You have perhaps heard the story of William Carey being shut down by one Dr. Harvey concerning his passion for world missions. Harvey replied to Carey’s passionate plea with cold theology: “Young man, if God wants to save the heathen, he’ll do it without your help or mine.” Dr. Harvey was expressing hyper-Calvinism, the idea that since God is sovereign, there is no need to evangelize. In other words, God doesn’t use means to accomplish his will. Carey disagreed. He understood God’s sovereignty but also understood Jesus’ commands in the Great Commission. God uses means. So Carey obeyed.
I thought a bit of William Carey when I read through the recently released statement on Social Justice and the Gospel. Though there is much in the statement I agree with, and I certainly wouldn’t consider myself a “social justice warrior”, there are still a few reasons I will not sign the document. In fact, I see three massive problems with the statement.
The Good
Though a few spots may be worded better, a great deal of this statement is on point. The initial doctrinal affirmations are standard for an Evangelical statement. There is even much good in the specific sections dealing with social issues, such as sexuality, race and complementarianism. Things such as the affirmation of the image of God in all people equally, the affirmation of God designed roles in marriage and church, and the affirmation of God’s design for marriage are absolutely necessary for Christians.
The Bad…
But, even with these great affirmations, there are three small statements in the denials that keep me from putting my name to this. The first is found in the denial under section 6:
“We Deny that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. 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.”
Now hear me loud and clear: Social justice is not the Gospel. However, this doesn’t mean that you can separate the Gospel’s implications and applications so easily. What is odd about this is the fact that John MacArthur is one of the major signers. Having spent years writing books and preaching about how you can’t separate obedience to the commands of God from the Gospel, as if they were merely optional, I would think he would reject this idea. No, obedience to Christ is not the Gospel, but where there is no obedience to Christ, there is no Gospel.
My problem with this statement is the fact that it minimizes the power and effect of the Gospel. The Gospel actually accomplishes God’s will, and if it doesn’t do that in His people, it isn’t the Gospel. Perhaps the writers did not intend this, but it seems that this denial almost makes obedience to commands to live justly optional. Paul would disagree. James would disagree. John would disagree. Peter would disagree. Jesus would disagree. They may not be definitional (as in, they are the things that you believe to be justified), but they are certainly necessary workings of the Gospel.
My second problem is with the denial in section 8:
“We Deny that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. 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. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.”
Let the record show, I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly. I also agree that, just as I said with section 6, that these matters are not definitional (which I’m reading that into “integral” here) of the Gospel. But as far as being “primary to the mission of the Church”, that’s hogwash. Unless you don’t think that Jesus truly expected us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and unless you cannot honestly pray “Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”, then you must disagree with this. God is just, and we must be as well.
As far as whether or not these acts evidence saving faith, I would qualify my disagreement. Living in rural, backwoods, nowhere Missouri, where there are next to no (though a few) African Americans, I’m not given much opportunity for boots on the ground engagement on these issues. Biblical faithfulness isn’t simply engagement on any and every social issue, but on those which directly confront us. James doesn’t tell people to go seek the poor to show their faith, but tells them that when they are confronted with the poor and do nothing when they are able to do something, that is when their faith is being falsified. Right now we are being confronted with this issue of social justice, like it or not.
Furthermore, even if we disagree with the plight that is brought to us (for instance you may say “African Americans don’t have it that bad in this country” or “Women are just speaking up for attention, they’re not actually being sexually abused”), it is our obligation to hear the matter and judge rightly. If we dismiss these claims, such as charges of sexual abuse against a pastor, then we are showing partiality if we don’t even hear the charges, let alone if we hear them and don’t do justice.
Finally, my last problem comes in the denial of section 14. This section is long, and I agree with most of it, so I will single out the statement I find irresponsible:
“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.”
I want to be especially clear on this last point: If you are engaged in the faithful exposition of Scripture, you will naturally find yourself “lecturing” on social issues. Our senior pastor is currently preaching through the minor prophets. There is a great deal of “social lectures” in the minor prophets. In fact, that is one of the things Israel is often condemned for – not being socially just! Now, if you’re going to get in the pulpit and show a slide show about why you should vote “no” on prop C, then I agree with this statement. But if you are faithfully expositing the Scriptures, then you will necessarily find yourself addressing these issues, because they matter to God, and He spoke of how He expected them to be dealt with in His word.
Conclusion:
So why did I start this with the story of William Carey? Because I think the same thing is happening here. It seems to me (though I could be wrong, as I have been many times before), that this is a sort of “hyper-Calvinism” that says “Young man, if God wants to change the heathen or save them from oppression, he’ll do it without your help or mine”. I know you could point to many places in the statement that seem to say otherwise, but the overall feel of this statement is that our response to these situations is a matter of optional obedience, and not important to the display of God’s glory in the Gospel. I pray that this is not the attitude the church takes this year.
—
Photo source: here
One Comment
Comments are closed.