Darryl's Blog
Social concern is not secondary
We've been chatting a lot this past week about social justice. One commenter wrote this at Paul Martin's site:
What is better? Bread that causes you to never hunger, or bread that fills you only for a time?...BOTH are important, but feeding the soul with the bread of heaven is the far greater of the two. If you are doing both great. If you are emphasizing the physical needs over the spiritual you are not doing what Jesus did.
Of course, this raises all kinds of questions and issues. When it's put crudely, social action is seen as something "even atheists can do" and therefore vastly inferior to evangelism. If you have a choice between offering someone a cup of cold water or telling them about Christ, the argument goes, let them go thirsty - if you have to choose. Social action is seen as a secondary duty.
But maybe we're not exactly framing the question properly. Maybe better questions are ones like these: What does the gospel mean for whole people, not just souls trapped inside a body (which is a lousy way to see people anyway)? What does the gospel mean for societies and structures? Or is it all about spirits and heaven one day when you die?
Tim Keller gets it right in his book Ministries of Mercy. He argues that Christianity leads to a completely different type of social action than anyone else can do:
Only the ministry of the church of Jesus Christ, and the millions of "mini-churches" (Christian homes) throughout the country can attack the roots of social problems. Only the church can minister to the whole person. Only the gospel understands that sin has ruined us both individually and socially. We cannot be viewed individualistically (as the capitalists do) or collectivistically (as the Communists do) but as related to God. Only Christians, armed with the Word and Spirit, planning and working to spread the kingdom and righteousness of Christ, can transform a nation as well as a neighborhood as well as a broken heart.
Exactly right.
Keller later argues that social relief work is not secondary. "Jesus uses the work of mercy to show us the essence of the righteousness God requires in our relationships...The striking truth is that the work of mercy is fundamental to being a Christian."
Keller later quotes Robert Murray McCheyne, a preacher from 150 years ago. McCheyne says that when Christians ignore the poor, he worries about the poor - but he worries even more about the Christians. Speaking of Matthew 25, he said:
You heave a sigh [for the poor], perhaps, at a distance, but you do not visit them. Ah! my dear friend! I am concerned for the poor but more for you. I know not what Christ will say to you in that great day...I fear there are many hearing me who may know [now] well that they are not Christians, because they do not love to give...Oh my friends! enjoy your money; make the most of it; give none away; enjoy it quickly for I can tell you, you will be beggars throughout eternity.
Social justice and social action are not secondary. They are fundamental to the gospel and what it means to be Christian.
Categories
Social Justice & Compassion0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Social concern is not secondary.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.dashhouse.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1643
Lot to chew on there Darryl, good stuff.
You said "Social justice and social action are not secondary. They are fundamental to the gospel and what it means to be Christian"
Is that it though? If I profess to be a Christian and am involved in those things would that alone be evidence of my faith or would there need to be more? Should there be more.
The discussion you and I have had recently included issues like holiness and righteous living and godliness.
I guess the question I would have in light of this post and previous discussions with you is what is a Christian? How do I know if I am really a Christian? I think in all these discussions on the internet and especially with the emerging church that might be good to discuss. What is a Christian? Is it just somebody who professes to be and is involved in social action and that's it or is there something more?
Hi George,
I'm trying to deal with the question of social action vs. evangelism, but you're asking some good questions too.
Hope it's OK if I return to that in a different post.
Good quote from McCheyene. It serves as a bridge between the two opposing views that we have been witnessing (or been a apart of) recently. Compare the McCheyene quote with the one you quoted from Paul's blog and you see that McCheyene would indeed agree with the view that the soul is of infinite importance and that when someone does not assist the poor their infinitely valuable soul is in danger, because caring for the poor is testimony that one is truly converted. Much the same as saying that if you do not forgive you will not be forgiven. Forgiving others does not save you but refusing to forgive gives evidence that your soul is not on its way to God.
None of the combatants in the recent debate over at Kerux Noemata would want to be put in the position of choosing between believing in Jesus or forgiving others. The two cannot be separated. Those who believe will forgive (just like, those who believe will help the poor). Those who do not forgive do not believe. It is a shame that helping the poor has never risen to the level of forgiveness of others in demonstrating true conversion.
Those who have taken issue with you are concerned that the cart will get put in front of the horse and alleviation of poverty will be seen as what we do in order to be saved instead of what we do because we are saved. But, like forgiveness, we often avoid the close relationship between the two. It is too convicting. If I am having difficulty forgiving someone, I do not want to be confronted with the very damning text that says forgiveness is proof of conversion. (In fact, it says it in much blunter form - Matthew 6:14f)Likewise, if I live as a convert of Jesus Christ because of faith alone in Christ alone and live a life of willful ignorance of the poor, the imprisoned or the alien, I may not want to hear Matthew 25 too often.
The health of the soul is evidenced, in large part, by concern for the bodies of the needy.
But one of the difficulties even with that statement is that ungodly people can show concern for the body. Disregard for the poor is evidence of non-conversion but it is not true that concern for the poor is always evidence of conversion. This is where Christian social activists are eerily silent and I think they need to be brought to task on it. They should unashamedly proclaim in unequivocal terms the Gospel of salvation from sin through faith alone in Christ alone. Red letter Christians need to have a reputation of proclamation of the Gospel. And those who vigorously defend the "solas" need to have a reputation of helping the needy. To merely teach helping the needy is to damn one's own soul and the souls of those they help. To merely preach grace alone through faith alone and imply that they need not be accompanied in a new life lived for Christ by helping the needy is to damn one's own soul and the souls of those they preach to. Isn't that what McCheyene was getting at?
Ken:
Great comment.
"But one of the difficulties even with that statement is that ungodly people can show concern for the body. Disregard for the poor is evidence of non-conversion but it is not true that concern for the poor is always evidence of conversion."
I agree. I wonder though if there is a type of social action that is unique to Christianity though. I'm not sure exactly how it would look different in practical terms, but is there a type of justice that is unique to the kingdom and the gospel?
I don't have the answer - I think Fitch has a chapter on this in The Great Giveaway. I'll have to think more about this.
Darryl,
It seems to me that the New Testament puts a lot more emphasis on motive than we do. Why we do things is of great importance to God. This is part of Jesus' problem with the Pharisees. They clean the outside of the cup only. That seems to say that their outward actions were right but their hearts were bad. They honoured God with their lips but their hearts were far from Him. So it is possible to do right things and still not be doing "good" things as God counts good, because of why we do them.
Non believers who help the poor do not do it for God's glory. They may love people but they do not love God more. Love of neighbour is the second greatest commandment, not the first. They do not do it for the joy it brings God and them. Whatever is not done from faith is sin.
So, I think that the uniqueness about Christian social ministry is the motivation/reason for doing it. It is not for me. And it is not even primarily for those who benefit from it. It is for the praise of the glory of God. This is true in evengelism as well. The primary motivation in evengelism is not the welfare of the lost, as high a goal as that is. The primary motivation is God's glory. God is glorified in the salvation of a lost sinner. The cross is shown to be the powerful destroyer of Satan's work that it is. Likewise in feeding the poor. God is shown to be the lavish giver that He is. He is the One who told me to do this. He is the One who makes social justice a mark of the saint. And He is the One I want to get the credit when I do something good. And that is uniquely Christian.
Amen Ken.
I think Ken hit it right on. Its all about our motivation.
When I listen to and read from those in the emerging church its apparent that the social action is what justifies their Christian profession. On issues of holiness however, they are silent. Holiness also has to be present in the life of a true believer. Not because I have to but because I want to out of gratitude for what my Lord and Savior did on my behalf.
And I think you are perhaps too quick to speak ill of the motivation of such folks. The overwhelming majority of folks who talk about justice from the perspective of the emerging church do so conscious of God's activity in the world. It's not justice for the sake of justice - it's justice that is shaped by a vision of and a passion for the kingdom of God.
"It's not justice for the sake of justice - it's justice that is shaped by a vision of and a passion for the kingdom of God."
ScottB, how would you say that is shown by those in the emerging church?
As the original commenter quoted above, I will add the following.
The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners. It is not the good news of a full belly! Those who are saved will necessarily, as evidence of their salvation, partake in helping the poor and needy in a social sense. Those who have been converted to Christ, out of love for the Saviour, will take care of the poor and infirm. These add nothing to our salvation and to add these things to the gospel message is to add the necessity of works. I don't think anyone wants to do that but we must be careful in the way we say things.
I think the points Ken made are excellent. Our motivation for helping should be a love for Christ and a love for souls. I know very little of Tim Keller but have read much of M'Cheyne. He would most certainly be aghast at conflating social justice with the message of salvation.
If you went to a hungry, dying man with a few hours to live would you be more desperate to feed his belly or his soul? The answer should be obvious, and tell you which is of greater value.
"The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners." That's important, but it's not the whole gospel.
Nobody is suggesting that we conflate social justice with salvation. But if we reduce the gospel to the forgiveness of sins only, it's still wonderful news - but it's a truncated gospel.
"But if we reduce the gospel to the forgiveness of sins only, it's still wonderful news - but it's a truncated gospel."
Darryl, show me where among your emerging friends forgiveness of sins is even mentioned as part of their gospel message. I can't find it. Any Resonate folks you could point me to where it is discussed as an element of the Gospel?
Who is it again that is preaching a truncated gospel?
If the forgiveness of sins is a truncated Gospel what about the cross itself. Was it just for sin that Jesus died or was there something more?
George, yes, neglecting forgiveness is a truncated gospel. Nobody gives all of the gospel all of the time - even the biblical writers gave snippets here and there. But forgiveness is an important part.
"What about the cross itself. Was it just for sin that Jesus died or was there something more?" The cross deals with the effects of sin, which is more than just forgiveness. Much more.
I guess you've really isolated our major point of difference. I see you adding works to the gospel and zapping it of its power; works that were prepared in eternity for us to do; things converted people DO once they have been saved. Saving the soul is gospel work. Feeding the belly is work done by those who believe the gospel. Huge difference. Thanks for the discussion.
Hi Darrin,
Your comment is a little condescending, but I can understand your frustration.
I'm really indebted to Tim Keller for his definition of the gospel. He says that it's God acting to rescue and redeem all of creation through the work of Jesus Christ. It's a thoroughly biblical definition, and it affirms everything that our creeds and confessions include. It includes God's work of redeeming not just souls but all of creation, including the overthrow of Satan and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.
"I see you adding works to the gospel and zapping it of its power..." Not at all, Darrin.
By the way, your name came up at dinner tonight - I finally discovered that my wife went to the same school as you, and my sister-in-law was at your house last week. Small world!
I was clicking around your blog and saw Charlene and remembered her from Trinity. Not sure if we were in the same year or a year apart....almost 20 years ago now! Small world indeed.
The comment was not meant like that and I apologize if it came across that way. I think you have pointed out a real difference in what we have been talking about over the past week; a difference that I think is huge. Keller's definition is different from what we have been talking about as far as I can tell, although we have touched on a number of topics. Anyways, thanks for your time. Nice meeting you despite our disagreements.
Thanks, Darrin.
I'm not sure our difference is that huge. I think it's easy to focus much of our emphasis on how the gospel affects individuals and to forget the cosmic implications - on how "creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21). While this won't happen fully until the future, we have a foretaste or glimpse of this in the ministry of Jesus and the church.
I agree that these are works prepared for us to do. Maybe we could call these implications of the gospel. I would probably go a bit further and say that they are "good news" made possible by the death of Christ and part of what he is doing to make all things new.
This doesn't downplay at all Christ's work at the cross to reconcile people to God. It just reminds us that God's work at the cross is greater than we sometimes say.
Thanks again, though - I've appreciated the discussion and I hope to meet you.