I look at Jesus's word on this, when an expert in the law asks "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus tells the story of a merciful Samaritan and concludes, "Go and do likewise."

Not "go and proclaim likewise." Not "go and believe likewise." But go and do.

Are we going to obey Jesus or explain away his teaching?

Hi Skye - Apropos to the current tragedy, a few years back I asked an acquaintance if he would be interested in donating funds to a ministry I support called Clean Water for Haiti (yes, you can support them now too: http://www.cleanwaterforhaiti.org). His lame answer was that he would rather preach the gospel to them, though I did not sense any inclination on his part to do so. It was a classic avoidance mechanism. I'm not even sure that it was a theological position. In any case he did come from a fundamentalist perspective and was well educated in it.

The impasse here is this: "How can you compare fleeting material helps, with the salvation of the soul, which is eternal?" It seems to me that once you ask this question the discussion is over, because what can the "justice" perspective say? Of course there is biblical warrant for justice, but it still pales to eternal salvation. But I think that this is the question we need to answer for all of us to move forward together on this. And here is a proposed answer: We who are geared to thinking in terms of the earthly implications of the gospel need to emphasize that justice is part of the work of evangelism. It is just absolutely clear that when we help people they become more open to our message. Thus material helps can have eternal impact, and often do.

Another way in which the two go together is that they both flow out of compassion. If you really do care for an individuals soul you will also care that he or she is adequately clothed and fed and safe. And vice-versa. When these two are separated I think it is time to take a serious look at our own soul and our own motivations.

I see the whole dichotomy as an improperly framed Hobson's Choice...

Ultimately this is rooted in our confusion over what the Gospel is. "Saved by faith" is not the gospel, "Jesus is Lord" is. When we have faith in the gospel, then we are saved, but we are not saved by having faith in "being saved by faith."

When we frame the gospel in these terms we create the false dichotomy. Justice and evangelism are actually a seamless whole, a unity that flows out of the Lordship of Jesus. Justice in the now is a signpost pointing towards justice in the not yet...

Skye ~
Salvation is by grace, through faith. Faith without works is dead.
Gospel affirming evangelicals have been active in social care. They never stopped.
What they didn't do was substitute social care for the Gospel.
What happened '100 years ago' was not a church rift. Forsaking the Gospel is not a rift, it's a departure. Liberalism is not Christianity.
The issue you identify, but don't address is whether the socially active young evangelicals spoken of are motivated by the Gospel or believe their actions are the Gospel.

I can remember, as a small child, Wednesday night prayer meeting at my church. After the Bible Study time, prayer requests were assigned and the group would divide into men, women, and children, to go pray seperately. Of course, we kids didn't take as long as the grown-ups and so the pastor's wife would read us a story. Occasionally I would have to stay with the women if the pastor's wife wasn't there. My mother would pray for people with tears running down her cheeks. I was very embarrassed. I did not understand then what I do now. Tears shed over the unsaved and those in need are precious to the Lord and He honors those prayers. It is very difficult for me to pray today without the tears falling. Not just in concern for others, but also because the longer I walk with the Lord, the more I come to realize that, “... He who knew no sin became sin for me, so that I could be made the righteousness of God in Him.” 2Cor 5:21 For anyone who does not understand this, it's all just “works” and Isaiah reminds us that all of our 'righteousness' is just 'filthy rags' in God's eyes. (See Isaiah 64:6) This is certainly not the message that the modern Christian world wants to hear.
Two important quotes from the InterVarsity article:
“The academic world hates the message that a sinful world is under the judgment of God for their wicked ways and that their only hope is to repent of their evil and rebellion and come to the cross by faith in order to receive a forgiveness which cannot be bought, earned, or inherited. And so by faith alone, we can be spared on the coming day of judgment, by God's grace and mercy alone.”
“The world outside the academy, too, wants IV [InterVarsity Christian Fellowship] to forget its commitment to proclaiming the barbaric cross, this bloody and unseemly cross, and just do good deeds, preferably the currently popular good deeds celebrities endorse.”
Thank you Skye, for bringing this article to us. It is powerful.

As I see it, the Gospel is that God, in Christ, has extended forgiveness to all humanity. God has taken our sins from us and given us a new nature by giving us his Spirit. We walk by the Spirit--and Paul equated "walking by the Spirit" with the fruit of the Spirit. One problem is when we expect people to produce justice without the indwelling Spirit--when it is a work of something other than grace. The other problem is when we think that grace means only new birth.

"And where are you turning for informed theological reflection on this subject?"

For me it has honestly been studying the Scriptures, and study of the scriptures in an Evangelical Historical/ Cultural/ Grammatical approach to the Biblical text.

From this approach, I see that social justice /mercy for the poor and oppressed is a major theme of what God calls His people to in the Scriptures.

With that understanding, I can not claim to be a "Bible believing Christian" without making the biblical call to social justice a priority in my life. Social Justice is a priority for me because it is a priority for God, as faithfully revealed in the Scriptures. I would be forsaking the Scriptures, and the God of the Scriptures, if I did not prioritize care for the poor.

When I decide to follow that call of God to work for justice - I am being a disciple of Jesus.
When I am actually being a disciple of Jesus - I am in a much better position to follow Jesus' call for me to make other disciples of Jesus. Jesus defined that as: bringing people into faith in Jesus & teaching them to obey all of his commands - including care for the poor.

The scriptures do not force us to choose evangelism OR justice. In fact, I do not think that the Scriptures allow us to choose only one or those two (Do we have to choose sexual morality OR evangelism?!).
God made people pretty complex. We can do more than one thing at a time!

Servant Evangelism = Deeds of Love (DL) + Words of Love (WL) + Adequate Time (AT)

This is a prolific equation on evangelism in the book "Conspiracy of Kindness."

In a capsule, DL creates "permissible access/entry" for transmitting WL (the Gospel) into the fortress of the non-believers' hearts in God's AT.

Author Steve Sjogren fills up DL with Kindness. We can fill it up with Social Justice.

When we fulfill DL, we will be sensed as "good people." It is only after we fulfill WL that we will be recognized as "Christians."

The Temptation: After we fulfill DL, we tend to rest on our laurels and bask in the sunshine of success and fame as "good people," leaving out in the cold, wittingly or unwittingly, the next stage WL (the Gospel).

The Obstacle: We get all so balled up in carrying out DL in puffed-up frills and grandiose trappings that we let the grass grow under WL (the Gospel) feet.

The Back-To-Basic Key: KISS - Keep It Simple Sam.

Indeed, we must come to the cross in faith to be saved by grace. And we are then called to do good works -- those deeds of love mentioned above. Matthew 7 reminds that confession and works of power are unacceptable; doing God's will is living faith. Have we accepted Christ if we acknowledge our sin yet decline to follow?

I think this is an important discussion. I was with someone from a major Christian relief organization who did a survey of their 18-25 year old volunteers and staff. They were shocked that something like 80% of them could not articulate a biblical explanation of how the cross and atonement are part of salvation and the gospel. So these young staff and volunteers were passionate about compassion and justice and taking action with their lives and time, but were not able to explain what happened at the cross.

So this is a matter where church leaders do need to refocus on teaching both cross/compassion. I fully admit that the evangelical church did teach a reductionist form of the gospel that focused on the afterlife and what happens to us when we die as what the gospel was about. So the evangelical church seems to have made a corrective shift and began teaching what we weren't before.

I hope we learned our lesson and now teach faith without works is dead, but that we are now not forgetting to be teaching future generations to understand what the "faith" part means as well and why we have grace through faith and what that means. Several years ago I read Ron Sider's book "Good News Good Works" because he stressed that you can never forget the cross and evangelism in the midst of compassion. He is one of the most well known social justice advocates for years even before the more recent shift in the evangelical world. So he had this warning message of not going to either extreme a long time ago.

Indeed, we must come to the cross in faith to be saved by grace. And we are then called to do good works -- those deeds of love mentioned above. Matthew 7 reminds that confession and works of power are unacceptable; doing God's will is living faith. Have we accepted Christ if we acknowledge our sin yet decline to follow?

There is no rift. There are simply two seperate institutions. There is the Church, wose mission is The Great Commission and there is the church, which is a glorified social service agency dedicated to a works-based, man-centered perversion of the Gospel. This is not new. They have both existed from the beginning.

"Christian relief agencies, denominations, churches, and parachurch ministries around the world are mobilizing to aid the victims of the earthquake in Haiti."

The Haiti catastrophe presents to USA a rare opportunity for "unity of Church and State" to love the poor and to transform a nation.

Servant Evangelism = Deeds of Love (DL) + Words of Love (WL) + Adequate Time (AT)

The DL (Rescue/Relief) Doer - The US Government (with its first-world resources)

The WL (Evangelism/Transformation) Doer - The Christian Churches (with its first-rate evangelism)

This "unity" is a must. A simple inner-city project lesson is enlightening.

"There is a moral breakdown in the inner city...a message needs to be sent about values and personal responsibility, the importance of marriage and family, the avoidance of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, abstinence from drug use (and drug dealing), and the value of work at a legal job...they are crucial messages...and we need RELIGIOUS and SPIRITUAL LEADERS (emphasis mine) to make an extra effort to join in sending them." - America's New War on Poverty

"The Lord raises the needy from the dust, lifts the poor from the ash heap." Ps 113:7

The lines and definitions are extremely blurry in this "social justice thing".

Does "social justice" mean - we all wear state uniforms, we all drive a tiny gas efficient economy car, we all have x amount of dollars to spend on fat-fee, salt-free food, etc, etc? That doctors make the same amount of money as those who never worked a day in their lives?

History has proven that that thought process leads to wide scale oppression by governments whose sole intention is to exploit their people and enslave them to the State-is-God system where a few beaurocrats have everything that everyone else only dreams of.

We in the U.S. are headed down that path about as quickly as anyone could have ever imagined, and the argument for Social Justice is the smokescreen behind Judas wanting to pilfer all of those resources. There are those who could care less about poor people. They are not Christians, they could care less about Christ. When the resources are advocated to them - the situation will be much worse - it will be the U.S. citizens begging instead of reaching into their own vast resources.

I understand that my writing is against the backdrop of a devastated Haiti and I'm not advocating that we abandon a people in great need - I'm just saying wake up U.S. and get your head out of the sand - Haiti is a great lesson in what could happen to you!

It sounds to me as if some of the commenters here have not read the J. Mack Stiles article. It is a wake-up call to those who are actually 'born-again' (the term Jesus used). I have really tried hard to figure out where and why the shift came about in the evangelical church that 'good works' minus the cross were enough.

Give me one single link where someone is proposing that we all wear uniforms to further social justice.

And I know people who have never worked a day in their lives who make more than doctors.

Too many of those who have dropped the justice teachings of Jesus from their gospel have replaced it with hate of government -- of working together, basically.

When we are divided into goats and sheep, do we think that politics are going to be an adequate excuse for leaving the Least of These laying in a ditch sick?

Jjoe, how is your comment related to this article?

Hey - I'm just asking for a clear definition of what "Social Justice" is. The term doesn't appear in scripture that I can find. I have ministered in prisons, in hospitals and nursing homes, in the ghettos, with the poor, with crack addicts and prostitutes.

Sure, I cited the extreme. There are school uniforms in the city where I live. Do a "google" on "school uniforms" - you'll get 3,000,000+ hits.

I'm asking the church to define "social justice", that's all.

... Sorry - if I'd have been more eloguent - I would have said it like this guy did:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/01/12/a-modest-proposal/

i wonder if christians in majority world cultures would just shake their head and wonder when we in the west will get over the sacred/secular, public/private split that is foundation to the enlightenment....

i'd love to hear from someone is isn't mainly cultured by western culture on this issue.....

Rob's comments above struck a chord with me. From my personal experience of growing up as an evangelical Christian in Montreal, it never occurred to me that there could be a separation between spreading the gospel and social justice. Helping the needy in the city in some way was just what the average evangelical church did. Of course, the separation between Church and State and its implications holds significant differences for Canada and the U.S., as does the Church's in-country history in general, and Quebec's particular history and long-term impact in this regard is in turns glorious and horrible (if you've ever heard of the Quiet Revolution, that's a gross oversimplification of what it was all about).

The first time I remember seeing anyone obviously try to separate the the gospel from social justice was as a teenager, reading a Gazette article about World Vision's involvement providing aid in a Middle Eastern or Sub-Saharan (or perhaps Balkan? this was a good 15 years ago) war zone Canada had a military presence in at the time. The article featured the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress castigating World Vision's work because it was providing optional Scripture (which wasn't illegal) along with unconditional physical aid, and I thought it was just the strangest, most ridiculous thing ever that someone would even consider that as a possible problem. In my experience, instead of a sense that one was more important than the other, or the idea that the two were equal, there was rather a sense that, for a Christian, the two simply could not be separated. There was a time when most or all of the church-run shelters in the city had someone preach the gospel before or during supper, thus forcing everyone to hear it or they wouldn't eat. When some shelters shifted to preaching the gospel after supper, putting the decision to hear it solely in their client's hands, it wasn't a sign that they were considering the gospel less important than providing food - if anything, I think it was a sign of just how much importance the workers placed on the gospel by allowing people to be drawn to it by the power of the Holy Spirit. At first, some workers and financial supporters were surprised by how many of the shelter's clients wound up sacrificing precious sleep time (most shelters must be left sometime between 5 - 6:30 a.m.)in order to stay to hear the Word, and speak with the preacher afterward.

I seem to be a bit naive and more than a little out of the loop on this debate, but it's pretty disheartening to see the gospel and social justice put into conflict and competition.

The words of Jesus, Mark 8:36 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Which is more important?

Wow - my last two posts were deleted. I guess "social justice" is silencing someone you disagree with. That could be one reason people get stirred up about the argument - is that there's already a politically correct answer - and if you're not on that side - you're an infidel - targeted and labelled as such.

The cost of siding with the social justice crowd could be - you lose your freedom of speech, your freedom of having an opinion, your freedom of even defining the word "justice". Pretty representative of the "social justice" crowd I've been exposed to.

Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. (John 12:5-6)

There are all kinds of motives going on out there. After going into "the hood" for 3 or 4 months - I really got tired of the money that I gave to people (in the form of money, food, utility bills, whatever) going to crack cocaine. Finally - we left our money at home - and just shared Jesus and a great big shared meal every Thursday night (which was more effective by far). When we came across situations where we knew money would not get diverted to crack cocaine - we helped out - but that was after many painful lessons. We saw people sell chicken nuggets to get a few coins to put together to buy crack cocaine.

A lot of people make the mistake to think that if you give someone something - they'll use it like you intended for it to be used.

Jerry, I found your previously published comments in the spam folder. This was due to the fact that you made multiple posts (duplicate). I have reposted the comments. I am sorry for the problem. -BJ Community Manager

I think the gospel is so powerful it results in a way of life of caring for people. I don't think it's an either/or as many think - either pick evangelism or social justice. I think the gospel creates the desire to do both, and they both feed each other.

My apologies too for the duplicate posts and accusations.

"Social Justice" is a hot topic for me in that: Apart from a transformed life that is only possible thru Jesus Christ, there really is nothing you can do to set people free from a lifestyle that is void of Christ. You might as well flush your money down the toilet - it would do less harm in the sewer system.

I have learned this first hand thru trying to help people - not thru reading some intellectual articles on how the poor can benefit from a better lifestyle. (the current U.S. President's and Congress' agenda)

Once you get a theory - you really need to put feet to it - and go prove it and see if it will work. Better on a small scale before you wreck a whole nation.

Instead of throwing money at something - (like I as a normal "suburbanite" did) - why not get involved in an inner-city ministry and see what the real challenges are? After you've done that - then let me know how many of your hand-ups really pushed someone up. It's only after you do that that you'll understand Jesus' statement that there will always be poor people. Poverty is not a lack of resources - its a way of life. Money doesn't break its cycle - it feeds its compulsion. Jesus is the only one that can break it.

First, the biblical injunction to social justice is found in the general biblical idea of justice. A through word study on "mishpat" in the OT will show that justice did not simply refer to retributive justice in the case of criminals but to the king ruling justly, advocating for the "fatherless and the widow", meaning the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Since sovereignty now resides with the people rather than a king, it is now all of our responsibility (as Christian citizens) to advocate for these disadvantaged.

That said, biblical "social justice" should not be easily equated with either of the current political parties. Social justice in biblical times were founded upon a shared understanding of the common good, rooted in God's word. If you read the Old Testament, you find many commands regarding economic practices that God designed to protect the poor and vulnerable. Our current political parties force a decision between which groups of vulnerable we would like to protect; the unborn, on the one hand, or the impoverished and discriminated against on the other. In any case, it is important to note both possible areas of agreement and possible areas of difference in regards to secular visions of social justice.

Finally, the gospel is not simply information. The gospel can not be reduced to a tract. The words used to preach the gospel make sense in the light of the practices of the church; seeking reconciliation, advocating for the helpless, worship, baptism, communion. They both announce the coming Kingdom of God, and provide a tangible foretaste of that kingdom. Our actions need our words and our words need our actions. The gospel stories themselves reinforce the seamless way word and deed came together in the person of Jesus Christ; as His body, should the church dare to be any different?

Blessings,
Thomas

Case: Rich Man, Poor Man

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side." (Luke 16:19-23)

Our Problem: The rich man ignores the poor man.

Our Goal: "Rich and poor have this in common: The Lord is the Maker of them all." (Proverbs 22:2)

Our Objective: The poor need the rich to live, here and now, in this Life. The rich need the poor to live, there and then, in the Afterlife.

In reply to Jerry. “. It's only after you do that that you'll understand Jesus' statement that there will always be poor people”
It appears to me that you may misinterpret the Lord’s words. Jesus said this in reply to words about the fact the money could have been given to the poor. Surely He is saying believers will have plenty of opportunity to give. Whilst it may be a fact of life there will be poor till He returns, so will there be sin but it doesn’t mean we just shrug and give up fighting sin. I have been reading about the truly appalling state that the cities of Great Britain were in the later 19thC and the work of William Booth and the Salvation Army. Do even a cursory search about the staggering numbers of prostitutes, child workers etc etc and you see the impact that he and other Evangelicals had. They certainly preached the Gospel but gave sacrificially to ‘social work’ seamlessly. There were plenty of people in Victorian times who blamed this relatively very large number of people for their own misfortune. Yet if we look at the percentage of the population in the UK in similar circumstances it is far far lower. Jerry seems to be saying that this is either not possible or even undesirable.
Fundamentalist said “The Bible commands us to help the poor, which is charity not justice in either the Biblical meaning of the term or the traditional meaning in Western history” Here is a selection of very many verses that speak of justice in the social sphere. You seem to be giving us a false choice that in your terms “Social Justice” is giving money to addicts so they can get another fix or drink. Of course Biblical social justice is no such thing let’s have a real debate on it.
Having said all that Thomas has probably put it far better than I.
In Jesus’ Name. Ed
Psalms 82:3 Defend the weak, the poor, and the fatherless. Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed
Psalms 140:12 I am certain that the Lord will take care of the cause of the poor, and of the rights of those who are troubled.
Proverbs 29:7 The righteous care about justice for the poor. The wicked aren't concerned about knowledge
Isaiah 10:2 To deprive the needy from justice, and to rob the poor among my people of their rights, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
Jeremiah 5:28 They have become fat and strong: they have gone far in works of evil: they give no support to the cause of the child without a father, so that they may do well; they do not see that the poor man gets his rights

Ed, I think you'll find that the verses you posted refer to the nobility of Israel committing crimes against the poor, widows and orphans and stealing their property. The did it by bribing judges.

When the Bible talks about giving to the poor, it does not use the term justice. It says things like this: giving to the poor is like lending to God. And give and it shall be given to you, pressed down, shaken together and running over.

Justice in the Bible is a legal concept that applies to criminal activity. Injustice is corrected by the state exercising its role in preventing criminal activity. Not giving to the poor is clearly an expression of contempt for God, but God never intended it to be criminal and enforceable by the state.

In over forty years of faith, I still don't get this problem. Why is it an either/or for so many people? How can we bask in the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and ignore the physical and spiritual needs of the people we meet in our daily walk? The religious man avoids the man dying by the side of the road, but the Samritan does not. Jesus said the Samaritan did as we all should do. How shameful that unsaved people get that, but some allegedly saved individuals do not. Doing works for the sake of gaining salvation is useless. Failing to do such works in response to salvation is heresy. That is what James was talking about.

Actually, a careful reading of the Bible shows there are several types of justice in the Bible, including (but not limited to) criminal, restorative and distributive.

What's interesting about Stiles' original article is that he assumes that a focus on social justice is inherently "liberal," whatever that may actually mean. Secondly, he assumes that the reason the mainline churches have faded over the last century is because they focused on the social justice instead of a particular understanding of the Gospel. Neither situation necessarily applies in the contemporary case.

The mainline has been fading not because of a focus on social justice, but because in the long run, "liberal" theology did not offer what people needed. And just because liberal theology focused on social justice does not mean that social justice is inherently separate from the Gospel. The question is, can contemporary Evangelicals keep a Gospel centered focus on social justice?

There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com