CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST
February 19, 2006
PETITION GOD FOR:
Our congregation Our nation, leaders, and military
Various friends, relatives and co-workers James and Leon in the Army
Our students Bob Delony and George traveling to the ACU
Lectures in Abilene
Don and Pat are traveling to East Texas for
the funeral of Don’s cousin Mel’s been ill this week
SOCIAL JUSTICE OR SOCIAL GOSPEL
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’” (Matthew 25:40).
In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus tells of those who fed the hungry, gave water to the thirsty, took in strangers, and visited the sick and those in prison (Matthew 25:31-46). At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus quoted Isaiah about preaching the good news to the poor, proclaiming freedom to the prisoners, giving sight to the blind, and releasing the oppressed (Luke 4:18-19). Many see these texts as texts on what is called social justice. We can simply say that it is doing what is good and right. Others go further, stating that the rich are the cause of poverty, that wealthy nations are the oppressors, that poverty has caused crime and that is why there are prisons, and health care should be universal. How should we respond as Christians has been and is debated.
Richard T. Hughes is a professor at Pepperdine University and has written an article called, “Churches of Christ, The Lure of Christian America, And the Loss of the Kingdom of God” (Leaven, vol. 13, no. 4, Fourth Quarter 2005). He has a very good overview of the influences on the Restoration Movement of attitudes affecting justice. He discusses two streams of thought that developed early in the Movement’s history. The first came through Barton W. Stone and David Lipscomb. There attitude was “That the kingdom was one of peace, justice, and righteousness, and their allegiance to that kingdom led those Christians to free their slaves, align the church with the cause of the poor and the dispossessed, renounce violence, and reject blind patriotism, and often, even refuse to vote.” For many years, churches of Christ were considered among the “peace churches” of America.
The second stream came through the more dominant views of Alexander Campbell. By limiting the New Testament to Acts 2 through Revelation, Campbell and those who followed tended to ignore the aspects of social justice. Hughes sees that the exclusivism contributed to churches of Christ being social conservatives. The desire for respectability led them deeper into conservatism and nationalism. Throughout the late Twentieth Century, these attitudes led to a political conservatism as well and unquestioned support of Republican politics and wars. He calls this an outpost of Republican politics and states that if we aligned ourselves with Democrats, the same would be true.
I think there are important points that Hughes makes in his article that are worthy of consideration. He sees the idea of social justice as radical living, following what Jesus said in Matthew and Luke above. He challenges us to think about the words of Jesus, “You cannot serve both God and Money” (Matthew 6:24). We are citizens of heaven and pilgrims in this world (Philippians 3:20). Yet we need to be concerned about what Jesus was concerned.
He refers to a question that I think can be asked two ways. Can a person be a liberal and a Christian? He defines “liberal” as that which is open to vulnerability and change and liberating, freeing us from the concern with self. I do not believe that Hughes is a theological liberal but is what we call a social liberal. I would ask a question of him; can one be a conservative and a Christian? I don’t think he would answer in the positive to that question, but I might be wrong.
There is always a danger in identifying ourselves with God and then attempting to raise something else to equal status, so we must be careful if we are political. I have been thinking about the words of Jesus and how we can apply them. The way I see it is how we are to care for the poor, those in prison, the sick and oppressed. The more liberal idea is to allow government more power in accomplishing these things, the conservative thing is letting local communities handle it. That is the debate in our society. Unfortunately, in the debate the poor, sick and oppressed get lost in the rhetoric and labels that are often used. One example is that conservatives want to cut spending on the poor. What isn’t stated well by the mainstream media and other elites is that the cut is in the rate of increase. Should it be ten percent or five percent? There will be an increase but if it is the five percent, it is a cut.
Are social conservatives lacking in compassion and concern? This is where I think Hughes misses it. Now I know that in the past, we have not focused on the poor and oppressed the way we should, that our buildings were more important than our service to the community, and that somewhere along the way in our criticism of the “social gospel” (and there is much to criticize here), we have become hardened to the needs of others. But that is changing, and I dare say, many had those concerns all along. I did not grow up in the churches of Christ nor in the south, so the racial situations of the 60s and the church’s response to it was not something I was familiar with. If I understand it though, it wasn’t very positive, though I’m sure there were people and places where it was good. I think that many tie that and other justice issues together.
Can one be a conservative and a Christian? One of the biggest para-church organizations is Prison Fellowship, a group that is in many prisons throughout the world, founded by Charles Colson, himself a conservative. Even in our area, there is a prison ministry that a number of members are involved in from those who are from conservative churches. Other conservatives have lobbied Congress concerning the persecution of Christians in Africa, Asia and the Muslim world. Hughes mentions “an exception” of “Manna International” based at the Redwood City Church of Christ in California. When we see the responses to the recent hurricanes and tsunami, millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of time were given to relief efforts. Several organizations were involved including one from Ohio and another from Tennessee. The “liberal” political position tends to criticize big business like Wal-Mart, but that group contributed millions of dollars in cash and supplies. Alvin Schmidt wrote a book describing the influences of Christianity, notes that hospitals were established from early on to help the poor and sick.
I think that Hughes overstates his case against conservatives. Yes, conservative people who are politically conservative can be Christians. But they also have other justice concerns that Hughes does not address because they are not found in those texts. To simply say that it is not something Jesus was concerned with and ignore it is wrong. Those concerns center around moral issues that often identify conservatives.
The first is abortion. Some will say that conservatives speak too often about the subject. In the recent Supreme Court nominee hearings, Judge Alito was asked over seven hundred questions. The number one subject was abortion. It is an issue often spoken from liberal circles. Abortion is the deliberate taking of a life in the womb. Michael Novak writes the following:
“It is painful to watch the ruin of a great party. A great party has come to this…And most
of it happened because of commitment to a policy that cannot be maintained without lies
and malicious euphemisms…this radical lie -- that what is destroyed in abortion is not a
human individual, endowed with human rights -- has poisoned a great party, induced a
great rationalization in the place of constitutional reasoning in the Supreme Court, and
divided a nation unnecessarily over an issue that at the very least to have been left to the
consent of the people in diverse jurisdictions” (see www.michaelnovak.net - Lying and Dying:
watching a once-great party fall, 1/12/2006).
Reading Genesis 9:6, one can see that it is indeed a “social” issue in God’s mind. The second issue closely akin to it is euthanasia, the deliberate taking of life because of suffering or age or inconvenience. The third is homosexuality, a detestable act in the sight of God (Leviticus 18:22). This idea has challenged the traditional view of the family stating that they too can be a family, that “gay” marriage is a legitimate idea, and that it will not effect anything. But studies show differently. Those on the liberal side support these and those on the conservative side are against them. Are not these as important as feeding the poor and visiting the sick?
How one accomplishes the task that Jesus laid down in Matthew and Luke is debated today. Certainly churches should be and are involved in these areas. I just heard of a number of churches in Denver adopting a family who is homeless and helping them. That is one way. Contributing to organizations is another way, like the Impact church of Christ in Houston. Government has a role to play but we must be careful that we don’t render to Caesar the things that are God’s. Caesar wants to help but gets bloated by bureaucracy and those who need the help get lost. At the local level, problems and solutions can be worked on and abuses addressed, something Washington cannot do. For all the desire of the liberal view in support of big government, hurricane Katrina showed that while well intentioned, government just doesn’t respond well until all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. Independent or private groups are quicker to respond because they are not hampered by all the paper work.
Hughes’ article is an important one that has much to say to us. But like several of the other articles in this issue of Leaven, the complaints against the U.S. seems to more of a politically liberal view than Biblical. And maybe we all, both conservative and liberal, have difficulty separating our views. In an article by Michael Novak, he looks at the problems of multiculturalism, which is a liberal idea, from a book he had written back in the early seventies. That book was the beginning of his change from liberalism to conservatism. Among the problems is its anti-Americanism, its groupthink (only those who agree with me are allow to speak, all others are ignorant), and its double standards. Novak admitted that he had not read people from the other side of an issue when he wrote the book but did when it was reissued in the middle nineties (see www.michaelnovak.net - the rise of the unmeltable ethnics. 1/13/2006). I wonder if that is the case with the authors in Leaven?
We pray for our nation and we should be praying for our enemies as well, for their salvation in Christ. If one chooses not to vote, seeing as an entangling of the kingdom of God with the state, that’s fine. But to vote isn’t wrong either, for God established our nation (Acts 17:26). Too boast in America, the ugly American syndrome, is one thing, but to share in the good things we have to offer others is another; and it isn’t always money. Too ignore the oppressed is wrong, but how to rescue them is debatable. Economic sanctions, military involvement or political solutions can all be tried. Loving our neighbor and our enemy could involved some touch love.
I appreciate the articles in Leaven. They are challenging and have caused me to think. But they are one sided. I would have liked to see the editors bring contrasting ideas in the same issue or to develop another issue that has a different view. We do need to recognize that Jesus is Lord and Caesar isn’t, and that one political party or the other can and has been corrupted. If we depend on them for solutions, then we indeed have problems. If we pray for and radically live in our little corner of the world, we can influence those we come in contact with and spread the radical thoughts of Jesus throughout the country and the world.
George B. Mearns