Gospel or Justice, Which?
— Monday, September 26th, 2011 —
Some evangelicals talk as though personal evangelism and public justice are contradictory concerns, or, at least, that one is part of the mission of the church and the other isn’t. I think otherwise, and I think the issue is one of the most important facing the church these days.
First of all, the mission of the church is the mission of Jesus. This mission doesn’t start with the giving of the Great Commission or at Pentecost. The Great Commission is when Jesus sends the church to the world with the authority he already has (Matt. 28:18), and Pentecost is when he bestows the power to carry this commission out (Acts 1:8).
The content of this mission is not just personal regeneration but disciple-making (Matt. 28:19). It is not just teaching, but teaching “them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20).
This mission is not inconsistent with what we have seen already in the life of Jesus. His mission is defined by Old Testament expectation (for instance, Ps. 72), and in the gospel accounts in terms of redemptive love for the whole person, both body and soul. From the literally embryonic moments of the Incarnation, such terms are present in Mary’s prayer about the coming of her Messiah (Lk. 1:46-55), and then in Jesus’ own inaugural words about his kingdom’s arrival (Lk. 4:18-19).
This mission is summed up in the gospel as a message of reconciliation that is both vertical and horizontal, establishing peace with both God and neighbor. The Scripture tells us to love neighbor “as yourself” (Lk. 10:27-28).
This is not simply a “spiritual” ministry, as the example Jesus gives us is of a holistic caring for physical and economic needs of a wounded person, not to mention the transcending of steep ethnic hostilities. As theologian Carl F.H. Henry reminded evangelicals a generation ago, one does not love oneself simply in “spiritual ways” but holistically.
Of course, Jesus’ ministry would be about such things. After all, the Bible shows us, from the beginning, that the scope of the curse is holistic in its destruction—personal, cosmic, social, vocational (Gen. 3-11) and that the gospel is holistic in its restoration—personal, cosmic, social, vocational (Rev. 21-22).
Moreover, the biblical prophetic witness consistently speaks in such terms. Is Ahab’s acquisition of Naboth’s land (1 Kings 21:1-19) a matter of personal sin or social injustice? Well, it was both. Was the sin of Sodom a conglomeration of personal sins or societal unrighteousness? It was both (Gen. 18:26; Ezek. 16:49).
The prophets never divided up issues of righteousness as neatly as we do in the “personal” and the “social.” Isaiah speaks of God’s judgment both on personal pride and idolatry (Isa. 2:11) and the “grinding” of the faces of the poor (Isa. 3:14-15). Onward to Joel and Micah and Malachi right through John the Baptist the witness is the same.
The new covenant church continues this witness. Even after the public ministry of Jesus, his apostolic church continues a message of both personal justification and interpersonal justice. James directs the churches of the dispersion both in terms of their personal speech (Jas. 3:1-12) and the unjust treatment of wage-earners (Jas. 5:1-6).
James defines “pure and undefiled religion” as that which cares for the widows and orphans (Jas. 1:27). Of course he does. His brother already has (Matt. 25:40).
For those who might seek to pit James against Paul, the New Testament allows no such skirmish, either on personal redemption or on ministry to the vulnerable. When they received Paul, the apostles, Paul says, were concerned, of course, that he proclaims the correct gospel but also that he remember the poor. This was, Paul testifies, “the very thing I was eager to do” (Gal. 2:10).
So how does the church “balance” a concern for evangelism with a concern for justice? A church does so in the same way it “balances” the gospel with personal morality. Sure, there have been churches that have emphasized public justice without the call to personal conversion. Such churches have abandoned the gospel.
But there are also churches that have emphasized personal righteousness (sexual morality, for instance) without a clear emphasis on the gospel. And there are churches that have taught personal morality as a means of earning favor with God. Such also contradicts the gospel.
We do not, though, counteract legalism in the realm of personal morality with an antinomianism. And we do not react to the persistent “social gospels” (of both Left and Right) by pretending that Jesus does not call his churches to act on behalf of the poor, the sojourner, the fatherless, the vulnerable, the hungry, the sex-trafficked, the unborn. We act in the framework of the gospel, never apart from it, either in verbal proclamation or in active demonstration.
The short answer to how churches should “balance” such things is simple: follow Jesus. We are Christians. This means that as we grow in Christlikeness, we are concerned about the things that concern him. Jesus is the king of his kingdom, and he loves whole persons, bodies as well as souls.
Christ Jesus never sends away the hungry with, “Be warmed and filled” (Jas. 2:16). What he says, instead, as he points to the love of both God and neighbor, to the care of both body and soul, is: “You go, and do likewise” (Lk. 10:37).
This column was originally posted at The Gospel Coalition site.
34 Responses to “Gospel or Justice, Which?”
Trackbacks
- Five Blogs You Have To Read…Now! | TransformingWords
- False Dichotomy? | Families Outreach
- J.I. Packer on Evangelism and Social Involvement « Savoring Christ in Southern California
- A question of balance? | africabound
- Worth a Look 9.27.11 : Kingdom People
- Still a Place for Priorities – Kevin DeYoung
- Justice and Gospel continued « Ad Fontes
- Repaso: Obama on Latino issues, Easterly on aid, Piper on racism, Gospel vs. justice, & more « Tim Hoiland
- The Good Stuff (9-30-11) | Rural Theologian
- Student Ministry: The Gospel and Social Justice | AlvinReid.com
- FRC Blog » The Social Conservative Review: October 6, 2011
- The Scope of the Gospel: Balancing the Spiritual and the Social « Remnant Culture
- iPródigo | Evangelho ou justiça?
- thumb licks [10.21.11] | spreading the fame
- Devocional: Evangelho ou Justiça?
So true. when did we go offline with this truth?
Outstanding, one of the best essays you have written. It is not one or the other, it is both, and abandoning either leads to error. I would imagine this will garner some ugly feedback from certain corners of the blogosphere.
Such a gospel-centered approach to addressing both needs of personal righteousness and social justice.
I definintely agree. We do need to follow the whole gospel,and social justice has been part of it, as you mention, from way back in the Old Testament.
@Susan Maas, Just what is “social justice”? I don’t find that terminology in my Bible translation. Please provide a passage that clearly relates that to the “mission of the church”. Thank you.
@ Pamela, do you believe in the Trinity? Because I don’t see that terminology in my bible translation either. Did you even read the article?
The problem is more a defitional one. What is “social justice” in a Biblical context? It has degenerated into a pass phrase for Marxist redistribution of wealth. In a modern “social justice” usage the Samaritan would have called the .gov to take care of the wounded man. A call to “social justice” should be one to love and help your neighbours. Too often it turns into a call to do obeisance to the state and abrogate our responsibility to the .gov. Which is exactly why that terminology is AK divisive and loaded.
Would we consider offering a substitutionary sacrifice to be part of Jesus’ mission? Would we also consider that to be part of the Church’s mission? Or what about judging the wicked? Jesus’ mission and the Church’s? Can we really say the two are identical?
@Ben, the mission of the Church reflects Jesus’ mission. So no the two aren’t identical, but what the Church does should point to what Christ has done and is doing.
For instance, no the Church does not atone for others’ sins through its own sacrifice(s). But Christians are to live generous, sacrificial lives in order to point people to the great and absolutely necessary sacrifice of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9 where Paul couches his encouragement of the Corinthian church to be generous with their wealth in the Gospel truth that Jesus impoverished Himself to bring them out of spiritual poverty). The Church’s generosity points to Jesus’ generosity. In terms of judgment it’s the same thing. The Church is called to exercise discipline in it’s context and judge unrepentant sinful behavior. It’s not a final judgment, but it definitely points to the ultimate one.
So there is something about Jesus’ mission that defines how the Church should be on mission. I’m not sure you can make nice divisions between the two.
@Dustin,
I agree with you completely. And I’d argue that there’s a world of difference between “the mission of the church is the mission of Jesus” and “there is something about Jesus’ mission that defines how the Church should be on mission.”
Can we make nice divisions? Maybe not all the time. Maybe even a lot of the time those two formulations look the same. But it seems pretty important to grasp the foundational reality that we’re ambassadors and heralds, not kings and judges. That’s where we need to begin the conversation.
@Ben, I completely understand. I’m glad we’re on the same page. =)
Anyone who says we must opt for the Gospel rather than social justice has clearly abandoned both.
John Balog makes a very good point. “Social justice” is responsible for the deaths of some 100 million people in the last century. I assume anyone that uses that term in a positive light is either woefully ignorant of history and/or human nature, or simply a Stalinist. I don’t mean to be overly confrontational with that statement, but social justice has caused a lot of pain and suffering, and one should be outraged by it.
There are right ways, and very, very wrong ways to care for the poor and needy. I find that the most successful way to do this is through long-term personal relationships, making sacrifices of your own time and wealth on a face-to-face basis. Doing so allows the person that is being helped to see firsthand, the sacrifice that is being made on their behalf. I think this helps instill humility in the recipient, which should be present when receiving charity.
On the flipside, the worst way to go about helping the needy is giving money to some faceless entity, which then redistributes the money to those that come looking for it. In this case it is too easy for the person getting assistance to start to see the money simply as income they deserve. It is human nature for us to take all blessings as granted, especially when they are not earned in any way. Can any of us claim we haven’t taken our salvation for granted at one time or another, and don’t struggle with doing so daily? The point being, charity taken for granted instills sloth, which is not doing the person receiving the charity any favors.
I think people who support gov’t assistance, do so because there is so many who need help, and they can’t help everyone themselves. Even if they know that in the end, gov’t assistance will not give the needy the help they really need, they throw up their hands and say, “well what else can we do, we can’t expect everyone to get face-to-face assistance from a caring individual”. To that I would reply: I don’t think God expect each of us to help out the whole world, only those he puts in our path. Maybe I am wrong there, but I don’t see any other way to solve this problem, which doesn’t end up making matters worse.
Neither the right nor the left see Christ as the method of accomplishing their social gospels. The social gospel of the right, anti-abortion, anti-pornography, etc., is to be accomplished by electing more Republicans and stacking the courts. The social gospel of the left, immigration reform, help for the poor, etc., are to be accomplished by electing more Democrats and creating more government programs. The sad thing is that all of these legitimate social concerns have become political footballs and have polarized Americans in general, and Christians in particular. I don’t have to look far in Scripture to know that the unborn and the poor are equally important to God. The abused (women in pornography) and immigrants are equally important to God.
Preaching to the choir…
Yes, it is “both” but such works are “especially” for those of the household of God. Gal. 6:10 As we minister to the “least of these” (God’s Children) the “world knows us by this love for each other”. I don’t think we can Biblically defend a ministry that is nominally “Christian” and yet is not primarily gospel-driven, in an evangelistic sense.
The world has this form of godliness (social justice) but denies its power, and we share in that error if we deny the oppressed the gospel upfront. If the gospel is the power to save, the gospel itself can clear a way with it’s proclamation. We don’t have to clear a way with social apologetics.
Of course we don’t deny those in need who come to us, but our outreach should be toward social justice for God’s people (Matt. 25). In a Hebrews 6 sense some will taste the gift of the Spirit and benefit from the community of God and, if God allows, come to Christ; but our focus in social justice should be the least of these children of God.
In this sense it is strictly vertical, and yet we have not been removed from the horizontal (”I do not pray that you take them out of the world”). We are not of the world but we are only truly FOR the world when we offer them the bread of life. (Peter in Acts 3; “I do not have silver or gold, but what I do have I give you.”) If bread is a means to an immediate proclamation of the gospel then I’m all for it. Lloyd-Jones said that “Discipleship cannot begin until after regeneration”. Understand this would save many well-intentioned Christians from the error of Christian-liberal social justice.
Social Justice is a phrase that I find myself reacting to very negatively. Every person that I have heard use the phrase usually means some form of socialism. It usually means for Christians to lobby the govt to do the church’s work. The church is supposed to be the one who takes care of the poor not the govt. I don’t think Jesus was arguing for political ways of helping our neighbor.
Thank you Dr. Moore.
Justice is about giving people what they deserve, and grace is about giving people what they don’t deserve (and in doing so demonstrating how Jesus loves us). Sometimes we find that justice is a necessary milestone on the road to grace. But grace is still the destination.
As for the comment that social justice has become a “pass phrase for Marxist redistribution of wealth”: remember that taking a stand for the unborn or for traditional marriage is also a form of social justice.
But overall, that commenter is right. Jesus didn’t say “I was hungry and you voted for someone who promised to feed me” or “I was hungry and you picketed Congress to support my benefits.” He said “I was hungry and you fed me.” That’s what we as Christians are supposed to do — directly and in person.
When we do, people are fed, they experience Jesus’s grace through us, and they receive a powerful conviction to help feed someone else. When we don’t, the government steps in and tries to do it instead, the Kingdom does not advance, and we have only ourselves to blame.
Thanks, Dr. Moore, for being faithful to the gospel and our Christian duty. I pray that as the body of Christ we come ever more under the authority of Jesus’ commands - including actually loving people.
Part of our church is passionately committed to evangelism and another is equally committed to social justice. The true Wesleyan distinction was the “genius of the and, not the tyranny of the or.” (Jim Collins, Good to Great)