrinking minority, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, James White, and others who have authored and signed a recent statement on the Social Justice Movement explicitly stating that an emphasis on social justice, whatever that even means, is an assault on the gospel. The outcries, hatred, and downright sinful responses to this statement have been telling of the path that Evangelicalism is on. If a Christian finds themself on the side of hate-filled, liberal, unbelievers, a reassessment is necessary. Additionally, what speaks louder is the silence that those in the first group above have had on their various media platforms regarding this statement. Of all of their blogs that I follow, there has been zero commentary.
The Role of Women
This final issue is one that has been on-going, but honestly the issue I’m least familiar with. Typically, it is broken down into complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. That is, that men and women are different but complement each other perfectly in their various roles vs. a more egalitarian view that says their roles are equal. In the past, these views usually manifest themselves in divisions over whether women can be pastors, but more recently the #metoo movement has begun to percolate throughout evangelicalism, which will, and has, inevitably lead to an overreaction (see the firing of Paige Patterson). Don’t get me wrong on this point. I abhor any use of power for sexual gain, as well as sexual harassment, and especially assault. What I’m more pointing out here is the pendulum swing, rather than a balanced approach to these issues.
For some time, I have felt that a minority of those who label themselves as complementarian have painted with broad strokes and have a tendency to come across as heavy handed and domineering over women. This certainly has not been true of all and there are those who hold to a more balanced view of biblical complementarianism, but predictably, this has led to the overreactions that we’re witnessing.
Ironically, some of the publications and outcries for the advancement of complementarianism were themselves a reaction to the influx of feminism. Since I’m not as familiar with this movement, as with the others, I will simply defer additional comment.
Regardless of where one’s views fall on any of these issues, it is impossible to justify the divisions and disunity that is taking place. In fact, what we’re witnessing should cause every genuine believer’s heart to ache for the reproach being brought to the name of Christ. Every day that these issues continue to fester is another day that division widens.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones often said that church history can be boiled down to excesses and then subsequent overreactions, in contrast to consistently holding to the pattern of the New Testament. This is precisely what we are seeing today. Excesses in political involvement and engagement with culture have led Evangelicalism down a path of gospel neglect. In turn, by attempting to address or confront culture on its terms, it has resulted in a watered down gospel message, one that now associates the Gospel with republicanism, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy. This is what happens when you soft-peddle the gospel on the back of winning the culture wars. Man cannot serve two masters. Evangelicalism has tried to serve both Christ and culture and it has resulted in an abject failure.
A final word from Spencer on his predicted evangelical collapse,
“Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.”
May God have mercy on us, but brothers and sisters, judgment begins in the house of the Lord (1 Peter 4:17). Make no mistake, its here.
Originally published December 8, 2010. In 2010, The Emergent Church was at the apex of its popularity and the promotion of social justice was one of its chief motivations. Sadly, almost 8 years later, while The Emergent Church has faded, the movement towards social justice as the central message of Christendom is alive and well again. Perhaps repackaged from wealth redistribution, this new social justice focuses on systematic racism and the promotion of the LGBTQ+ movement.
I realize that the title above will be an unpopular assertion, but before you rush to dismiss it or to leave a contrary response, please hear me out. Social justice is without question a huge buzz word these days within not only the secular media, but within the evangelical church as well. Because of this dichotomy, the phrase is often misused, misapplied, and generally flawed in its assumptions.
Here is the definition of social justice from Wikipedia : “Social justice generally refers to the idea of 
creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.”
Interesting, though a broad definition to say the least. The idea that social justice creates an “egalitarian society” essentially means equality of religion, politics, economics, social status, or culture, i.e. that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. (see also Wikipedia : Egalitarianism) Digging a little further into the definition of social justice we find the following statement: “Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.” When we hear the term “social justice” from the media, this is generally in reference to the redistribution of wealth mentioned here. Primarily taking from the “rich” and giving to the “poor” by means of taxation or other government mandate. Is this the same message that so many evangelicals are trying to convey? Well, because social justice is such a vague term, it mostly likely depends on who you ask as to what definition you get. In his newly released book Generous Justice, pastor Tim Keller offers the following distinction:
“I used the term “generous justice” because many people make a distinction between justice and charity. They say that if we give to the poor voluntarily, it’s just compassion and charity. But Job says that if I’m not generous with my money, I’m offending God, which means it’s not an option and it is unjust by definition to not share with the poor.”[1]
It would be helpful at this point if we defined “justice” and “charity”. Dictionary.com defines justice as “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness” also, “the administering of deserved punishment or reward”. The same site defines charity as “generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless; something given to a person in need; alms; benevolence; Christian love; agape.” Just as Keller states, quite the distinction, but his own statement is troubling. He asserts that some say giving to the poor voluntarily is compassion and charity but that the Bible claims a lack of generosity is offensive to God and thereby is not voluntary, but a mandate. The difference between these two statements of Keller’s can be summarized by saying: “I want to give to the poor” vs. “I have to give to the poor”. The former is a movement of the heart, the latter a letter of the law. To his statement Keller adds, “It’s biblical that we owe the poor as much of our money as we can possibly give away.” [2] Does that sound any different than the definition we read earlier which is so prevalent in the media?
Quite simply, it’s no different. To say that “we owe the poor as much of our money as we can possibly give away” is to assume somehow that the “rich” of this world are indebted to the “poor”. Where in the Bible does it state that? (Actually Keller’s statement can be argued as to ask based on what standard is someone defined as rich while another is defined as poor?, but that might be a separate post) What Keller has done is to erroneously replace the government mandate with biblical mandate, tag it with the social justice label, and state that it basically calls for redistribution of wealth also. This is not in line with Scripture as he asserts, but is quite contrary as we’ll see in a moment.
Tim Keller did not provide the reference to Job in his interview with Christianity Today, so we are unable to follow up on his statement, but other times he has used Job 31:16 as a defense for his argument so it is there we can look for Biblical evidence. In Job 31, Job is giving his final defense, his final argument as to his undeserved condition and in verse 16 he includes “If I have withheld anything that the poor desired….” Is Job saying here that he neglected to give the poor as much of his money as he could possibly give away because he owed it to them? Well we know that in Job 1:3 he was the richest in the land and we know in Job 42:10 that the Lord restored to Job twice as much as he had before his dire circumstances. To conclude from Job 31:16 that Job was obligated to give to the poor is a poor exegesis for the purposes of defending the concept of social justice. Job wasn’t talking about compulsion to give as a duty, but rather neglect to give from an improper heart. In 2 Corinthians 9:7 we read “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Keller is not alone in his call for social justice, Emergent Church leader, author, and activist Brian McLaren asks, “And could our preoccupation with individual salvation from hell after death distract us from speaking prophetically about injustice in our world today?”[3] McLaren adds, “When Matthew, Mark, and Luke talk about the Kingdom of God, it’s always closely related to social justice…. The gospel of the kingdom is about God’s will being done on earth for everybody, but we’re interested in getting away from earth entirely as individuals, and into heaven instead.”[4]
Equally troubling are the views of pastor and author Rob Bell, who shares McLaren’s association with the Emergent Church. In a 2009 interview with Christianity Today the interviewer asks Bell to expound on his statement of “Jesus wants to save us from making the Good News about another world and not this one.” To which Bell replies,
“The story is about God’s intentions to bring about a new heaven and a new earth, and the story begins here with shalom—shalom between each other and with our Maker and with the earth. The story line is that God intends to bring about a new creation, this place, this new heaven and earth here. And that Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning, essentially, of the future; this great Resurrection has rushed into the present.”[5]
Note here that the resurrection Bell talks of has nothing to do with Jesus dying for the sins of those who believe, has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin, with grace, mercy, God’s wrath poured out on His own Son. There’s no talk of becoming a new creation in Christ when those who believe in Him are raised from the dead with Christ. No, instead Bell’s talk of “resurrection” signifies the beginning of a new heaven and earth, i.e. one of the central goals of social justice that McLaren mentioned earlier and the primary focus of the Emergent Church mission.
What then is our response to this? Am I saying that as members who make up the body of the Church that we should not help the poor, widowed, and orphaned? Certainly not! What I am saying is that phrases like “social justice” are not always benign and laced with good intentions. They are often agenda driven and in this case can often be used to subvert the true Gospel message***. Social justice was spawned out of liberalism in the late 19th century and today’s movement is simply repackaging of that same program. Theologian and Author Dr. R.C. Sproul offers much needed balance on this topic,
“The false assumption of this so-called social justice was that material wealth can be gained only by means of the exploitation of the poor. Ergo, for a society to be just, the wealth must be redistributed by government authority. In reality, this so-called social justice degenerated into social injustice, where penalties were levied on those who were legitimately productive and non-productivity was rewarded — a bizarre concept of justice indeed.”[7]
Likewise, Sproul provides guidance for direction of the Church with regards to helping those in need, “The choice that the church has is never between personal salvation and mercy ministry. It is rather a both/and proposition. Neither pole can be properly swallowed by the other. To reduce Christianity either to a program of social welfare or to a program of personal redemption results in a truncated gospel that is a profound distortion.”[8]
Our definition from earlier was that social justice should be a means by which all men are brought to equality, through economic means, regardless of race, religion, economic status, social status, culture, etc. This however assumes that we are on unequal ground from the start. When it comes to equality we have 2 distinct biblical themes which we can apply: 1) All men are equally created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27) 2) None are righteous and all have fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:10, 3:23) It is helpful for us to return to the ground level and work up from there. We must ask then based on the biblical equality of men, what is justice? From our dictionary.com definition earlier justice was “the administering of deserved punishment or reward”. From the Bible we read of justice in Isaiah 42:1-4:
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2 He will not cry aloud or lift up His voice,
or make it heard in the street;
3 a bruised reed He will not break,
and a faintly burning wick He will not quench;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.
4 He will not grow faint or be discouraged
till He has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his law.
The ESV Study Bible offers the following note on this passage: Justice is “the key word in 42:1-4. In the Bible, justice means fulfilling mutual obligations in a manner consistent with God’s moral law. Biblical justice creates the perfect human society. The messianic servant is the only hope for a truly just world.” Biblical justice is dependent on the Messiah, Christ Jesus. Like Isaiah says, He will establish justice.
Additionally we find that based on the sinful condition of man as we read in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death. Therefore justice from God would be giving each person what they deserved, namely eternal death. So it is here we ask, is it justice we want? Or is it perhaps mercy that we desire? The justice that society deserves is not wealth and equality in this life, but eternal damnation and separation from God. “4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Ephesians 2:4-6
Perhaps a more biblical phrase would be “social mercy”. We as a church body of believers are not called to work toward justice as defined extra-biblically, but to show mercy to those who need it. It is not the Church’s job to demand justice and work towards that end in order to create a utopia of equality and better earthly lives for everyone. Nor is it her role to prop up and become enabler to those who are able but unwilling. The role of the Church is to preach the Gospel and in doing so establish mercy ministries along the way. We are to show mercy because that is what God showed us, not justice. We were naked and He clothed us with righteousness. We were starved and He gave us the Bread of Life. Thirsty yet Jesus provided Living Water. Homeless but even now He prepares a mansion for us. This isn’t justice, it’s mercy through the grace of God that has been given to us. We cannot be so quick to follow men and jump on board their plans to execute justice in this world without examining what it is they are saying. Instead we should follow Christ, the one who was executed for our justice. He alone can bring justice to an unjust, sinful world.
Resources:
1 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/december/10.69.html?start=1
2 Ibid
3 McLaren, The Last Word and the Word After That, p. 84.
4 Ibid., p. 149.
5 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/april/26.34.html?start=2
6 http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/21-church-trends/505-the-emerging-church-part-2#_edn33
7 http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/do-we-believe-whole-gospel/
***For more insight into Keller’s point of view, see also his interview with Kevin DeYoung: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/10/26/interview-with-tim-keller-on-generous-justice/
