Spiritual AND Religious? Why the Two Aren’t Always Exclusive…

Posted on June 11, 2010 by Chris Wiles

A common perception concerning contemporary spirituality is that Americans describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.”

What exactly this means is notoriously hard to define, but it generally means a do-it-yourself brand of spirituality that depends on individualized self-discovery rather than receiving instruction from religious institutions.

A recent article on CNN.com (citing a Huffington Post writer) describes this phenomenon as “Burger King Spirituality,” the idea being to “Have it your way” (the article suggests that such narcissism might be implicitly dangerous, prompting many-a-negative comment).

Lifeway research has recently shown that young Americans (the Milennial generation) more closely identify with the term “spiritual” than they do “religious.”

According to a Lifeway Research study in January of 2008, Americans (this time of all generations, rather than merely the younger set) have both negative views of the church as well as positive views of faith:

(1) Negative Views of the Church:

72 % = think the church ‘is full of hypocrites,’”

79% think Christianity “is more about organized religion than about loving God and loving people.”

86% believe they “can have a good relationship with God without being involved in church.”

(2) Positive Views of Faith:

71 % believe Jesus ‘makes a positive difference in a person’s life

78 % would ‘be willing to listen’ to someone who wanted to share what they believed about Christianity.”The number rose to 89 percent among adults 18-29 years of age.

NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

But this data may be misleading, as it suggests a dichotomy between “spiritual” and “religious” that doesn’t seem to exist in the mind of John Q. Public the way it’s often portrayed.

In Rodney Stark’s book What Americans Really Believe, he uncovered the following data regarding Americans’ professed spiritual convictions (emphasis added):

Spiritual but not religious: 10%

Spiritual and religious: 57%

Religious, but not spiritual: 17%

Neither: 16%

This data is generally confirmed by a 2009 Newsweek study, which showed that roughly half (48%) of those interviewed called themselves “religious and spiritual,” compared to 30% calling themselves “spiritual but not religious.”

Stark also notes that the “Spiritual but not religious” crowd tends to be more liberal, both theologically (seeing God as an impersonal force, mystical, and “oneness with the universe”) as well as politically (approving of legalized marijuana, euthanasia and gay marriage).

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

What does this all mean? It means that “religious” is not the pejorative term that it is commonly mistaken for. It seems that “religious” need not necessarily mean a direct association with “organized,” institutional religion.

While this data initially surprised me, it actually makes sense: if religious conviction is entirely private, why not describe yourself as “religious?” Put another way, being “religious” and following an “organized religion” are not necessarily synonymous, especially as more and more people exercise faith outside the confines of the hypocrisy (real or imagined) of institutional structure.

SPIRITUALITY ON THE RISE

Still, Stark observes that “spiritual but not religious” is a category populated more highly by young adults. This may mean the future will bring more spiritually-minded, theologically/politically liberal young men and women through the doors of America’s churches. Studies such as these prove invaluable in helping prepare for this potential transition.

Change Your Church for Good (Brad Powell): Review

Posted on May 28, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Brad Powell’s experience as senior pastor of NorthRidge Church has been distilled in the form of a book: Change Your Church for Good. The premise of the book is simple: many churches need move beyond entrenched irrelevance to be relevant, vibrant communicators of the gospel.

To that end, Powell’s ministry philosophy strongly reflects an “attractional” model, which will simultaneously appeal to some readers while alienating the more “missional” crowd. I say this neither as criticism nor praise (I personally see value in both models), but only that readers be aware of this philosophical leaning.

THE GOOD

Powell writes from obviously first-hand experience. There’s never any question that the issues he raises are anything less than issues with which he has personally dealt. Readers will also be appreciative of Powell’s clear writing style and frequent reference to scripture.

THE BAD

The problem with the book is not its content, but what I felt the book sorely lacks: traction. Powell uses generalities (such as “often…”, “many people,” etc.) rather than the types of concrete examples that would better illustrate his case.

While Powell admirably balances his experience with scripture, the book is noticeably lacking in footnotes, appendices or outside references. Discussions of the problems with the contemporary church must be substantiated with objective data in order for such claims to have their merit. Additionally, there is a wealth of available data (from such as the Barna Group, Lifeway Research, etc.) that could be used to support what is (or is not) considered culturally “relevant,” and such data could also be of infinite help in evaluating how best to reach the present and future generations.

Though Powell makes clear that the church “change without compromise” (p. 73), the boundary between “relevance” and “compromise” is never firmly established. The result is that there is never an explanation of why certain forms of ministry are better than others (and again, here is where research data would have been helpful).

Additionally, while his use of scripture is to be commended, there is never quite a bridge between the text and concrete reality. For example, on p. 48 Powell suggests that 1 Peter 3:15 (“give the reason for the hope”) teaches the church to answer our culture’s great questions. True, he cites a few examples, but this is another case where research data and concrete illustrations would be of enormous help.

Finally, Powell’s book does not adequately address the life and internal dynamic of the church, such as small group ministry or plans of discipleship, issues that have as much (if not more) impact on the unchurched as the main service.

THE SKINNY

We must be clear that the book is meant to be prescriptive, not merely descriptive. Therefore we must measure its worth on its ability to inform and communicate not only the need for change, but the mechanism thereof. Unfortunately, Powell’s work falls significantly short of providing a helpful ministry model.

The reason I am so demanding of research data is simply that without it, readers have no real way of knowing whether Powell’s ideas have any merit outside the context of his church and ministry. Given the widespread availability of such data, this would have been a simple and worthwhile inclusion.

I want to be clear that I appreciate Powell and believe his ministry to be a success. With so many books like this on the market (e.g. works by Ed Stetzer, Thom Rainer, etc.), this is a very difficult field to be writing in. While I wish he and his ministry continued success, I simply cannot recommend this book to those seeking to implement change in the local church.

I am grateful to Thomas Nelson Publishers for providing me a complimentary copy to review.

Dug Down Deep (Joshua Harris) – Quote

Posted on May 11, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Joshua Harris’ latest book Dug Down Deep is worth the hype. The following is a quote from one of the later chapters:

For the first two decades of my life, I didn’t give much thought to the “us” aspect of the Christian faith. I viewed faith in a very individualistic way. It was about me and my Jesus. I didn’t consider Christianity’s corporate or group nature.

Of course I went to church. That’s what Christians do – we have meetings. But it was just tradition. It was a habit like sleeping, breathing, and all the other things we can do without thinking. In my more cynical moments, I viewed church suspiciously, as a way for pastors to give themselves jobs and exert power. But, really, I didn’t really give it much thought. So while church attendance played a big part in my life growing up, the church didn’t have much of my heart.

I treated the church like a gas station. Everybody needs a gas station, right? You stop in (usually when you’re in a hurry) to get filled up. You go to the one that’s most convenient for you. You get what you need, then you move on. I stopped by the church for the spiritual fuel that comes from worship, teaching, and relationships with other Christians. But then I hit the road and got back to my own plans – my own destination.

I think that describes a good number of Christians today, and they are abandoning the church. Some drop out completely. Others attend meetings but lack a real commitment and engagement in any one church. This leads to the church-hopping syndrome. …

So why is this happening? If we’re the body of Christ, why are so many body parts not showing up to play their part? No doubt some are burned out or disillusioned by the corruption or poor leadership they’ve seen. Others feel that the church is cumbersome and that there are more effective ways to get things done.

But my guess is that a vast majority of Christians who have lost their vision for the church are like I was: they’ve never taken the time to study what the Bible says about God’s purpose and plan for the church. Instead, they’re living their lives guided by feelings or experience. They’re pragmatic, so they’re focused more on what “works” than on what Scripture dictates. They’re consumers who approach church asking, “What’s in it for me?”

But what if we saw that the church is more than a human program, more than what we disparagingly refer to as organized religion? What if we saw that it originated in the heart and mind of God himself and that his plan began before the dawn of human history and stretches into eternity? What if we learned that the church was so precious to Jesus that he was willing to shed his own blood to obtain it? What if the church is the means by which God has chosen to accomplish his purpose for us and for the world? And what if it is irreplacable?

If we could see this, then we’d realize that rejecting the church is rejecting God himself.

(Joshua Harris, Dug Down Deep, p. 198-9)

“The Hole in Our Gospel” (Richard Stearns): Review

Posted on May 5, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Richard Stearns has been the President of World Vision since June of 1998. The book is both autobiographical, detailing the journey that took him from the corporate world to assisting the third world. Replete with stories and statistics, the book is a challenge to the American church and a call to involvement in the problems of worldwide poverty.

The copy I received was provided to me at no charge, courtesy of Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of a review program. The following is my review:

ABOUT THE PAPERBACK EDITION:

The paperback edition contains new material:

(1)16-page color photo insert
(2)interview with richard’s wife, renee
(3)Practical advice on how to get started
(4)Q&A on the subject: “Can Poverty Be Defeated?”
(5)Improved indexes

THE BOOK’S STRENGTHS

Apart from the autobiographical content and the many, many stories, the book’s greatest strength is in painting a picture of reality using a wealth of statistics and data, including the following:

Children:

26,500+ children die each day from extreme poverty – the equivalent of “100 crashing jetliners”
1 out of every 5 children worldwide are malnourished
Every 5 seconds, a child dies of hunger

Global Poverty:

~40% of the earth’s population (2.6 billion people) live on less than $2.00/day.
If you’re income is $25,000 per year, you are wealthier than 90% of the world’s population. If you make $50,000 per year, you are wealthier than 99% of the world.
~25,000 die each day due to hunger

Disease:

In Sub-Saharan Africa, ~12 million children have become orphans due to AIDS
In Africa alone, 15,000 die each day from preventable disease

What I also appreciated was Stearns’ inclusion of the positive things that are happening through Christian charity (including a decrease in poverty and an increase in worldwide literacy, cf. p. 163), helping readers avoid the “compassion fatigue” that often accompanies such figures.

THE GOSPEL?

It has (once again) become increasingly popular to connect “the gospel” with acts of compassion and social justice. Stearns makes clear that Christs gospel “means much more than the personal salvation of individuals. It means a social revolution.” (p. 20)

The problem is that the Bible – specifically in the writings of Paul – consistently defines the gospel in terms of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-3). While this may seem a minor issue, to associate social justice with the content of the gospel is incorrect and may inadvertently result in the same kinds of errors seen in the “social justice” (i.e., “mainline”) denominations of yesteryear (denominations which have been successful neither in social justice nor evangelism).

Stearns does an admirable job of outlining the Christian call to address the world’s problems, and his compassion is something that we must affirm. I simply ask that the gospel be a bit better defined.

The Great Commission to share the gospel is distinct, though inseparable from the command to love our neighbor. Practicing one without the other is always less than Christian, but the practice of one does not guarantee the practice of the other.

BOTTOM LINE:

While the bonus material is helpful, I don’t know that the paperback edition is worth purchasing if you have previously read the hardcover original.

The book is recommended to anyone with a concern for the state of the world today. Filled with illustrative material, the book is a good resource for communicators and leaders. Barring the theological fuzziness (mentioned above), the book is a challenging and recommended read.

To that end it is also a difficult read: I could not set the book down without admitting my own ignorance of the world’s problems, nor could I claim to be a part of the solution. I trust that other readers will feel much the same, and I suspect that in that regard, Stearns’ arrow has reached its target.

Jesus Versus Paul?: New Perspectives on the Gospel

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Chris Wiles

It’s Jesus versus Paul.

Two recent books have promoted a “new” way of thinking about the gospel relative to the traditional doctrines of the evangelical church.

The authors of both books have reached their conclusions through personal study and what I can only assume to be sincere devotion. Both authors have also reached their conclusions by noticing the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul. Yet both authors have reached strikingly different conclusions about the nature of the gospel itself.

THE NAKED GOSPEL

Farley’s book, The Naked Gospel, is written in reaction to the legalistic hyperspirituality that dominates some segments of the evangelical church, and as I read his opening chapters I could not help by sympathize with someone who had been so burned by those who had allowed duty to supplant devotion. It was such an experience that led Farley to reexamine the content of his faith, a process that led him to “the naked gospel.”

The emphasis in Farley’s gospel is the New Covenant. The cross becomes the dividing line between the New and the Old. Which means that everything – yes, everything before the cross has no value for the believer. The law, says Farley, has “no place in the life of a believer” (p.233).

This also means that Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom (e.g,, the Sermon on the Mount) are intended only to expose sin and convict non-believers by showing an unattainable standard of righteousness. Jesus’ teachings therefore have no real value for believers, as a result of the “dividing line in human history” (i.e., the cross):

“Couldn’t we resolve all this by realizing the dividing line in human history? Peter, James, John, and Paul wrote epistles about life under the New Covenant. Years earlier, Jesus was teaching hopelessness under the Old. The audience wasn’t the same. The covenant wasn’t the same. And the teachings aren’t the same… Jesus harsh teachings aimed at the religious kill you every time.” (p. 86, 87)

It really is Jesus versus Paul (and James, Peter, John, Jude and whoever wrote the letter to the Hebrews).

Despite his protests to the contrary, Farley falls into the error of antinomianism (anti = “against” and nomos = “Law”). He affirms the use of the law in conviction of sin, but denies its use in the lives of believers.

This stems from a confusion of justification (the act of being declared righteous by God through Christ) and sanctification (the act of being made righteous through the Holy Spirit). Farley suggests that “The moment we enter into Christ at salvation, our old self is obliterated” (p. 104).

In Farley’s terms, this means a rejection of Luther’s view of “legal fiction:” that we are “simultaneously justified and yet sinners.” Farley says:

“God certainly doesn’t condone our wallowing in a poor self-image. The risen Christ doesn’t join himself to filthy worms. The Holy Spirit doesn’t dwell in dirty sinners. Christ only unites himself with those who are like him in spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn’t reside in someone who remains even 1 percent flawed by sin. But we’ve been perfectly cleansed. And we’ve been made perfectly righteous at our core through spiritual surgery” (p. 106).

But at the same time, Farley elsewhere acknowledges the presence of sin:

“There’s a godly sorrow or regret over sins that leads a person to desire change (2 Corinthians 7:10). This regret occurs because believers are designed for good works, not sins. When we sin, we’re not living out our destiny. When we sin, we won’t be content with our choice. We’re meant for something greater. We’re meant to display the life of Jesus Christ. Nothing less.”

Farley fails to reconcile these statements, though he does make the claim that the Holy Spirit does not convict believers of sin (p. 163). Good works? Unnecessary for the Christian life. The “good works” of James’ epistle are nothing more than “opening the door in your life” (p. 197-199).

My concern with all this is simple: in avoiding the dry moralism of religion, Farley has forced the pendulum to swing too far the other way into antinomianism. In writing to the Philippians, Paul takes a strong stance against religious moralism (Philippians 3:1-8), as well as against antinomianism, those who make themselves “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3:18-19).

The danger of Farley’s errors is that he substitutes for legalism a similarly unfulfilling message. He presents us grace without cost, and in so doing minimizes the fulfillment that may be found in the formation of Christian character.

Farley opens the book with a quote from another book called The Naked Gospel, a text that he reports was “burned by the church.” In so doing is he preemptively vilifies potential critics as legalists? I pray that such is not the case, and that he remains open to a fuller understanding of the gospel in the future.

WHO REALLY GOES TO HELL: THE GOSPEL YOU’VE NEVER HEARD

Like Farley, David I. Rudel begins his book, Who Really Goes to Hell? on an autobiographical note, explaining the circumstances that challenged him to more fully develop his commitment to his Christian faith. And, once again, I applaud this spirit.

Also like Farley, Rudel finds a contradiction in the writings of Paul and the words of Jesus. So, once again, it is Jesus versus Paul.

But unlike Farley, Rudel places the emphasis not on the writings of the New Testament, but on the words of Jesus (particularly the ethical teachings of the synoptic gospels). Rudel emphasizes the Jewish character of Jesus’ teachings and context. In so doing, you hear Wright’s “New Perspective on Paul” coming through at full volume.

In examining Christ’s teachings (and reading Paul in light of them), Rudel concludes that (1) “works of the law” refer to religious ceremony, therefore the gospel is not about righteousness but about community inclusion (which leads to a form of universalism). (2) Heaven and Hell do not exist. (3) The final resurrection is the future hope. Life is led in expectation of this.

Because of this, the Christian life is about defeating “injustice, oppression, poverty, and immorality” (91). Traditional views of righteousness through Christ is – according to Rudel – the equivalent of “God doing accounting tricks to let us into heaven” (45).

Other Biblical writers are dismissed entirely. John’s commentary in John 3:16-21 is dismissed (p. 27), showing Rudel’s considerable bias towards skeptical scholarship over the Biblical witness. Rather than seeking solutions to harmonize these seeming issues, Rudel seeks to read scripture through the lens of the New Perspective – a method I caution to be extremely unbalanced.

The New Perspective views “works of the law” as referring merely to ceremony, therefore meaning that “justification” is about being included in a covenant community. On the one hand, we may appreciate the social dimension of this approach, at least in contrast to the individualized gospel that many have grown up with. But in confronting the claims of the New Perspective, we must acknowledge several things:

It is wrong to suggest that the early Jews were unconcerned with righteousness, as the Jewish texts even suggest: “The one who does righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord” (Psalms of Solomon, c. 50 B.C.). “Miracles, however, will appear at their own time to those who are saved by their works” (2 Baruch, c. A.D. 100).
Similarly, Jewish leaders were routinely criticized (by Jesus) for their commitment to righteousness and the Law. Paul addressed the Galatian problem by actively anathematizing the Judaizers. These approaches suggest an implicit condemnation of those who emphasize ceremony for distinctively moral purposes.
How can ceremonial law condemn? Only moral law can bring actual moral condemnation. The New Perspective fails to address how ceremonial law is to be reconciled with the language of condemnation in Romans 1-3.

The issue of the afterlife is a complicated one, but again reflects Rudel’s deference to contemporary scholarship over Biblical literalism.

Like Farley, I pray that the content and tone of his work do not reflect a spirit unwilling to continue to engage and study the issues.

CONCLUSION

Jesus versus Paul. For Farley: Jesus’ teachings are dismissed. For Rudel, Jesus’ teachings are ultimate. These men can both be wrong, but they cannot both be right.

The problems generated by this approach to scripture is good evidence of the dangers of pitting one author against another, rather than finding solutions toward harmonizing the Biblical message.

I make no secret of my reformed leanings, a commitment I make based on the internal consistency of this worldview and its faithfulness to the entirety of the Biblical message.

There is simply no reason to pit Jesus and Paul against one another. The story of the tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) defies the notion of covenant inclusion, but instead situates the gospel in the context of righteousness and mercy. Jesus and Paul must be therefore be said to complement, not conflict with one another, in presenting a God who in His great mercy, could love the unlovable.

I affirm Doug Moo, who suggested that if he could “tweet” the definition of justification, it would be this:

The Bible pictures all human beings as defendants in a courtroom: a courtroom in which God is the judge and our sins constitute the evidence against us. The judge weighs the evidence and finds every single one of us guilty of sin and announces that we, therefore, must be condemned. The marvelous news of justification is that God has himself provided for us the means of escaping that condemnation: by responding to his gracious initiative in faith, we become joined with Christ, who died for us and was raised for us. We become joined to Christ, who takes on himself the penalty for our sin and covers us with the ‘righteousness’ that we need to reverse the verdict of condemnation and receive the verdict of ‘justified’, ‘right’ with God. And because we have been joined to Christ, the holy one, and have in that union received the gift of God’s powerful holy Spirit, we, who have been justified, also find our lives transformed so that we love God and neighbor.

Farley and Rudel are both very intelligent and I cannot say more to affirm their search for truth in the midst of populist religion. But I am sorry to see that, in the absence of proper guidance, these writers have presented a gospel that is far less fulfilling than the gospel of Christ, and therefore have offered “no gospel at all” (Gal 1:7).

Both writers have provided online platforms for online discussion, which I again appreciate, though with the cautionary note that technological connectivity is not the same as academic accountability.

To that end I urge pastors and lay leaders to teach the hard issues – this will mean teaching some big words to your people. The benefits of a good, gospel-centered education far outweigh the difficulties, promoting spiritual health and discernment.

It is also worth mentioning that the New Perspective has now moved from the writings of Wright to a popular audience. This means that there will be an increased need for familiarity with this issue, given that the definition of justification is now on the debate table (incidentally, this is the focus of the next ETS conference).

Matt Chandler: Jesus Wants the Rose

Posted on April 23, 2010 by Chris Wiles

Most things desensitize me after repeat viewings. But the more I watch this, the more it makes me cry.

I know many have seen this before, but I needed a reminder of why I got into this whole mess to begin with, and I wanted to share it with you.

Francis Chan Leaves Cornerstone, Pursues New Direction

Posted on April 20, 2010 by Chris Wiles

If you haven’t already heard the news, Francis Chan is stepping down from Cornerstone Church. You can view his video at Justin Taylor’s blog. Apparently Chan is pursuing a new direction. While details regarding this “direction” are still unknown, this decision was certainly a clear-headed step of faith, and we can only look forward to his future endeavors.

In the meantime, I felt it appropriate to share just a few brief quotes from Francis Chan, thoughts that have been influential in my own life, and worth passing along to you.

I quickly found that the American church is a difficult place to fit in if you want to live out New Testament Christianity. The goals of American Christianity are often a nice marriage, children who don’t swear, and good church attendance. Taking the words of Christ literally and seriously is rarely considered. That’s for the “radicals” who are “unbalanced” and who go “overboard.” Most of us want a balanced life that we can control, that is safe, and that does not involve suffering (Francis Chan, Crazy Love, p. 66).

And from “More than a Follower,” originally appearing in Relevant Magazine:

Christians in America often complain about how antagonistic people are toward Jesus. Personally, I’m not sure that Americans are really rejecting Christ. Maybe they just haven’t seen Him.

Try to be completely honest with yourself right now. Is the following true of you?

You passionately love Jesus, but you don’t really want to be like Him. You admire His humility, but you don’t want to be that humble. You think it is beautiful that He washed the feet of the disciples, but that is not exactly the direction your life is headed. You are thankful He was spit upon and abused, but you would never let that happen to you. You praise Him for loving you enough to suffer during His whole time on earth, but you are going to do everything within your power to make sure you enjoy your time down here.

In short: You think He is a great Savior, but not a great role model.

FREE Worship Album: Red Letter

Posted on April 13, 2010 by Chris Wiles

I know the album came out over a week ago, but I didn’t want to tell you about it until I had a chance to hear it for myself.

You can listen to samples by clicking the above box (or by clicking here to go to the Noisetrade Website). Or you can download the album for free (yes, free) by entering the above information. Even if you think this really isn’t your thing, I highly recommend you download it and give it a listen or two.

Red Letter is one of the worship bands of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. I’m extremely appreciative of any band that produces good worship music for Radiohead fans.

The album is musically quite diverse, ranging from a hard-rock approach (such as the aggressive “Led to the Slaughter”) to more melodic songs (“My God my Father”). Among the tracks is an updated version of “It is Well,” as well as an upbeat rendering of Psalm 139.

But lyrically is where the album shines. On “Led to the Slaughter” we find the words:

Expose our prideful motives; throw them away. / And clothe us with humility as you displayed. / We all have sought our saviors in garbage heaps. / Lift us up from the wreckage, become our king.

And on “My God my Father” we find lyrics that are much more poetic:

If Thou should call me to resign / What most I prize never was mine / I only yield Thee what is Thine / Thy will be done … The when on earth I breathe no more / I’ll sing upon that joyful shore / Thy will be done.

The lyrics are memorable, with enough repetition to be learned quickly, yet not so much as to become trite or stale. It’s a good album because not only is it something I can listen to while running, but I also find myself thinking, “I could see myself singing this.”

The album contains a total of 9 tracks (roughly 45 minutes total), though the physical CD has a bonus track (“Lamb of God”).

Worship leaders? Churches? You can click here to visit the Mars Hill site to find pdf files of chord charts, and information on using the music in your church.

Glenn Beck and Social Justice: Evangelicals Respond

Posted on March 16, 2010 by Chris Wiles

I’d really like to see this matter be laid to rest.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that there’s been some recent controversy over some remarks made by Glenn Beck. The remarks in question originated on his March 2 radio program, where he made this statement:

I beg you, look for the words “social justice” or “economic justice” on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If I’m going to Jeremiah’s Wright’s church? Yes! Leave your church. Social justice and economic justice. They are code words. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” I don’t care what the church is. If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “Yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing,” I’m in the wrong place. (Glenn Beck, radio show, March 2)

“Code words?” The point was driven home on his television program, where he held up Nazi and Communist flags to punctuate the connection between “social justice” and totalitarianism.

The response from evangelical Christianity has been both diverse and fierce, and I wanted to give you a taste of the many, many voices that have been raised on this issue. Mind you, I am not critiquing Beck for his politics; that’s a job for a different writer. I simply wish to address the issues raised with clarity and honesty.

ACROSS THE SPECTRUM

On one end of the spectrum is a reaction recorded in a recent CNN article:

Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, says Jesus wasn’t interested in politics. He says that those pastors who preach economic and social justice “are trying to twist the gospel to say the gospel supported socialism.”

“Jesus taught that we should give to the poor and support widows, but he never said that we should elect a government that would take money from our neighbor’s hand and give it to the poor,” Falwell says.

Falwell says that Jesus believed that individuals, not governments, should help the poor.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the voice of Jim Wallis who, according the same CNN article, is calling for Christians to boycott Beck’s program. His response to Beck’s statements were as follows (emphasis added):

“What he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show,”

An article in Christianity Today reported on Wallis’ desire to appear on Beck’s program to discuss the issue. Beck’s only response thus far was to call Wallis “a leftist,” “an operative for the Democratic Party,” “an apologist communist for atrocities in Cambodia and Vietnam,” and “a dedicated foe of capitalism.”

Meanwhile countless other voices have spoken out declaring the importance of social justice throughout scripture and church history. The National Association of Evangelicals has even gone as far as to suggest that the Bible does seem to suggest the rights of governments – not churches, contrary to Falwell’s statement – to care for the poor, citing such Biblical texts as Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

On his blog, Scot McKnight offers some excellent insight into this very issue, with numerous texts supporting the importance of social justice. He raises an important question:

“Are you seeing an increasing connection of libertarianism with the Bible? Do you think the Bible is anti-government mandated care for the poor? Do you see a radical voluntarism as the biblical model for caring for the poor?”

McKnight argues that some texts speak quite strongly of the role of the government in social action.

Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary posts on the distinction between “social justice” and the “social gospel,” his point being that even if social work is not synonymous with the gospel, scripture still emphasizes the need to pursue justice. Bock concludes (and let’s forgive him his typos – he’s graded my papers so graciously I might as well give something back):

“…let’s not let Christian virtue get captured in ideological political rhetoric of cultural wars that take peopel away from the call of the gospel to be socially sensitive. Let’s be sure we read and listen to the prophets John the Baptist and Jesus. May political commentators giving advice to members of the church be sure and read their Bible first and not oversimplify what God asks of people who serve him. Yes, the gospel is about salvation of the soul, but service to the world and caring for justice and the poor grows out of responding properly to God. Once again what some want to make either-or is actually a both-and when bibically defined. Let’s not villify with political associations of communism or socialism a concern and compassion Jesus asks of people who love their neighbor, part of what Jesus called the greatest commandment.”

NAVIGATING THE VOICES

It’s a sticky issue. On the one hand, the responses I’ve mentioned have all been in agreement that social justice is a Biblical mandate, the disagreement seems to be what form or priority this mandate should take. Falwell seems to relegate it to individuals and churches, while Wallis calls social justice “the very heart of our Christian faith.”

The statements of Beck and Wallis are quite equally wrong though for opposite reasons. A full understanding of the issue requires both Biblical fidelity and historical responsibility.

BIBLICAL FIDELITY

First, we must be clear that the Bible teaches social justice. The prophets hit this subject especially hard, repeatedly emphasizing the justice of God.

“…learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause” (Isaiah 1:17)

“He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the LORD really wants from you: He wants you to promote justice, to be faithful, and to live obediently before your God.” (Micah 6:8)

Jesus Himself read from the prophets at the beginning of his ministry:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)

I don’t know how to “spiritualize” that. Nor can I read Jesus’ prescription for us to imitate the behavior of the Good Samaritan without an understanding of the Christian duty to reach out to the broken.

Later in the Greek testament, Jesus’ half-brother James acknowledged that “true religion” is helping the “widows and orphans” (James 1:27).

The “greatest commandment” in Luke 10 is to love God and our neighbor. John asks, “But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (1 John 3:17)

These are words that should make hypocrites of us all.

To be fair, how social justice is brought about is a matter of debate – historically as well as presently. But these are questions of application, not the interpretation of passages that make the point so clearly.

HISTORICAL RESPONSIBILITY

But we must be good students of history. As Bock points out, social justice is not the same thing as the gospel, a point we must be very clear on.

The reason such clarity is necessary is that in the past century there have been those who have taken verses such as I’ve mentioned above and reduced the gospel into something that is only social. This was the error that affected much of mainline protestantism (Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) and some strands of liturgical traditions (so much so that today mainline protestant denominations are often called “social justice Christians”).

While the effects of this error have been felt in some locales more than others, the results are the same: a movement away from the cross as personal redemption, and a movement toward the cross as a victory over the systemic sins that cause injustice as well as a symbol of Christ’s solidarity with the poor.

Both of the above statements are true (though deserve more clarification that I presently have time…) but both miss the most important elements of the gospel, forgiveness and relationship. This is why Wallis is wrong to call it the “heart of the Christian faith.” It is a vital component of it, but certainly does not supercede the need for personal redemption.

SHOULD YOU LEAVE YOUR CHURCH?

If your church is preaching a message of forgiveness of sins but makes no effort to reach beyond its walls, then this is a church that needs to change.

If your church is reaching out but fails to communicate the forgiveness offered through Jesus, then this is also a church that needs to change.

The former is wrong for minimizing the call to social action, and the latter is wrong for ignoring the call for personal salvation.

Should you leave? Maybe. But certainly not without a good, long talk with your church leadership. If your church is gospel centered, it may be that your pastor would love to see someone take the initiative behind an outreach project. If your church has lost this focus, it may be time to look elsewhere; I actually have known several families who have abandoned mainline protestantism for the very reasons I’ve listed, and as much as I want to be respectful of various traditions, I couldn’t be happier to see them in environments that embrace a holistic gospel that offers forgiveness for the individual while maintaining sensitivity to the needs of the world.

AND CONFRONTATION

Let’s remember something else: Glenn Beck is not a Christian, meaning he needs our prayers far more than he needs our criticisms.

Which means that while it is very tempting to respond by finger-pointing and name-calling, such reactionary tendencies are hardly emblematic of the Biblical call to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:22). A friend posted on her Facebook page a relevant quote: “Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle”.

Responding to this mentality requires both love and integrity.

Love is necessary because we are called to “walk in wisdom toward outsiders” (Colossians 4:5). Conduct reveals character, and as Christians our character is a reflection of Christ. Don’t ruin His reputation through hostile, reactionary behavior.

Integrity is necessary because the issue is so volatile. Proverbs tells us not to “speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.” (23:9) and not to “reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.” (9:8)

When disagreements turn disagreeable, it might be time to just let them have the last word and be done with it, because being “right” isn’t as important as being redemptive.

FURTHERING THE CONVERSATION

I hope I’ve said something helpful. And hopefully this helps you understand the issues in play.

It’s well worth mentioning that there is an excellent video series on this very issue, one that churches may find helpful.

It is a six part series called “Seek Social Justice” and is available through their website: Seek Social Justice.

The video series features such leaders as Chuck Colson, Al Mohler, Sean Litton of the International Justice Mission, and others, making it an excellent, timely resource.

A Wretch Like Me

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Chris Wiles

I’m naturally skeptical of trends. When I started seeing billboards by the interstate for something called www.iamsecond.com, I was skeptical. The website features video clips of various celebrities (both major and minor) as well as others offering a brief testimony concerning their commitment to Christ.

The site is extremely well done, worthy of attention, and will surely challenge the popular images of what a Christian “should” be.

But over time, as I saw the aggregation of Facebook status updates, I began to wonder if the site and its mission were becoming yet another victim of mass-market spirituality (think: WWJD? all over again), a concern that the group’s organizers seemed to share.

Then yesterday I logged on to see this update, accompanied by a photo album of men in orange jumpsuits:

“Chaplain Albert started an ‘I am Second’ group in one of the pods (dorm rooms) at a local state jail. Recently 25 inmates received certificates for completing 10 sessions. As they are moved to different pods or different state prisons, many are now ready to start their own I am Second groups. Anyone can be a missionary!”

Here’s a guy who turned a group of convicts into a group of missionaries. I cannot say nearly enough of what a great thing this is, and what a piercing reminder it is to all of us of the power of the gospel. And if I may be uncharacteristically gushy, I love love LOVE what I see happening here.

As I see the photo of orange jumpsuits, I cannot help but be reminded of the words of Paul to the church at Corinth – a city known in the ancient world for its lofty, metropolitan culture.

“For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)”

When God was looking to build His organization (i.e., the Church), He didn’t hand-pick an “A-team” of winners. He chose the “low and despised.”

He chose the losers. The fishermen. The tax collectors. The uneducated. The overweight. The trekkies. The Nascar fans. The people who drive with their blinker on. The chronically unemployable. The people of Wal-Mart (and yes, there’s a site).

The ones who mess up. The ones who find themselves in orange jumpsuits and in prison.

And yes, sometimes he even chooses to use the seminary graduates.

Lately I’ve been wondering if I’ve been casting a lot of stones, whether at the political crowd or the Jonas Brothers. I really want to engage culture redemptively, but also maintain the kind of examined life that does not confuse sarcasm for genuine wisdom nor cynicism for spiritual maturity. I have degrees in subjects some people have never even heard of. I’ve studied languages that no one even speaks anymore. I read 10 books a month, and that’s not even when I’m under contract. But I can be just as easily be put to shame by the God’s chosen foolish.

John Piper writes the following to pastors, though it is quite equally applicable to every serious student of Jesus:

“We pastors are being killed by the professionalizing of the pastoral ministry. The mentality of the professional is not the mentality of the prophet. It is not the mentality of the slave of Christ. Professionalism has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry. The more professional we long to be, the more spiritual death we will leave in our wake. For there is no professional childlikeness (Matt. 18:3); there is no professional tenderheartedness (Eph. 4:32); there is no professional panting after God (Ps. 42:1).” (John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals)

Jesus came to make us missionaries, but He first came to transform us. He came to make us His followers, but He first came to make us His people. The prisoners in this photo can testify to an amazing grace of a sound so sweet that it can save each of us.

Even a wretch like me.

…thorns compose…

reflections on faith and culture by Chris Wiles

Tag Archives: Ministry