Sinful choices and collateral damage

A Christian may ponder the cost to himself of choosing sin and foolishly decide it's worth the price. But how often does a Christian ponder the cost to others of choosing sin? How often does a Christian consider the collateral damage from his proud, rebellious, self-serving decision to sin?

The ones who become collateral damage may be a spouse, children, friends and even an entire church.

When the subject of King David's sin is raised, our minds likely go immediately to his use of Bathsheba to satisfy his selfish desires and his murderous disposal of her husband, Uriah. Certainly, there was collateral damage from those sinful choices. But David's decision to sin later in life resulted in far more collateral damage among God's people. As described in II Samuel 24, he decided to number the people. Joab, Israel's military commander, urged the king not to take a census, but David would not listen. The result of his sin against God? The deaths of 70,000 Israelites.

When professing Christians decide premeditatively after lengthy consideration to sin against a holy God and to reject the warnings of Scripture and those who love them, they often have already formulated rationales for why they would be justified in taking such action. You may have heard many such justifications. Here are some, each followed by what I believe to be a biblically based response that I would hope a person who hears it would heed:

"I deserve to be happy."

Actually, the only thing you -- and I -- deserve is eternal condemnation. Anything short of that is God's lavish mercy. If you don't receive what you deserve, it will be purely because of the free grace of God.

"I have to live out my truth."

Actually, if your truth doesn't match God's truth, then it's an untruth.

"I have to be authentic, because this is just who I am."

Actually, if you have been clothed with the righteousness of Christ, it is not just who you are. You are deceiving yourself.

"My family and my church will be okay."

Actually, they might be okay ultimately, but it will be in spite of your sin, not because of it. It is only because God's grace to the downtrodden is so abundant that anyone devastated by your sin will be okay.

"God will forgive me."

Actually, you are presuming upon God and His grace. Even God the Son did not do that. He warned against such presumption when He rejected one of Satan's temptations by saying, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" (Matthew 4:7). And if you don't want to obey God now, what assurance do you have you will want to repent and seek forgiveness some day in the future?

Oh, may God grant us grace to obey Him, reject the Tempter's snare, flee fleshly desires, trust Jesus and think of others before ourselves that they might not become collateral damage.

-- Photo by Anh Nguyen on Unsplash

Thoughts on the social justice statement (Part 4)

Let me get right to the primary point of the final post in this series -- "The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel" would have profited from a different approach.

It would have been much better if the statement had not been just a list of affirmations and denials. It would have been much better if, instead, the original signers had produced a document that interacted with the ideas of other equally Bible-based and equally gospel-focused brothers and sisters who approach some of the issues at hand in different ways. It would have been much better if, instead, they had produced a piece that acknowledged and dealt with America's centuries-long history of slavery, subjugation, segregation or discrimination in light of the gospel of Jesus.

Of course, that approach would have been more complicated. It would have taken more time. It would have required listening to and talking to fellow saints who offered different insights. It might have called for a public symposium and a document that outlined the areas of agreement and disagreement. It would have cost more.

But it would have been worth it on this issue. Such an approach and document would have provided a greater benefit to the church in America and a more winsome witness to those outside the church in America. A process focused on truth while marked by grace and love -- as well as a document that represents views on all sides charitably -- could have offered an antidote to the harshness and unkindness that marks too much of the online communication by evangelicals.

Maybe the original signers sought to do this very thing, but the explanation in the social justice statement about its origin does not mention such an effort.

Yes, my suggestion sounds naive and idealistic, maybe even foolish. But our Lord came "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14), and we are to be like Him. And the message we proclaim is foolishness to the world (I Corinthians 1:18-25), and we are to expect some charges of foolishness -- even if they come from within evangelicalism. Shouldn't we strive not just to speak the truth but to do it graciously by reaching out to those with a common commitment to Scripture and the gospel and by seeking to understand and to represent others' viewpoints accurately no matter what side they are on?

It would have helped at this moment in time to have a document that not only strongly defends the gospel, which is vital, but also addresses with clarity the implications of that gospel for the church in a country that has long struggled with achieving justice for the vulnerable and marginalized. It would have helped to have a document that provides guidance on how the gospel enables us to love our neighbors publicly and informs our attitude and actions regarding injustice toward ethnic minorities, the unborn, the disabled, the terminally ill and beleaguered refugees.

Maybe that document will yet come from followers of Christ who are at this time on opposite sides of the social justice debate.

-- Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Thoughts on the social justice statement (Part 3)

Memory is vital, and I speak as one whose memory is more fallible than ever before. "The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel" could have brought to remembrance some history and benefited as a result. Instead, it did not, and it lacks historical context on a subject that cries out for it.

First, I acknowledge the format the original signers chose for their statement may not lend itself to calling on specific memories. It's intended to be a theological statement, apparently without reference to a particular society's history. That is a reason this kind of statement falls short in my estimation. Such a document in another form would have been more beneficial to the church of Jesus.

But given the format chosen, it would have been much better if the statement somehow had included an acknowledgment that many Americans who have confessed Christ and have understood and proclaimed His gospel have fallen far short in their perspectives and practices regarding other image bearers of God, notably African Americans and Native Americans.

In its article on the church, the statement says, "We affirm that when the primacy of the gospel is maintained that this often has a positive effect on the culture in which various societal ills are mollified." And it often has a "positive effect" on Christians who have previously held racist attitudes and practiced racism. But often in the last 400 years those who have known and believed the gospel have failed to demonstrate it was having a "positive effect" on their treatment of people of other ethnicities.

Some gospel-professing, gospel-proclaiming people owned slaves and contended for slavery's long-term protection as an institution in this country. Some gospel-professing, gospel-proclaiming people embraced segregation and the Jim Crow era of the South that subjugated black Americans. Some gospel-professing, gospel-proclaiming people express little, if any, concern today that people of different ethnicities than their own face different, even unequal, treatment.

And we don't have the luxury of saying these transgressions are limited to Christians who lacked either a biblical understanding of the gospel or a firm grasp on the meaning of Scripture. No, the example of Jonathan Edwards won't let us make that sweeping claim.

Edwards -- considered possibly American history's leading evangelical theologian -- preached and wrote as a pastor in Massachusetts during the Great Awakening in the first half of the 18th Century. He owned several slaves in his lifetime. Although Edwards eventually denounced the African slave trade, evidence points to the likelihood that a teenage girl he bought from a slave ship captain in Newport, R.I., was a product of that trans-Atlantic trafficking. He also went so far as to defend slavery and another slave-owning pastor in Massachusetts against church members' criticism though the pastor opposed the revival in New England of which Edwards was a leading figure. (I am indebted to one of our church's members for guiding me to this information.)

The reality is some Christians who are right on the gospel have been wrong -- and some may be wrong today -- on justice for fellow image bearers based on their ethnicity. A statement on social justice and the gospel would have been wise to acknowledge this truth. Doing so also would have signaled a gracious, humble willingness by the signers to reach out to and to seek to understand those among their brothers and sisters who hold differing viewpoints.

-- Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Thoughts on the social justice statement (Part 2)

The original signers of "The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel" make clear in the introduction their desire is "to clarify certain key Christian doctrines and ethical principles prescribed in God’s Word." They profess they count it a privilege to defend the gospel of Jesus -- as should all who have been redeemed by the only Savior.

As I said in my first post on the statement, its affirmation of the gospel is a particularly well-stated expression of biblical truth worthy of commendation.

And yet part of the article on the gospel offers another case -- like the introduction and article on Scripture -- in which readers can potentially and mistakenly surmise all those with whom the signers disagree have moved away from biblical truth.

The denial portion of the article on the gospel says: "WE DENY that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel."

Agreed, but does this mean all those who hold a different position on social justice have either perverted the gospel or made living justly in society one of the "definitional components of the gospel?" No, that is not my observation.

It's not difficult to figure out the identities of some of the evangelical leaders and teachers this statement is a response to. Certainly, there are some in the social justice movement who do not adhere to a biblical definition of the gospel, but many of those who differ with this statement's signers on social justice are just as sound as they are on what the gospel is.

I have listened to messages and read posts by some of the teachers in question, and they are faithfully focusing on the gospel and not adding to its meaning. They see the application of the gospel to cross-ethnic relations in a country historically plagued by slavery and still plagued by racism. And it's hard not to see the gospel implication and application when you read Ephesians 2. After the great teaching on the gospel of grace in verses 1 to 9, the apostle Paul explains Christ not only reconciled Jews and Gentiles -- those who had been at enmity -- to God through the cross but "made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall" (Ephesians 2:14).

My hope is we, as evangelicals, can declare our theological positions without -- even unintentionally -- giving the wrong impressions about the positions of brothers and sisters. But maybe the kind of document "The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel" is does not lend itself well to such a goal. Maybe this kind of statement was not the best approach to help the church on this issue. I plan to say more about that later.

-- Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Thoughts on the social justice statement (Part 1)

A pastor sometimes goes through a process of deciding how much attention, if any, to give an issue that has arisen in the culture or the wider church. Such has been the case for me with “The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel” issued in September.

I chose not to read it or to read about it – other than one or two news stories, as I recall – when it was released. I maintained that position for the next several months, seeking to avoid reading defenses or criticisms of the document. I didn’t discount the possibility I would read and comment on it. I just didn’t know if or when I would conclude I should do so in an attempt to help our church.

Meanwhile, I was made aware some in our church were discussing the statement. One or two members asked me about it. Finally, I decided I should read the statement and blog in response. Not too long after that decision, one of the men in our church suggested it was time that it be addressed within the church. I agreed.

This is the first of multiple posts on the statement, because I want to avoid a long article that addresses everything I want to say but is overwhelming to a reader. I plan to comment in these posts only on the statement itself, not on the larger debate about social justice or what has been said from any parties since it became public. I also acknowledge what I will write will fall far short of everything that could be said about the statement.

Bible teacher and pastor John MacArthur is the best known of the 13 initial signers of the statement. Other original signatories include Voddie Baucham, James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries.

In general, statements to clarify biblical teaching and Christian doctrine can be important and helpful to the church. This statement says a great deal I can affirm and any Christian should be able to endorse. For instance, its affirmations in particular of Scripture’s authority, the dignity of humanity, the gospel of Jesus, and marriage and sexuality are well-stated expressions of biblical truth and should be commended.

Some shortcomings exist in the statement from my perspective, however.

For one, it lacks precision, most notably in the introduction and first article, which is on Scripture. While this is likely not the statement’s most significant shortcoming, it should not be bypassed.

The statement doesn’t seek to define or explain “social justice,” the reason for its existence in the first place. Admittedly, it might be difficult to define. In the introduction, the statement uses the phrase “broad and somewhat nebulous” to refer to the concern about social justice.

While the statement addresses such subjects as marriage, sexuality and complementarianism, it primarily appears to be about ethnicity. And in this country, that largely means the 400-year-old relationship among black and white Americans brought about by the slave trade.

Without a definition, how are we to think about what the signers are talking about when they address “social justice?” Does it mean any more than justice in a society? Or does it refer in their minds just to the social justice movement and the wrong ideologies they see promoted within it? In their minds, does it encompass issues beyond ethnic relations? Justice for the unborn? Justice for the trafficked?

The decision not to explain “social justice” was undoubtedly purposeful. Maybe the signers felt no need to do so and chose not to wander into what they might consider “the weeds,” instead addressing justice positively and negatively in the article on that topic.

The lack of precision is more of a concern in how they handle the ideologies and people they seek to correct. Certainly, non-Christian and sub-biblical concepts are expressed in the name of social justice by those who are not gospel-centered believers. But the signers are not addressing those parties.

They say in the introduction they grieve to be “taking a stand against the positions of some teachers whom we have long regarded as faithful and trustworthy spiritual guides. It is our earnest prayer that our brothers and sisters will stand firm on the gospel and avoid being blown to and fro by every cultural trend that seeks to move the Church of Christ off course.”

Earlier in the introduction, they speak of “questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories” that are “making inroads into Christ’s church.” In the first article of the statement, they say, “[W]e deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching.”

Are they saying the Christians they disagree with are devotees of questionable ideologies, including intersectionality and critical race theory, and not living under and guided by the authority of the Bible while they come to different positions on this issue?

It would not be a leap of logic to think some Christians reading the statement would assume so. Or they might conclude any Christian leader, pastor or fellow saint who has not signed the statement has adopted a misguided view cut off from Scripture.

Either would be unfortunate.

-- Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash