Not to beat a dead horse with the gospel and social justice conversation, but when it comes to social justice as implication of the gospel rather than content, related to my objection to piggybacking something we do into the good news of what Christ has done is the salvific neutrality of morality.
Here's what I mean by that: In my current ministry context it has become important to rehabilitate the perception of the Church's message because most lost people (and plenty Christians) in my area believe the message of Christianity is "do this" or "don't do that." The message of the gospel is thought to be "Behave!" Most have rightly rejected this message, reasoning quite logically that they can be "good" apart from Christ and his Church, and in fact many are.
Heck, Angelina Jolie has adopted, what?, 300 orphans? Isn't George Clooney saving the world? Matt Damon fights for social justice, and he does it without a splinter's notion of the gospel.
Are we supposed to be doing these things too? Yes. It is the command of God to love our neighbor.
But social justice is not unique to Christianity, and in fact if social justice is the good news, we bear the same message as lots of people who are going to hell. Social justice, then, is salvifically neutral. And therefore, while it accompanies and may testify to the good news, it cannot be the good news itself.
The charge against the "riches of Christ" gospel is that it is too simplistic. As if the raising of a dead heart and power for discipleship is small!
No, what Christ has done to forgive, raise, and reconcile sinners to God is huge. It is all the complexity of God and man simultaneously existing in one Person, and his sinless life, sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection empowering conversion and obedience. We may reduce the gospel's message -- as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 -- to this bare historic fact and still have something of eternal interest to gaze-happy angels.
7 comments:
Great thoughts Jared.
[...]Don't confuse the message of gospel with it's effects.[...]
This is a strawman. Social justice isn't the whole gospel, just a part (though I'd use "restorative" over "social"). And a part ain't the thing without the other parts of the thing.
Clearly, what Angie and George are doing is not the gospel, just like a human leg is not a human belng. But I'd at least say that there are glimmers of the thing there. My prayer is that they'd know the whole thing because it's not the thing without the other parts.
Zach, I believe you've misunderstood my point(s). I am not saying that anyone says social justice is the whole of the gospel -- notice opening paragraph where I talk about "piggybacking" it in with Christ's work -- and when I say "if social justice *is* the good news" I do not mean to say those in your position say it is all the good news, but that social justice nevertheless is gospel.
My point in the post is to argue for the bigness of the gospel of eternal life, to argue against the idea that that gospel is incomplete without social justice. Moreover, I am not saying that Angelina Jolie preaches the gospel (if social justice is gospel) but that social justice cannot be gospel because it can be preached by Angelina Jolie. That's what I mean by saying social justice is salvifically neutral.
I think what is powerful about the gospel is what is unique about Christ and his work. This at least seems to be the overwhelming emphasis of the epistles when it comes to the gospel.
"Moreover, I am not saying that Angelina Jolie preaches the gospel (if social justice is gospel) but that social justice cannot be gospel because it can be preached by Angelina Jolie."
I think both of us could possibly work at TMZ in the future with all this celebrity talk.
But this is the point: if justice is only part of the gospel, then Angie can't preach it because (at best) she's just got a part.
Likewise, the part, when divorced from the whole, changes drastically in motivation, execution, etc.
If your main point is that the gospel can't be something that Christians do, would you really be willing to take the command to repentance and faith out of the gospel?
I'll cease and desist there. It's been fun!
If your main point is that the gospel can't be something that Christians do, would you really be willing to take the command to repentance and faith out of the gospel?
I think I understand the question, but I'm not sure.
I wouldn't say "repent and believe" are "in" the gospel (although I do believe the gospel's Spiritual power awakens us to respond) but that "repent and believe" is what the gospel bids us do. In the same way the gospel bids us "do" things (Titus 2's grace trains us, etc)
I'll cease and desist there. It's been fun!
Heh, ok. I think you'll like my next post. ;-)
Thanks for this thoughtful post, good discussion. I'd add that 'social justice' is bigger than what we call 'social work', which as you say is often humanistic & ends with temporarily happier people, not eternally saved souls. The gospel is God's righting of injustice- both our personal sinful nature and injustices in society, with the aim being souls at home with God in eternity. However, the sign of the gospel at work is that it changes lives *now* as well as after death.
;-)
Post a Comment