« More on Education Options from Jamie Leach |
Main
| Things That Don't Make Sense To Me »
Mark Dever on What Really Kills Social Justice
Here's an excerpt from an interview Mark Dever recently did where he addressed the topic of Christians and social justice:
"The world will always applaud us for doing these kinds of things (social action/social justice). They will never applaud us for doing evangelism. So there is every pressure on us to sort of 'make nice' with the world around us and do whatever we can get the world's respect. ...I'm just warning your generation: If you look at the generations before you--your grandparents and great-grandparents--they tried this, they went down the path where they were all about social justice and what they did was lose the gospel. And the next generation? Their churches were gone anyways so nobody was doing social justice out of them."-Mark Dever, Boundless Show podcast #19 (audio clip taken from 25:39-28:14 markers).You really need to listen to the complete audio clip of Mark's comments. He's not saying Christians shouldn't be concerned and involved as individuals in many different ways to serve the poor and the downtrodden. He's saying that the church itself has to be careful about what it makes its mission. At Mark's church the members are exhorted to do good works in the community. And they do. But it's not organized by the church itself. While the church will high light what members are doing, it doesn't have pastors and staff take on the responsibility for ministry to the poor, prison outreach, etc. Mark is adamant that the church stay focused on proclaiming the gospel and making disciples. His perspective challenges me. Again, take a minute and listen to Mark's comments in context and then let me know what you think.
[Hat Tip: Tony Reinke]
Please enter the letter "p" in the field below:
Comments (29)
I hear what Dever is saying but I think he's wrong. I'm not sure the reason Christians and churches are involved in social justice is because they think the world is perfectable. That's a naive view, that history, current experience and the Bible should all correct us on. Instead involvement in social justice personally and corporately is a part of what it means to follow Christ, James 1/27 for example. But it's not the whole part - I think Dever is coming up against an old paradigm of either/or, that this generation is interested in social justice at the expense of evangelism instead of both/and Personally I see social justice as essential to my evangelism. I want to both proclaim the gospel of grace and also to incarnate it with acts of justice. I want the church I'm a part of to live that too, I want the church to demonstrate and preach the love of God to the world.
Posted by Phil Whittall | June 23, 2008 3:59 PM
Josh,
While I have a great deal of respect for Dever, I have to disagree with his statement here (and I hate to do that because I know he is A LOT smarter than me!).
I do agree that the Church needs to work hard to protect the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen for sinners. I agree that we need to preserve its centrality in the mission of the Church. And I agree that simply doing social work is NOT the Gospel. But it seems to me that Dever goes a bit farther than I am comfortable with.
Just because 'our grandparents' generation worked hard for social justice and ended up losing the gospel, that does not mean that we have to do the same. It means we need to learn from their mistakes, while still striving to obey the multitude of commandments in both testaments about 'doing justice'. I am glad that Dever exhorts individual Christians to involve themselves in works of justice, but I don't see why we should view the biblical commands to pursue justice as being only for individuals, and not the Church as a whole.
I know that Dever is seeking to guard the Church from a common mistake that many emergent Christians are making in this area, but from what I am reading, it seems to me that Dever is tipping the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.
I think a more balanced approach is taken by Tim Keller in his book Ministries of Mercy, especially chapter 7 on Word and Deed. I don't think he could rightly be accused of ignoring or minimizing the centrality of the Gospel in the mission of the Church, but he sees mercy ministry as a part of the Church's calling, inseparable from its call to herald the Gospel through the proclaimed word. If you've not checked it out, I highly recommend it.
Thanks for your blog and other ministries, and for leading countless young people in adopting a 'humble orthodoxy'.
Larry
Posted by Larry | June 23, 2008 4:11 PM
I agree with the above 2comments and would highlight Tim Keller's view on this in his book, the Jericho road:Ministries of Mercy-a superb challenging Gospel-centred book! While Mark Dever has been used of God to open up the Bible to me,I humbly disagree with his "either/or "approach..The Gospel makes God's heart for Justice clear-that Jesus took God's wrath..our sins were not swept under a carpet and ignored[which would have been injustice!]They were paid for by God's son, and that's what counts as Grace. how can we therefore talk about a God of Justice and not live it out?
Posted by Beth | June 23, 2008 4:31 PM
Also,as a kind and genuine question, where would the NUMEROUS verses that describe God as an Activist for the poor,the orphan,the widow and the marginalised, fit in with an "evangelism only" approach?
Posted by Beth | June 23, 2008 4:35 PM
Thanks for jumping into the discussion.
Beth, in Mark's defense I think he strongly believes we need to "live out" our faith by loving our neighbor and caring for the poor. The question seems to be how the church itself organizes itself to do this and how this work is described. Is this the mission of the church? Is it "the gospel"?
One question that I think would be helpful to grapple with is, if we should learn from past generations who made social justice central and lost their grip on the gospel, what exactly do we learn from them? How should we do things differently? What should it practically look like to keep evangelism a priority while at the same time "doing justice" appropriately as individual Christians and as organized churches?
I'd be helped to hear what your local church is doing.
Posted by Joshua Harris | June 23, 2008 4:41 PM
"they were all about social justice and what they did was lose the gospel"
This is an interesting statement in light of how I've heard Dever's cohorts (Piper, Sproul, et.al.) clearly delineate the language of "gospel" - that describing the good news of salvation (biblically described as past, present and future redemption of souls, creation, cosmos) and "justification" - that of accepting the gracious offer of personal redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That said... i'm assuming that Dever in context is referring to the later.
I like Dever, I really do... but I must say (like other commentators on Harris' blog) that Dever's language here operates as if 'social justice' and 'gospel' are some sort of objectified realities with which you can delineate cleanly and, more pertinently ...exclusively of one another. Regardless of how historically true it is that this doctinal/practical bifurcation has existed, it cannot be biblically defended (see Paul and James' unified rejection of faith/works). I continue to believe that we must reject this incipient dualism in our categorical perceptions... otherwise we'll end up rejecting that God's wrath and love are intricately bound up in His character.
Dever is right in what he most likely was honestly critiquing - IF churches seek to impress culture by their social justice, the gospel is distorted. Conversely, faith without works is dead.
In regards to the idea that social justice not be of a concern of "the Church" paid staff... and that they stick to "proclaiming the gospel". Again, this is simply a fading echo of this sort of dualism. Do we really believe that "the Church" is really what the paid staff do or the "program" they fund and lead? This seems like a very simplistic and individualistic understanding of the Church. Seriously... the biblical writers (especially when recording the words of Jesus - gospel = kingdom) simply refuse to stick to a narrow proclamation of personal justification.
Posted by Adam | June 23, 2008 5:09 PM
It's my experience that when individual church members are given the challenge to step up and lead, develop and support social justice programs on their own - like a prison ministry, food kitchen, homeless shelter, etc. they (the members) do a much better and effective job than the church government or elder board would ever hope to do. Is it not the individual members who make up the community of Christ and who are the hands and feet of Jesus? We the members should be responsible to care for those in our midst and in our neighborhoods. When we rely on the church machine to carry out these programs we remain consumers. Let the church focus on the transformation of hearts and sanctification of lives through the preaching of the gospel, the mission of evangelism and the work of discipleship. For it is through these very means that our hearts will be transformed to agape love. Yes, the gospel is the soil where the desire to serve others and seek justice will thrive and grow.
Posted by Glenn | June 23, 2008 5:14 PM
I'm curious about Mark's distinction between the Church and its members.
If the Church's members are doing social justice, then doesn't that mean by definition that the Church itself is doing social justice? (Feel free to substitute "a local church" for "the Church"--I think the question is the same.)
I haven't listened to Mark's message yet, so perhaps the answer lies in the larger context--or in other talks where he expands on his ecclesiology. But I'm left wondering if an overgeneralized ecclesiology isn't creating a false dichotomy. Why/how does the Church doing acts of justice exclude that church from also teaching of the gospel?
I think Mark's confusing certain members of the church with the whole Church.
"If a man's gift is...serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach;...if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently..."
It looks like I'm echoing Adam here...
Posted by Yahnatan Lasko | June 23, 2008 5:15 PM
I think the misunderstanding is the definition of the Gospel. The Modern approach is to compartmentalize "the gospel" to a simple set of facts and truths about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. The Post-Modern tends to say, but what about the rest of the story that is crammed full of social justice issues.
I know I don't look at the Gospel as a simple set of truths any more. I have come to realize that the Gospel is really the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. And the Kingdom of God is about redemption both the salvific atoning work on the Cross for my soul and the redemption of all created things into the New Heaven and New Earth.
My point is that the Good news or Gospel is about the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God is about Loving the Lord and Loving our Neighbor. You can't have a true understanding of the Gospel without a care for justice, and mercy.
Posted by Micah | June 23, 2008 6:04 PM
Don Carson's new book Christ and Culture Revisited is helpful here in showing the church's priority must remain centered on the gospel while faithful Christian living is seeking to "love your neighbor."
Worth the price of the book is how Carson cautions us not to think of the "church" as merely a collection of Christians. There is a difference between the church's mission (gospel) and the Christian's obligation to culture (see page 148-154).
Ironically, the back cover of Carson's book has 2 endorsements--one by Mark Dever, one by Tim Keller. I'm not sure theoretically Dever and Keller can be set against one another as several comments have suggested.
Posted by Tony | June 23, 2008 7:19 PM
Dear Josh,
Mark Dever makes some really good points. I don't know where that balance is. My question is, what is the Christian's role in a republic/democracy? The American system gives the individual personal incredible power to "do good" and widens our sphere of influence almost exponentially. But the means to change are not always clearly rooted to me in the Bible.
If we say we will only do go to those immediately around us or in the church, then we relegate the role of all social welfare to the government, which most of us do not want to do. If we get involved in "civilian affairs" then we can easily compromise our faith. Added to this, many churches say they are against parachurch ministries, but they also don't want their own churches to have ministries (as you state above). So what happens when I have someone who needs somewhere to stay? I guess if we all radically lived like Jesus, we would take people in and live our lives 24 hours a day serving rather than hiring people to do it. Maybe policies and programs are a way for us to live comfortable, fun lives--like the motivation so often of sending your parents to a nursing home.
Whatever the answer, we as the church can't have it both ways. We can't say neither the government, the church, nor parachurch organizations are allowed to do social justice. If we focus completely on social justice the world goes to hell in a handbasket-but if we completely neglect social justice the world looks more and more like Hell, which would be fine except that we live in a democracy where it really is in our power to do good (see verses). I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive...I think they grow out of each other and are connected and ministries out of churches can be totally focused on serving first through the love of Christ and evangelism and as a part of that practical acts. Orphans, schools, child care centers, etc. have done this for year. But it sure is hard for me to know how to apply! Clearly the early church had systems for serving its own (deacons in Acts, for example). I will have to read the Bible some more to figure this out.
Posted by Lauren | June 23, 2008 11:18 PM
Hey Josh. I am having a hard time opening the mp3 file link you sent, so I admit from the outset that I may have missed some of the nuances of Dever's comment in context. However, as far as the what-is-the-mission-of-the-church question goes,I found a helpful explanation by Doug Hayes on the New Attitude website a long while ago, that has really challenged me in a fantastic way...and I quote:
"So which one is it? Is the church to be concerned with evangelism or care for the poor?
Yes.
It is the job of the church to preach the gospel, and it is the job of the church to care for the poor. Too often, these two high callings are treated as an "either-or" proposition, but Scripture calls God's people to a "both-and" embracing of both. We are called very clearly to preach the gospel, and we are called very clearly to serve the poor. One should not be done to the exclusion of the other, nor does our obedience to one fulfill our mandate for the other."
I think this is a good discussion and we will all have alot to learn and take away,by the Grace of God. YAY!
Posted by Wangari | June 24, 2008 5:39 AM
Josh,
I think I understand the point Mark is making. But aren't there many activities that churches engage in that are good, even important but not central to its mission? For example, you noted in a previous post that your church has a Christian school. I think that's fine. But I would assume that involves a great deal of time, oversight and involvement by the pastors and staff. I'm sure your church invests a great deal in making your Christian school run. But is this really part of the central mission of the church? Does scripture call the church to run schools? Couldn't this detract from the priority of evangelism?
I'm not saying any of this to criticize you or Mark. I just think that the point Mark is making should be applied across the board. It seems to me that the importance of caring for the poor and doing justice is spoken of much more than Christian education.
I hope these comments are helpful! I share them only for the sake of discussion.
Posted by Richard | June 24, 2008 10:27 AM
What Mark Dever MEANT and what he SAID may be two different things.
I would like to see HIM come out and clarify this in some venue. I don't think it's helpful for us to defend what he has not yet clarified himself. If he has clarified himself somewhere, it would be helful to read.
Otherwise, I think he's on a "slippery slope" toward leading others to inaction through his lack of nuance, while criticizing another "slippery slope". I look forward to HIS own defense or HIS own correction of his own statments.
Posted by Burly | June 24, 2008 1:45 PM
This is my understanding of what we are called to do.
When I read scripture, I do see Jesus spending a lot of time with the poor and rejected of society and loving and healing these people, and at the same time preaching the gospel to them.
Also, evangelism is also about representing Christ and showing his love, being a salt and light, and loving our neighbour as ourselves.
So based on my understanding of scripture, I think evangelism and social justice go hand to hand.
Posted by Joshua L. | June 24, 2008 2:25 PM
I would argue that to a degree, social justice IS evangelism. My experience is that passing out food or clothing does infinitely more than passing out a tract. It should not be regarded as an either/or issue, but as two things that go hand in hand. Honestly, the only thing i have seen from my parents and grandparents generation has been lack of social justice that led to losing the gospel to legalism. It has produced "christians" who think the only thing the devil wants is to get us to say bad words and drink beer, "christians" who think as long as they dont do those things, they can ignore the homeless bum dying in the shadow of their overpriced church steeple.
Posted by Matt C. | June 24, 2008 6:13 PM
One thing that strikes me about the book of Acts is that the "social justice" ministries such as care for the poor and vulnerable in society focused on those who were already a part of the church. It appears that ministry to those outside the church focused on evangelism and transformation of the soul rather than physical, social ministry.
At the same time, I think the church can be active in issues of social justice, but I am concerned when I hear of some who are advocating such a position suggest that atonement is social rather than for our individual sins. This concerns me, and I believe that if that becomes the dominant view, the church will not be the church at all and the same pattern of the end of the 20th century will be repeated again. I think this is what Mark Dever is saying.
Posted by cadawg | June 24, 2008 10:11 PM
I find it interesting that when Jesus comes in all his glory he gathers the nations before him separating the sheep from the goats based on what we did or did not Do.I personally do not think you can separate deed and truth their both and .We must be careful not to have an over realized gospel that over shadows Christ himself ie" its all about the gospel " maybe Im am being picky but the gospel did not die for me neither did the cross.
Posted by brad richter | June 24, 2008 10:17 PM
Thanks for posting this Josh. This was the clearest explanation I've heard Mark Dever give for why he's concerned about social justice. The pattern in recent church history is one I was previously unaware of and is helpful to understand.
It seems that most of the opinions I've heard on this are reactions to extremes - camps that either overdo or ignore "good works". Dever is clearly concerned - rightfully so - about those who have erroneously given primacy to social justice rather than the gospel. At the same time, it seems appropriate to address those who seemingly lack compassion for those around them by exhorting them to obey Jesus command to do good works. It seems that both errors need to be adjusted by God's Word so that we are all more faithful to both proclaim and demonstrate the gospel.
Posted by Kevin | June 24, 2008 11:31 PM
Thank for the post Josh and to others who have commented. It's hard to comment on the quote in isolation but as a grandfather aged 56 (I think he was almost referring to me) let me comment. I lived 31 years as an atheist interested in socialism before being miraculously converted (as was my wife 2 weeks later). I was brought up on my father's anecdotes of tough life in the coal fields of Glasgow and his fights with mine owners etc - get the picture. Was I keen on social justice? You bet your life, but my conversion had no connection to my concern for justice. I was overwhelmed by the simplicity of God's plan of redemption for me through Christ. Is it important to me now? Yes, because I think that's what God expects of me, as I live my life centred on him, to be inspired by the humility of Christ (Phil 2), and to give my life fully to his service, centred on the gospel. Should the church be involved collectively in social justice (yes, if it's required as it has been throughout history when only the Christian Church has stood against injustice), but only as a demonstration of the love of Christ and out of compassion and love. Should it be our focus individually or collectively? Never!
Posted by Trevor Cairney | June 25, 2008 6:32 AM
Mark Dever NEVER says that social justice is bad or anything. He just expresses his concern about people becoming ONLY concerned about social justice. It's true that it is a LOT easier to do social justice than evangelism because evangelism is offensive (1 Corinthians 1:18)and social justice isn't. Also, I think it's important to note that though social justice will make people's lives better temporarily (and that is good), the Gospel will change it for eternity. Feeding a homeless person is a nice thing to do but leading a person to Christ is priceless. And while the government or charities are not able to share the Gospel, Christians can lead people to Christ.
Posted by David | June 25, 2008 10:31 AM
I agree with Kevin that we are reacting to extremes. There are extremes out there, and we can be too quick to lump someone who isn't extreme in one side or the other.
Posted by cadawg | June 25, 2008 12:47 PM
II am always saddened at messages such as this one. I'll make just a few points.
First, Jesus constantly engages in acts of mercy in his ministry. He does not just preach and he does not downplay the acts of mercy. An interesting point here would be that the religious leaders of the day were upset with Jesus' acts of mercy getting in the way of their primary focus of following the law. I am thinking here of Jesus' healing people on the Sabbath. I think the connection between the view in his day and the modern evangelical concern for keeping evangelism primary is worth noting. I see no such arrangement in Jesus' actions or words. Rather the acts of mercy combined with his evangelism showed who he really is.
Second, James clearly defined pure and undefiled religion for us. He said it was evangelism. Oh, no wait; he said it was to visit widows and orphans and to keep oneself unstained by the world. I don't deny the place of evangelism but let us recognize the definition given through James.
Third, to make a distinction between the church's mission and the individual's obligation is convenient. However, I don't find such a distinction in the Bible. Did not the church itself as early as New Testament times maintain a list of widows that received their support from the church? It wasn't a list maintained by individuals but rather by the Church.
Fourth, to imply a causal relationship between an emphasis on the social gospel and a loss of faith in the gospel is an example of illusory correlation. The fact that two events are near each other or even related to each other does not indicate a causal relationship. Even if a causal relationship exists, it does not say which was the cause and which was the result. IF there is a causal relationship here, I think it is just as possible to say that as the generation lost its belief in the Bible, they came to focus on the only thing left--good works focused only on the present world.
Finally, I think there is a serious problem when good works are referred to as "making nice" with the world. For a Christian to engage in good works is for a Christian to practice pure and undefiled religion.
Thoughts?
Posted by Steve M | June 25, 2008 9:28 PM
In response to Steve M--
You make some very good points, but I think a closer look at scripture is needed. Jesus did do acts of mercy, but He clearly stated that His purpose in coming was to preach the Gospel. (Mark 1:34-38)
You make a very good point from James. Faith will be shown through works.
Regarding the list of widows, it was not an act of mercy to the world, but rather care of people already in the church, and even then, not just any widow could be on the list. (1 Timothy 5)The only thing proven from the church keeping a list is that they church has an obligation to take care of its faithful members who have no other means of support.
Regarding your fourth point, I think the concern is that an emphasis on social action apart from the gospel will cause a loss of faith in the gospel. It is not false causation to suggests this, but history shows it.
As far as "making nice", I think those engaged in social ministries have to examine their motives. For some, it seems like they maybe trying to make nice. I do not believe that is the case with the majority.
Posted by cadawg | June 26, 2008 4:00 AM
I am finding this discussion convicting and fascinating.
I am not overly familiar with Mark Dever so I can only respond to the material provided here in the blog and on the audio clip.
There is something that resonates with my soul in what he is saying.
There have been many times in my own life I have recognized the temptation to own the works and not the God in whom I do them. My own unsaved family is full of people who are passionate about good works, but they reject the gospel of Christ.
Just an example, last year I had the privilege to go to Africa on a three-week mission. We took school supplies and other helpful necessities, but our main task was to bring the gospel to the little children and the women in a certain village (not that we were leaving the men out, but we were women ministering to women and children).
A few months after taking the trip I was discussing it with my uncle who is a dedicated agnostic. It was soooooo tempting to call it a humanitarian trip, but I couldn't do it. It included 'humanitarian' efforts, but the overwhelming thrust was a spiritual effort and I feel I had to own that, to make it known all the while knowing it was the far less popular choice.
So, while I understand the posts decrying any sort of neglect on the part of the church to care for the poor and needy physically, are we seeing ourselves honestly in the revealing light of the Word? Is the gospel always on our lips? Are we ready with an answer for the hope within us?
I also believe, from personal experience, putting the responsibility in the hands of individuals doesn't weaken the impact of 'good works' it enhances it. Every little piece of sod God has placed under us should feel the reverberations and the impact of our dedication to caring for those around us spiritually and physically. As individuals, that means we are, if we are owning the responsibility, making a difference in places the corporate church could never go with the same degree of effectiveness.
Posted by heather | June 26, 2008 10:47 AM
cadawg said "I agree with Kevin that we are reacting to extremes. There are extremes out there, and we can be too quick to lump someone who isn't extreme in one side or the other."
I think what is concerning here is that Mark Dever's statment un-nuanced IS extreme. I don't think people are reacting to a "middle view" here.
I think that Mark Dever should take the opportunity to clarify his view without the the rhetoric by which his current statements seem to be marked.
Posted by Burly | June 26, 2008 12:24 PM
To Cadawg,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate direct feedback because it make me think harder.
I could have been more balanced in my first point. I agree with you that Jesus' mission was to preach the Gospel. I think my point would be that the acts of mercy served to show who Jesus was (the power displayed by some of his acts showed he is God and the mercy showed his character). In the end, the acts of mercy are critical to the communication of the gospel.
With respect to the widows, do not be distracted by who the recipient was of the mercy. The act, whether it be for the benefit of believers or unbelievers, is an act of social justice. I take the widow list to be an example of pure and undefiled religion as defined by James. It shows that in the early church the acts of mercy were not merely given intellectual assent but actually followed through. In contrast, I do not know of a church today which keeps such a list. We have secularized mercy to a duty of the government.
Regarding causation, history is not capable of showing causation. It only shows events. Which event is the cause and which is the effect is left to be argued by the observers of history. However, if I look at your statement, "social action apart from the gospel will cause a loss of faith," I would respond that the faith was already lost or at least very weak. If the faith was still there, the social action would not have occurred "apart from the gospel." Instead, it would have occurred in the context of the gospel.
I completely agree with your comment regarding motives.
Now all of that said, I think I am starting to split hairs. Basically, I think you and I probably agree on most of this. Thanks for pushing me. I enjoy the discussion.
Posted by Steve M | June 26, 2008 6:58 PM
Ok. Maybe I'm not tackling the real issue at hand here. But I live in South Africa, once of the more "well-off" African countries and where we have both first world areas as well as third world areas.
I have wrestled with my conscience by trying to say that my responsbility in terms of mercy ministry is to take place towards those within my "first world" church while my evangelistic responsibility is to those "outside" many of whom are suffering through sickness, poverty and hunger. I cannot come to grips with trying to hand-out tracts or just trying to evangelise these people who often times don't even have house while helping those within our church who have a roof over their heads and their struggles are minimal in comparison. I cannot as a Christian look at the countless millions of orphans in our country and countries around the world (who do not form part of the church) and not have a heart of compassion, one that reaches out to impact on those lives that i do have the capacity to work in. Although we cannot make the world perfect, we can glorify God's name through out conduct, our love and our care for those around us. We cannot live in our first world Christian cocoons and feel satisfied to not deal with the real issues that face our time. I personally am greatful to live in South Africa, where my first world cocoon is often invaded and I'm constantly forced to deal with whether my love for Christ is evidenced in the way that I use my money and my time in this fleeting world.
Tim Keller's book as mentioned previously is a great book in terms of dealing with the balance between evangelism and Mercy.
Posted by Jonathan H | June 27, 2008 2:01 AM
Hello again--
Burly, where there is confusion, there should be clarification. However, I don't see Mark Dever's comments as extreme. He is not saying Christians should not do mercy ministry or be concerned for social justice. He is talking about the primary ministry of the church, and I think he is reacting to an extreme opposite view.
Steve M, I think we do probably agree on most of it. You point about the ministry to widows is interesting, especially if we see the principle being applied as the church being a model of what society at large would be if God's will were followed.
Jonathan H, I am very sympathetic to your view. I have worked among very impoverished people. This was partly due to their own lifestyles, but mainly due to social inequalities and injustices that had persisted for perhaps centuries. We were involved in work that helped in a physical sense, but the emphasis of our message was the substitutionary atoning work of Christ. In fact, I perhaps lost a friend because I refused to make the emphasis of our work 'social justice.' We could not change the society at large, but when people came to Christ we saw their physical conditions change as they, through the sanctifying work of God, gave up those sinful habits that made their condition worse. Much of my work is now on the opposite end of the economic spectrum.
I recognize that I am guilty of reacting to extremes, and I recognize most who may disagree with me here are not of those extremes. I have been exposed to liberation theology and misguided help of the poor in an up-close way, and spiritually, it causes damage and not real change as the gospel message is lost or the person helped becomes dependent on another rather than truly free.
While I would like to continue this conversation, I really need to get about other things. Feel free to disagree or continue to comment on my comments, but honestly, I need to let you have the last word. Blessings to all.
Posted by cadawg | June 27, 2008 10:16 PM