This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Today many of my friends and collogues in ministry are sharing wonderful stories of their many interactions over the decades with American Baptist pastor, scholar, and advocate Tony Campolo. As most of you know, I didn't grow up in Pennsylvania, nor in an American Baptist Church. Tony's name was not one that I ever heard discussed, in fact I knew little about him until he was invited to speak at First Baptist Church of Linesville (in our French Creek Association) for the Spring Gathering of 2013. Being new to NW PA and the kind of fellowship that associational events and relationships can offer, I had every intention of attending. I'll share the text from my 2013 post on the evening next, but after that make sure you read the next portion because there was a lot more to that story that I didn't share back then.
From 2013: This past spring our regional Baptist association invited Tony Campolo to speak at our annual gathering. The suggested topic for Tony was the problem of complacency among Christians (in other words, what do we do to get people on fire for serving God?). Prior to going to the event, I received a letter written by one of the pastors of our association and signed by all of his board members that condemned the invitation of Tony and warned us that his teachings were dangerous. The letter included snippets of quotes from a variety of Professor Campolo's books, many of which seemed to be out of context. As a former English teacher, seeing quotes taken out of context sends up a huge red flag to me. I went to the meeting, having heard good things about Tony's presentations from my friends, Pastor Jeff Little (First UMC) and Mother Holly (St. John's Episcopal).
What type of message would we hear? Would the Gospel be clear or lost in the social efforts that Tony's critics accuse him of replacing it with?
It is amazing what you can learn when you give someone the chance to share what is on their heart. Throughout his presentation, Tony Campolo gave a heart stirring call to the Church to truly be the servants of Jesus Christ that we have been called to be. The Evangelical nature of his message was beyond doubt, there at the heart of everything he was preaching was the need for each man, woman, and child to find a relationship with God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and to turn that relationship into a life-altering experience of righteous living. What more could any believer in the fundamentals of the faith want?
The hype, fodder for television commentators and blog posts, was entirely overblown. The venom directed at Tony from his critics was a farce. If this man's commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not genuine, then nobody who publicly declares their faith in Christ can be trusted. If this man's passion for the Lost is not acceptable to you, then your problem is with the call of Jesus to champion the poor.
Which brings me to his book, Speaking My Mind, which I finished reading today. I won't claim that everything in the book made me happy, nor am I in agreement with all of it, I will however confirm that the passion for the Gospel I found while listening to Tony last spring is part and parcel of his written works as well. Are there things in the book that will cause some Christians to write Tony off as a liberal? Yes. Are there things in the book that those same Christians need to hear because they echo the words of the Gospel? Yes. Do yourself a favor, read the book, think about it, weigh what it says by the scale of Scripture, and then decide what God would have you do about poverty, nationalism, homosexuality, environmentalism, politics, etc.
If you close your mind, you won't be listening to God either. If you truly are committed to being a disciple of Jesus Christ, don't you owe it to God to admit when you are in error? Speaking My Mind may not have all the answers, but at least Tony Campolo was brave enough to ask the questions.
Listening to Tony Campolo in-person certainly put to bed any hesitation to think of him as a positive force for the Church today. He was that and then some. There are two other aspects of that story I'd like to share now in his memory. The first is that I went to the gathering at Linesville with Arlene Harrington. Those from my church remember Arlene fondly, she was the widow of our long-time pastor, John Harrington who served my church for twenty years from 1964-1983. After his passing she moved back to Franklin and rejoined the church where they had spent so many years together. Arlene was a pistol. When I arrived here she told me, "Let me know if you have any trouble with anyone, I lived in that parsonage before you did, I'll handle it." Thankfully, I never had to take Arlene up on her offer, but I appreciate her passion for protecting me as her pastor. We had a wonderful conversation on the drive there about how she used to go to French Creek Association gatherings as a child in her parents' model-T. On our way home after hearing Tony's message we were in the middle of another conversation when I pulled the car over and told Arlene, "I need to go back." She graciously allowed me to follow what my conscience was saying to me, fifteen minutes later we reentered the church to find Tony still talking with the people that remained.
What made me turn the car around? During his message Tony had offered up supporting Compassion International as one way in which those attending could make a difference for the Kingdom in this world. He encouraged us to sponsor a child, holding up pictures of several to inspire us further. I hadn't responded. The reason was simple, my wife and I were still massively in-debt from the decade of multiple part-time jobs that I had struggled through in Michigan before we moved here. The math just didn't work, that's what my mind told me. We were living without much fluff, I couldn't justify $30 per-month, I just didn't have it to spare. But God spoke to me as I drove away from the church, it wasn't an audible voice, but it was real, it was a gut-check moment, and I responded to it.
I told Tony this when there was a break in his conversation with the others who remained, and took one of his cards. I don't remember the words we exchanged 11 years ago, I just remember the impact that his passion for those in need had on my heart.
There is an epilogue to this story. My wife Nicole told me she was pregnant in the Fall of 2014. As previously mentioned, we were still trying to claw our way out of debt, perhaps 50% of my paycheck went to that cause each month. I knew we'd have to tighten our belts even further, and that's what we did. I didn't want to, but I called Compassion International, told them what we were facing, and let our then 18-month-old sponsorship lapse...Fast forward to 2019. We had finally put our debt in the past, our beautiful daughter Clara was 4 years old, it was time to find a way to sponsor another Compassion International child.
That's Sonite. She's the child that my daughter chose to sponsor. I showed Clara pictures of a dozen or so girls born on the same day that she was, and she chose this precious child from Haiti. Clara and Sonite exchange letters, our small connection to her life circumstances teaches my daughter valuable lessons about how blessed we are in life and our obligation to share some of that blessing with the many in our world who are much less fortunate. It is one of the ways that we're trying to mold Clara into the kind of kid whose heart and mind beats like that of Tony Campolo.
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
When asked in episode 3 of the new Disney + series Andor how he acquired a highly secret piece of Imperial hardware, the show's title character Casssian Andor (played by Diego Luna) responds with scorn that because the Empire is so full of itself the only thing you need to do is put on a uniform and walk in like you belong there.
An age old question for both Judaism and Christianity has been how to differentiate between those who properly belong to the religion and those who do not. The question is complicated by the realization that our methods or criteria for inclusion or exclusion may not properly align with God's such that we may be welcoming those whom God has not, and scorning those whom God has chosen. Jesus himself makes much of this dissonance, repeatedly rejecting self-righteous Pharisees and others with power and authority within 1st century Judaism, while welcoming fishermen, women, tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and various others that had been labeled by society as outcast 'sinners', but who were willing to come to him in faith.
The Church, for its part, has struggled throughout its history to require genuine discipleship from all its adherents, while at the same time keeping its doors wide open to anyone and everyone whom God may call to repentance. The more power and influence the Church has wielded in society, the more it has been likely to welcome the rich and well connected with no questions asked and turn up its nose at the poor and forgotten despite Jesus' example to the contrary. Jesus called us to be better than that.
'Christian' Nationalism is especially vulnerable because of its pursuit of worldly power to the charge of accepting false devotion (i.e. that which is based upon selfish motives and not grounded in repentance and faith) among those who can help it achieve its goals {Including the related topic of ignoring heretical beliefs, even clear apostasy when coming from a political leader or ally}, while at the same time rejecting as unworthy those who demonstrate faith and righteous living, but happen to not share the same politics/ethnicity/nationality. In other words, 'Christian' Nationalism is defining 'us' and 'them' by superficial criteria that mock Jesus' willingness to speak hard truths to the powerful and hold out hope to the weak.
Why? Because 'Christian' Nationalism is trying to 'win' in this world, the consequences to the next are secondary at best. The true Church is willing to lose everything in this world for the sake of the Kingdom of God.
This verse is among numerous similar portions of scripture that encapsulate what the people of God should focus their energies upon in one simple sentence. The Kingdom of Israel during the Old Covenant, and the Church during the New Covenant, has a God-given obligation to those on the bottom of society's social hierarchy.
How then does this verse offer a refutation of 'Christian' Nationalism? One aspect of that criticism would be the need for Christians who honor the Word of God by taking this obligation seriously to push back against the policies and structures of their society that marginalize and disadvantage the poor. In other words, American culture, the laws and policies of the American government, and even Capitalism itself must be examined for how they are contributing to the misfortune of our neighbors. Is a democratic government better than an autocratic one? Virtually always, but that doesn't make it flawless, and that doesn't make it beyond criticism when 'our team' is in the White House or controls Congress. Likewise, is capitalism the best economic system of those humanity has tried thus far? Hard to argue from either history or statistical analysis that it isn't, but capitalism has inherent flaws of its own, ones that favor the rich and powerful and disfavor the poor and weak (as does every governmental and economic system created by man), these need to be confronted and countered, even if it clashes with the politics of 'our team'.
Because of the deep identification of 'Christian' Nationalism with the society it seeks to control, the prophetic voice of the Church is muzzled, recent history has shown that those within the Church who speak up for the poor are dismissed, often with vitriol, as 'woke' or 'liberals'. Why the hostility toward those who point out the clear and ongoing flaws in the system? During a war you don't criticize your own team, supposedly. And make no mistake, 'Christian' Nationalism sees itself at war, always. "America, love it or leave it" is a sentiment at home within 'Christian' Nationalism, but if I listen to God's Word as a Christian, I will be called,
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8b, NIV)
In all honesty, I love America, I consider myself blessed of God to have been born here, but I reject in its entirety the demand of 'Christian' Nationalism that I "root, root, root for the home team". When America is wrong, morally, we are blessed with the right to say so, even when that criticism needs to be aimed at 'our team'. The people of God are called to defend the weak and uphold the cause of the poor, no matter who bears responsibility for that plight, thus silence to protect the (unholy) marriage of Church and State is dereliction of duty.
Language changes constantly. Every language does this, words are coined, borrowed, transformed, to fit the need of the moment. Old words take on new meanings, sometimes at odds with how they were once used. Some words fall into disuse and disappear from the cultural consciousness, other words rise into the zeitgeist for their own fifteen minutes of fame.
Woke is having a cultural moment. During the 2022 and 2024 election cycles you will hear the term woke used a lot, a whole lot, by pundits and politicians, usually as an insult, a Scarlet 'A' akin to calling someone a Commie back before the Berlin Wall fell. {Not that smearing one's opponent as a Communist or Socialist has fallen out of favor entirely}. How the word 'woke' is being used now, especially as an insult, goes far beyond what the word meant just a few short years ago.
As Professor Andy Smith taught me back in the day when I was trying (and sort of succeeding) to learn Biblical Greek: "Word usage determines word meaning". 'Woke' doesn't technically mean anymore what the dictionary (in this case Oxford) says, at least not only that, because it isn't be used that way primarily anymore. A 2nd definition now exists after the first, "an insult synonymous with calling someone a 'liberal'".
But what of the question in the post title? Is God 'woke' by the dictionary definition? Is God alert to injustice in society, especially racism? Let us let the Word of God speak, and then we will ask the crucial question: Does God's attitude on these issues matter to us?
Leviticus 19:15 (NIV) “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."
Deuteronomy 10:18 (NIV) He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.
Deuteronomy 27:19 (NIV) “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”
Psalm 82:3 (NIV) Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Psalm 140:12 (NIV) I know that the Lord secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy.
Proverbs 21:3 (NIV) To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.
Proverbs 24:24-25 (NIV) Whoever says to the guilty, “You are innocent,” will be cursed by peoples and denounced by nations. 25 But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come on them.
Proverbs 29:7 (NIV) The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.
Isaiah 1:17 (NIV) Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.
Jeremiah 22:3 (NIV) This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Amos 5:10-12 (NIV) There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court and detest the one who tells the truth. 11 You levy a straw tax on the poor and impose a tax on their grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine. 12 For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.
Micah 6:8 (NIV) He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Luke 11:42 (NIV) “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
James 1:27 (NIV) Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
James 2:14-17 (NIV) What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
There are more, a lot more, verses and passages of holy scripture that both declare God's concern for the poor, the fatherless, the widow, and the foreigner, AND reprimand God's people, in no uncertain terms, for failing to maintain justice. Of the things that caused God to send Judah into exile (which included idolatry), how the poor and powerless were treated was a primary cause of God's anger. In addition, Jesus himself famously (and controversially at least with the Pharisees and priestly class) sought out those in 1st century Judea who were forgotten, belittled, and oppressed: tax collectors, prostitutes, 'sinners', Samaritans, etc. Few things angered Jesus' critics more than his willingness to point out to them that they were failing to 'do justice' because they had slammed the proverbial door in the face of those in need.
There is no way to read the Word of God, or study the history of Israel or the Church, without concluding that God is very much alert to injustice in society, that God cares a great deal about how society treats the 'least of these', and that God will absolutely judge, indeed he will pour out his wrath, upon those who oppress others and deny justice.
If you think that racism is somehow an exception to this call for Justice, as if its pains and sorrow, injustices and griefs, are somehow lesser in God's sight, I pity you. God is the Creator is all mankind, his Imago Dei is equally stamped upon every person, neither race nor nationality make any single person more or less the image of God than any other person. Racism denies God's role as Creator, it spits in the face of God's common grace, of Jesus' commands to take the Gospel to all nations. Racism is injustice in the eyes of God no less than sexism or classism, all of which immorally place human beings in categories of greater than, less than.
God is not less aware of injustice than we are, God is more aware, perfectly aware. Afterall, God knows the thoughts and attitudes of our hearts, and is not fooled by our pretenses and the lies we tell ourselves. As the Judge of the living and the dead, God will avenge those who have been the victims of injustice.
God knows the flaws (and strengths) of America, American culture, and the system of justice in America, with perfect depth and full clarity.
God is more 'woke' than anyone, he has been from the beginning.
God cares about injustice, therefore lack of care about injustice on our part is a sin, period. On the flip side, putting effort and passion into overcoming injustice is an act of righteousness because it reflects the mind and will of God. God honoring Christians can, and will, disagree about whether or not this particular example is injustice at work. God honoring Christians can, and will, disagree about how to best remedy injustice in a free society. But God honoring Christians cannot disagree about the importance of justice and the sinfulness of injustice, God has taken that option off the table.
Do you still think that 'alert to injustice in society, especially racism' is a fitting insult?
In recent conversations, primarily online, a number of people have 'warned' me against speaking out about the reality of systemic racism and/or the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the efficacy of the vaccine. Some of these conversations have included predictions that doing so will damage my ministry, my Gospel witness, and call into question my integrity. Some have suggested that wanting to be right (i.e. know and share facts and truth) is a character flaw, or at least a waste of time when such issues are only matters of opinion. I would be sugarcoating it if I said these responses didn't bother me; some of them, given my relationship with the source, have been deeply disappointing and emotionally painful.
What then is my response, how do I evaluate this advice in light of my own call to ministry? The following is an attempt to respond, if you are one of the people referred to in the paragraph above, please read this in the spirit and heart in which I write it, as much as I value our relationship, these issue demand more of me. If what you wrote/said was coming from a place of genuine concern, I value that.
Therefore, as a minister of the Gospel:
1. I will NOT disregard, dismiss, or 'other' those in need
When we first began working on getting a homeless shelter operating in Venango County {now called: Emmaus Haven of Venango County a wonderful organization my church and I are committing to supporting} there were a number of local people who shared a variation of this idea: "There are no homeless in Venango County, what are you going to do, bus them up here from Pittsburgh?" This was factually inaccurate, those who work to help solve housing issues in our area were well aware that there are in fact a significant number of homeless individuals (and families) on any given day in our county. Many of them are temporarily homeless, as opposed to chronically, but they certainly needed shelter. Additionally, are we as Christians supposed to care less about those who are homeless in the Pittsburgh area? Are they not our neighbors too?
Thankfully, the local churches of our county, together with our partners in the county government, were able to continue to move forward and eventually open Emmaus Haven. Whether we see them or not, whether we know them or not, those in need in our community are human being created in the image of God, they are not an 'other', not a 'them' to be ignored.
I will not consider less worthy of compassion, help, and prayer:
A. Immigrants, refugees, and other non-citizens
B. Those who are homeless, downtrodden, and desperate
C. The who suffering with physical or mental handicaps
D. Those living in poverty
E. Those battling addictions
F. The unvaccinated or those otherwise lacking healthcare
G. Those who don't look, act, or think like me.
The list could be longer, or more specific, but you get the point. As a minister of the Gospel, called to live by the Law of Love, setting up barriers to that obligation is a direct violation of my oath before God. I cannot allow them in my own heart or mind, and am called to confront them when the people of God wrongly exhibit them.
Psalm 82:3 New International Version
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
2. I will NOT excuse, utilize, or encourage lies and falsehoods in the name of the 'greater good', in a misguided attempt to bolster my ministry, or protect my country.
This is the part that frightens me about the health of much of the Church in America today. I see 'Christian' websites willingly spreading falsehoods because they bolster the Culture War narrative of the moment, 'Christian' leaders embracing easily disprovable ideas for financial or political gain, and much of it without significant pushback. We seem to care more about 'winning' than the Truth, and that guarantees that the last thing we will be doing with respect to the Kingdom is winning.
A. Truth matters, honesty and integrity do too.
B. We all have opinions, we don't all have facts to back them up. Opinions are not created equally, authority, experience, and expertise have weight.
C. A disregard for the Truth is a cancer within the Church, WE must always want to be, strive to be, and pray to God that we will be, walking in the light of truth and not the darkness of error/lies.
Titus 1:2 New International Version
in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
Hebrews 6:18 New International Version
God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.
The cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT advanced through lies, end of story.
3. While matters pertaining to God, the Church, the Bible, and Christianity are my area of special concern, training, experience, and relative expertise, that does not mean I will MYOB or 'stay in my lane' regarding the issues that confront me, my family, community, country, or the world.
A. A prophetic voice is a calling from God. My particular calling, as evidenced by my passion, the testimony of other Christians who know me, and my ability is to be a Teacher. I will not ignore it or muzzle it.
B. When a minister of the Gospel grounds his/her opinion in a biblical, orthodox, and historic understanding of the Church, the burden shifts to the people of God to evaluate, weigh, and respond to it.
C. If you disagree with my conclusions without offering a biblically, orthodox, and historically Christian alternative, you haven't responded to the prophetic voice God has laid upon me {and tens of thousands of others, I am but one of God's servants}.
Putting B and C together, this is what frustrates me about much of the online, in particular, 'debate' between Christians. I see little evidence of attempts to ground opinions in biblical interpretation or the teaching of the Church. I see ample political argumentation, far too much actually, and plenty of economic or philosophical viewpoints, but very little of it grounded in a Christian worldview, expressing a desire to evidence the Fruit of the Spirit. It is not the secularists on the outside who are a significant threat to the Church in America, but those who have abandoned a Christian Mind within.
D. There is ample room to disagree within a Christian framework, even strongly disagree. A healthy Church has diverse opinions within a Christian worldview.
Feel free to disagree with me, if you do so within a Christian framework at least we're having a healthy discussion, an 'iron sharpens iron' type thing, even if we cannot agree.
E. Opinions which are contrary to biblical, orthodox, and historic Christianity are NOT healthy for individual Christian or the Church and should be challenged by every minister of the Gospel.
Such opinions included, but are not limited to, those based in
(1) Individualism
(2) Consumerism/Materialism
(3) Nationalism
(4) Racism
(5) Sexism
Philippians 2:1-5 New International Version
2 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
I will continue striving to fulfill my calling, hopefully speaking the Truth, and hopefully doing so in love. As Luther was purported to have said, "here I stand, I can do no other." May God enlighten us all through his Spirit at work within us.
As a public persona, Rush Limbaugh changed very little in the last thirty years, his philosophy regarding government, animosity toward political opponents, and bombastic style was rather constant despite the significant changes that occurred in America from the early 1990's until the present. Rush Limbaugh didn't change very much, but I did.
Picture it: 1991, a high school sophomore, 16, listens to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, lives in a small rural town that is almost entirely white, attends church three times a week at an independent Baptist church, and begins to be involved in a weekly student led bible study at a teacher's home that will continue through high school when he begins to lead the group while in college. That skinny kid, smart but arrogant, quick with a retort as a defense mechanism, steeped in bible knowledge, but light on biblical wisdom, loved Limbaugh's passion and humor. He laughed at the feminists (he didn't know any), had high hopes for the power of politics to change things for the better, and flirted with the idea of majoring in political science and making a career out of his own hopes for America's future.
Icing my knees in 92 or 93 after a run at the Sanford home where our bible study was held
What changed? First of all, I didn't major in political science, I realized that two major things would stand in the way of a career in politics: I hated asking for money, and I had no penchant for dissembling. The other factor was the bible study that I mentioned previously. Beginning my sophomore year, myself and a group of fellow students that grew to over twenty met weekly at the home of Mrs. Sanford, our Advanced English teacher, to do a verse by verse study of the bible. We didn't use prepared materials, we simply read a verse and people commented upon it. Because of my background in Sunday school, junior church, youth group, 5 day clubs, and especially AWANA, I had more bible knowledge than most, and became one of the regular commentators in our group. I probably talked more than anyone else during our hour each week, that's sounds like me. It was through that group that my eyes began to open to the possibility of ministry as a career, a calling. Eventually, I called my pastor, James Frank, and told him that I felt called to be a pastor. At this point, I was very conservative in my politics, although I had suffered my first disillusionment about the whole business when I voted for the losing candidate in the 1992 presidential election (on my 18th birthday), and I still listened to and enjoyed Rush Limbaugh, I even had both of his books.
One incident that happened at Bible study sticks with me, although at the time it didn't have much of an impact upon my thinking. We were reading Galatians 1:8, But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! and like normal, I shared my viewpoint on the meaning of the text. Unbeknownst to me, there was a Catholic student in our group, and after I proceeded to excoriate the Catholic Church for perverting the Gospel (a very typical independent Baptist viewpoint: see John MacArthur, James White, or Steven Anderson) Mrs. Sanford took me aside and informed me that my words could have hurt that other student. But I was 18, and I knew everything, I brushed it off, my mind was firm. Looking back on it, I wish I had listened to her, but I'm not surprised that I didn't. I really only knew one family that was Catholic, who had a daughter in my grade who was one of my friends, and almost every Christian I knew belonged to an independent church because they were the only ones that our church 'fellowshipped' with. My horizons were narrow, indeed.
Things began to change, although I was still listening to Limbaugh regularly, when I arrived at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Not because the school was liberal by any means, all of its faculty were Baptists, and when I first arrived it was still against school policy for students to go the movies (something I had enjoyed since my mom took me to see the Dark Crystal when I was 6, fortunately those scars healed). It was only years later that I found out that Cornerstone was pesona non grata to many from the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARB) or the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA). How did my education at Cornerstone begin to change my attitude toward Rush Limbaugh? The first thing that it did was expose me to the reality of diversity within Christian history, theology, and the Church today. New books, new authors, new arguments and viewpoints, even when you yourself don't change what you believe very much, your eyes begin to open to the possibility that God could be working with/through Christians whose backgrounds and attitudes differ significantly. At Cornerstone I had amazing professors, they were all conservative by any broad definition regarding theology, culture, and politics, but they were committed to teaching their students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. It was a profound attitude, and a gift from God.
So there I was at Cornerstone, working toward a degree in religion, with a minor in philosophy, more interested in the kingdom of God than the kingdoms of men, and inching away from the certainty and antagonism of Rush Limbaugh. I listened less, I was annoyed more often, but the space between his certainty and my budding realization that other perspectives could honor and please God was not yet very wide.
Two things happened during my senior year in college that moved me further down the path to where I am today. The first was a month spent in Guatemala on a cross-cultural missions trip, and it was indeed an eye opening experience on many levels. The second was the ending of a year and a half's relationship with my college girlfriend, Elizabeth. She and I had similar backgrounds, being raised in Baptist Churches and attending conservative Christian schools (she went to Cedarville in Ohio). Whatever path the two of us might have trod together, it was not the same one I'm on now.
The kids who came to our program at Dios Es Amor Church in Chichicastenango, Guatemala
While at Cornerstone, I also saw a glimpse of ministry being done in a way that transcended politics in the person of Ed Dobson. Not the Focus on the Family Ed Dobson, but the Blinded by Might Ed Dobson, the pastor of Calvary Church whose mega church (before mega churches were everywhere) neighbored the campus of Cornerstone. Pastor Dobson, who went home to glory in 2015 after a courageous battle with ALS, impacted me, although the closest we came to meeting was me sitting in his congregation listening to him preach a couple times. {I highly recommend his The Year of Living Like Jesus, it is very powerful and touches on some of the themes I'm trying to elucidate here}
After graduating from Cornerstone, I made the momentous decision to seek real-world experience for my resume before continuing on with Seminary training; it was choosing the hard road, though I didn't know it. It did have an impact on my journey away from the politics-centric certainty of Limbaugh because it eventually brought me to both Caledonia United Methodist Church and Oakview Reformed Church, where I worked as a youth pastor/leader for about a year and six months, respectively. It was another step away from a narrowly defined Church toward one that more faithfully encompasses the breadth of God's grace in our world
While working at Caledonia UMC and living in Grand Rapids, I met a soon-to-be Calvin College graduate and future teacher, Suzanne, who ended up moving back home to Minneapolis, MN after we had dated a few times. She found work at a school there, and I considered moving to MN to see if the relationship had long-term potential, but I was stymied by the MN director of GARB because he was unwilling to help a graduate of Cornerstone find work at one of their churches because of how 'liberal' the school was. Flabbergasted at this, and without means of finding work in MN, I remained in MI and continued working as a substitute teacher while trying to secure a more than part-time ministry position.
During this time of transition in 1999, I met the woman who would truly bend the direction that my life was heading, my future wife, Nicole Brzezinski. Nicole, in addition to being a free spirit, was (and is) a devout Catholic. At first, neither of us considered our relationship to be anything more than a friendship, because we couldn't see how any romantic relationship would have a future. As friendships among 20 somethings sometimes go, we found ourselves together, wondering what to do next.
How could I hope to find work at a Baptist church as a pastor if I brought along with me a Catholic wife? How could we get married if I didn't have a full-time job? Life's questions were paramount at the time, politics was far from my mind, and I no longer listened to Rush Limbaugh. Eventually, Nicole and I made our commitment to each other, and were married at St. Alphonsus Catholic Church on June 30th, 2001.
My future as a pastor seemed unlikely, work was not to be found, so I took the few classes I needed to obtain a teaching certification in Social Studies and English, and found work at an unlikely place: Portland Adult and Community Education. This began a ten year stint there that was as much of an eye opening experience for me as my month in Guatemala. Guatemala had shown me the reality of Third World poverty and a church operating faithfully in a significantly different culture from my own; working at P.A.C.E introduced me to students with backgrounds and experiences that had been all around me growing up in rural Ionia County, but outside of my limited church/nerd/runners social circle. It had always been taken as a given by the philosophy of Rush Limbaugh (inspired by Ayn Rand: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God) that America's greatness was due in large part to 'rugged individualism' and those who had 'pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps'. At P.A.C.E. I saw generational poverty firsthand, learned what it was like for my students to have none of the support system that I was blessed with growing up, but instead to need to overcome the presence of drugs and violence in their lives in order to reach for a high school diploma. Life was not as simple and people were not as easily categorized, as the pundits would have us believe. People, experience was teaching me, are not wholly responsible for their own 'success' or 'failure' in life; individualism is not the panacea.
Five years into my teaching tenure at P.A.C.E. I was invited to preach at the First Baptist Church of Palo, MI. The next Sunday I was offered the position of pastor to this small, very rural, congregation. I was there for five years, learning on the job. It was at Palo that I was ordained, although one of the local ministers that I asked to sit on my ordination council abstained from voting in favor because he was unaware when the process began that I had a Catholic wife. I was happy at P.A.C.E. and at Palo, but I needed full-time ministry, and additionally neither position had benefits like health insurance.
Nicole and I struggled during the ten years that I worked at P.A.C.E (five of which I was also at 1st Baptist of Palo), we couldn't keep our heads above water financially, even though our home was a modest one, and when Nicole's health necessitated the end of her 10 years of teaching high school English, we lost our health insurance as well. The school board at Portland didn't consider the P.A.C.E teachers to be worthy of the same pay as other teachers (we made only 1/2 as much), and didn't provide any benefits. My dad worked for Amway for 44 years and that company had treated him well, he was never out of work, and even though we were far from rich, we didn't struggle nearly as much as many others. If not for the kindness of my parents in offering us assistance, we would have lost our house during those hard years after Nicole quit teaching. I was working three jobs, but we barely could pay our monthly bills. If this could happen to the guy voted 'most likely to succeed' who graduated Summa Cum Laude from college, it was further proof that 'rugged individualism' wasn't the whole answer. Our personal struggles opened my eyes further to the needs of those around us, to the structural causes of poverty, and questions about how the Church should respond.
Nicole's Catholicism prevented us from receiving offers from a number of churches, one in Indiana and one in New York both in the fall of 2011. It was heartbreaking, and tearful questions of 'why?' abounded. Thankfully, not every church felt that way. When I told the search committee of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA that my wife was Catholic, they were unfazed. We moved here at the start of 2012 with a new 'lease on life', it was a much needed turn for the better.
Western PA is very similar to western MI, but with one significant difference: Baptists and independent bible churches are a small minority (and there are few Reformed Churches), and those churches that are here have a much more ecumenical attitude toward each other. Here in Venango County we joke that you can't throw a stick without hitting a Methodist Church (mostly UMC, but Free Methodist too). In fact, across the corner from our church is First UMC, and halfway down the block is Christ UMC. In response to my choice to move forward with Nicole I had researched and written a 'book' about the ecumenism of 1 John {Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John} while we lived in MI, but here in Franklin I saw the reality of that thesis in practice. What was the thesis? According to the Apostle John, there are three tests of faith/fellowship that determine if someone is a genuine Christian: (1) Do they acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? (2) Do they have genuine love for fellow Christians? And (3), do they 'Walk in the light', that is, live righteously? That's it. That's the whole list. Nothing about baptism or communion, nothing about church polity, and absolutely nothing about politics. Here in Franklin I began working with committed and God-honoring Christians who were Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Christian Missionary Alliance, Church of God, and on and on. The narrow, us vs. them mentality of my youth, and the certainty with which I responded to Mrs. Sanford's attempt to pour cold water on my self-righteous zeal, were long gone. Here was a community that did not agree on many minor things, but were able to work together because they agree on one very important thing: Jesus.
Somewhere along this journey, between college and moving to Franklin in 2012, my attitude toward Rush Limbaugh soured more than just no longer listening to him or others like him, hyper-partisan punditry began to show itself to me to be a part of the problem, not the solution. In the fall of 2012, having been in Franklin mere months, I became involved in the effort that would lead shortly to the creation of Mustard Seed Missions of Venango County, an ecumenical para-church charity focused on helping the 'least of these' in our community in partnership with our county's Human Services Department. I've been the President of Mustad Seed Missions since its inception, and we've helped over 1,500 families without a drop of partisanship, replacing it entirely by building relationships within the organization, with the partners we work with, and the clients we help. The Culture Wars didn't create MSM, ecumenism and compassion for those in need did. In other words, it was the Church being the Church, serving the Kingdom of God, not fighting for control of the kingdoms of men.
In the years since the founding of MSM, we also began in our community a homeless shelter, Emmaus Haven, also built upon ecumenism, community support, and partnerships with the local government. This was yet another step away from the philosophy of Rush Limbaugh, as both of these organizations have demonstrated in concrete terms that the government need not be the enemy, and that poverty isn't simply a matter of people not working hard enough.
Thirty years ago Rush Limbaugh was much the same as he was in 2021, the year of his death. I was a lot like him in attitude and philosophy back then, but see very little that we might have had in common anymore. He didn't change much, but I did. How? Why? It was a journey of education, maturity, and discipleship, but mostly it was the 'school of life' teaching me humility and compassion through my own struggles, teaching me ecumenism and cooperation through my marriage and my ministry. It was, I believe, in the end, the journey that God wanted me to take, the person he wanted me to become, it was like so much else, God's grace.
It seems almost axiomatic that had Martin Luther King Jr. not been assassinated in 1968 at the age of 39, but instead lived and crusaded against the racism affecting minorities in America for decades longer, that he would have ended his days not as a beloved figure appreciated by even those who disliked his politics and/or theology, but as a 'radical liberal' dismissed by most white American Christians. Martyrdom has made Martin Luther King Jr. more acceptable to American than are his contemporaries and those carrying on his legacy on behalf of the poor and mistreated.
I wonder, however, if the same isn't true of Martin Luther as well. Has 500 years taken the 'edge' off of Martin Luther in similar fashion to what has transpired with Martin Luther King Jr?
As an example, consider the words written by Martin Luther in a 1524 sermon, "On Trading and Usury":
"Buying and selling are necessary. They cannot be dispensed with and can be practiced in a Christian manner, especially when the articles of trade serve a necessary and honorable purpose...Even the patriarchs bought and sold cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and other goods. These are gifts of God, which He bestows out of the earth and distributes among men. But foreign trade, which brings from Calcutta, India, and such places, wares like costly silks, gold-work and spices, which minister only to luxury and serve no useful purpose, and which drains away the wealth of land and people - this trade ought not be permitted..."
At first, Luther sounds like a Free Market advocate, extoling the virtue of trade as a profession, but then he speaks of governmental controls on the trade of luxury goods, advocating an outright ban on some of these, and worrying about the affect of trade upon the 'land and people'. Martin Luther didn't live in a democratic society, nor did he experience a modern economy, so perhaps he would have adapted his views to the times. That being said, could we really expect Martin Luther to forsake his concern about purposeless luxury and his care for how our economic activity affects the 'land and people'?
Luther continued, "The merchants have among themselves one common rule...They say: I may sell my goods as dear as I can. This they think their right. Lo, that is giving place to avarice and opening every door and window to hell. What does it mean? Only this: 'I care nothing about my neighbor, so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, what affair is it of mine if it does my neighbor 10 injuries at once?' There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love, but of natural law..."
Once again, the precise nature of Luther's objections wouldn't be exactly the same in a Free Market Economy, but the principle of absolute property rights (I can do whatever I want with what I own) that is championed by many Americans (and others of wealth and power around the world) seems hardly to fit with Luther's reminder that a true Christian cares about how his business practices affect his neighbor.
So, how would Luther respond to the economic injustices that he witnessed? It is only speculation, but he wouldn't likely put his trust in the 'invisible hand' of the Free Market. Luther's sermon continued with, "The best and safest way would be for the temporal authorities to appoint over this matter wise and honest men who would appraise the cost of all sorts of wares and fix accordingly the outside price at which the merchant would get his due and have an honest living...the next best thing is to hold our wares at the price which they bring in the common market or which is customary in the neighborhood...But when the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, then indeed no one can give you any other instructions except to lay it upon your conscience to be careful and not overcharge your neighbor, and seek not avaricious gain, but only an honest living."
Would Martin Luther's theology be respected by his theological descendants if they came in the same package as calls for governmental price controls, fair market rates, and above all else, conscience as a limit upon business profits?
To what end this musing? The question struck me in part because of how fiercely Pope Francis is consistently attacked for his economic views about justice for the poor or care for the environment. Were Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King Jr. alive today, would they not be treated the same way?
Two forces are at work here, both of which tend toward corruption/abuse:
1. We smooth the rough edges off of figures of the past, making them more palatable to our ears, and thus their wisdom less cogent.
2. We tend to run theology and ethics through our political and economic lens, and not the other way around.
Amos was an ordinary man, a farmer from Judah, chosen by God in the 8th century BC to go to Israel to warn the people of the impending wrath of God. Israel was the name given to the 10 northern tribes that broke away from the Davidic dynasty following the death of Solomon (due to the arrogance of Solomon's son Rehoboam). The Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrian Empire in 722 BC, less than two generations after the warning given to it by Amos.
With the idea of Justice prominent in our conversations as Americans and as Christian Americans, it benefits us to consider what the Justice of God looks like. What provoked the wrath of God against his Covenant people of Israel and Judah? What offenses were the prophets commanded to condemn?
The text below is excerpted from the book of Amos, its nine chapters can be read in twenty or thirty minutes; please do so. These texts appear in the order they are given, not arranged thematically. My commentary will appear in bold after each text.
Amos 2:4-5 (NIV)
4 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Judah,
even for four, I will not relent.
Because they have rejected the law of the Lord
and have not kept his decrees,
because they have been led astray by false gods,
the gods their ancestors followed,
5 I will send fire on Judah
that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.”
Judah is not the focus of Amos' ministry, but his prophecy begins by announcing God's wrath against the surrounding peoples, primarily for their violence toward neighboring peoples, including the people of Judah to the south. Judah's sin is more specific, involving idolatry and the worship of false gods. Although Judah was a troubled society, their kingdom endured until 586 BC when Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, they too committed the same type of sins that Israel will be charged with by Amos, and God sent them prophets as a warning in turn.
Amos 2:6-8 (NIV)
6 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not relent.
They sell the innocent for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor
as on the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
8 They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
Here begins the indictment: (1) selling the innocent for silver, (2) trampling the poor, and (3) denying justice to the oppressed. The society of Israel systematically oppressed the poor, taking advantage of them both in business and in the courts of law. These themes will be repeated throughout Amos' prophecy. In addition, the people of Israel indulged in sexual immorality ('Father and son use the same girl') and mocked God by coming to his altar while retaining a garment taken in pledge (an act forbidden by the Law, Exodus 22:26-27). Lastly, they were drinking wine in God's house that had been taken as fines (presumably unjust fines). These last two point toward a pattern of false/insincere worship. God will not be mocked. Galatians 6:7 (NIV) Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. To worship God while in the middle of conducting sinful behavior, will not be tolerated.
Amos 2:11-12 (NIV)
11 “I also raised up prophets from among your children
and Nazirites from among your youths.
Is this not true, people of Israel?”
declares the Lord.
12 “But you made the Nazirites drink wine
and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.
God was not silent when these injustices and blasphemies occurred. His response was to send prophets, but the people made a mockery of the Nazirites (who had taken vows not to drink alcohol) and told the prophets to be quiet. This idea will be repeated in Amos, the powerful do not like to be reminded of their sins (anymore than the rest of us, but they have the power to silence their critics).
Amos 3:1-3 (NIV)
1 Hear this word, people of Israel, the word the Lord has spoken against you—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt:
2 “You only have I chosen
of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
for all your sins.”
3 Do two walk together
unless they have agreed to do so?
This is a key point that is often overlooked: God holds his own people MORE accountable than the rest of humanity. When we talk about Justice, in society, we hope for equality and fairness, but when we consider God's Justice, we need to be very aware that God is both more stern and more gracious to his people. He is willing to forgive our sins, if we repent, but highly intolerant of our immorality if we harden our hearts. I know that many of my fellow Christians consider America to be the New Israel (Replacement theology), thinking of us in the same Covenant terms that were given by Moses to the people. The theology of this position is flawed, and that can be demonstrated by examining Paul's letter to the Romans, but there's an important reason to be glad we aren't the New Israel: We wouldn't survive God's wrath. Israel was held to a higher standard than their neighbors, no nation in our world today would survive such scrutiny.
Amos 4:1 (NIV)
4 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
The upper class women of Israel were as involved in crushing the poor as their husbands, laughing at the situation in a way worthy of Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake!"
Amos 4:4-5 (NIV)
4 “Go to Bethel and sin;
go to Gilgal and sin yet more.
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
your tithes every three years.
5 Burn leavened bread as a thank offering
and brag about your freewill offerings—
boast about them, you Israelites,
for this is what you love to do,”
declares the Sovereign Lord.
This section shows God's sense of humor. In this case, biting irony. The people were still obeying the FORM of correct worship while their hearts were far from God. They oppressed the poor and needy during the week and worshiped the LORD on the Sabbath. Such worship is not only fruitless, it actually offends and angers God. The prophet Isaiah makes this clear, "Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them." (Isaiah 1:14) Once again, if America were the New Israel, it wouldn't matter how many people were in church on Sunday morning when God considered our nation's ample inequality, injustice, and immorality (sins that God's people sadly participate in all too readily). As it is, we cannot hope to receive God's blessing as a nation if we don't address the issues of injustice in our society.
Amos 5:10-12 (NIV)
10 There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court
and detest the one who tells the truth.
11 You levy a straw tax on the poor
and impose a tax on their grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
you will not drink their wine.
12 For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes
and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.
The pronouncement against injustice continues: (1) injustice in the courts through false testimony, (2) heavy taxes upon the poor, (3) the taking of bribes to deprive the poor of justice. Looking at a list like this, I'm struck by the animosity toward the idea of social justice in America. Many Christians, and a not a few prominent Christian leaders, demonize the idea of seeking equality before the Law, calling it a political ploy or a Leftist plot {See: Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"}. And yet, God cares about these issues enough to make them the FOCUS of the warning of his chosen prophet that judgment is at hand. I'm not saying that those advocating for social justice are without error (in their tactics or judgments), but how can the very IDEA of seeking equality in the face of injustice be against the will of God? The Scriptures say otherwise.
Amos 5:14-15 (NIV)
14 Seek good, not evil,
that you may live.
Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you,
just as you say he is.
15 Hate evil, love good;
maintain justice in the courts.
Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy
on the remnant of Joseph.
How can God's people avert the disaster heading their way? Repent and administer true justice. This is one piece that is often missing in the discussion of America's history of racism. IF we truly have repented of the way in which our ancestors treated Blacks, Indians, and various other minorities, we would now be actively seeking to "maintain justice in the courts." In other words, the sincerity of our repentance, as a people, is not judged by our claims of sincerity but by the results of our actions. Actions speak louder than words. The verdict on whether or not America retains systemic racism will show itself in the way in which our justice system treats ALL the people. IF we have repented, we will live in a way that proves it. {This is what true repentance always looks like in the Bible, without follow-up actions that prove it is genuine, the repentance is not considered legitimate.}
Amos 5:21-24 (NIV)
21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
24 But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!
Harsh words from God (via Amos) about the value of the worship of the people. God does NOT accept worship from a people mired in immorality. Why? Because God is holy, his people must seek righteousness, must "hate what is evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9) If they do not, no amount of worship, offerings, or singing will be accepted by God. What is the antidote to false worship? "let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" And yet, churches that involve themselves in helping the poor, in seeking racial harmony and reconciliation, often by working for a more just and fair legal system, are accused of abandoning the Gospel. The Word of God warns us of the frailty of a path that focuses upon worship and ignores injustice, of one that claims to follow God on Sunday, but ignores the needs of the people in our community the other six days of the week. The Gospel call for salvation by grace through faith must always remain central to our ministry, but that message is made COMPLETE (by actions that demonstrate the sincerity of our faith) when we work for righteousness in our community.
Amos 7:10-13 (NIV)
10 Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: “Amos is raising a conspiracy against you in the very heart of Israel. The land cannot bear all his words. 11 For this is what Amos is saying:
“‘Jeroboam will die by the sword,
and Israel will surely go into exile,
away from their native land.’”
12 Then Amaziah said to Amos, “Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. 13 Don’t prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom.”
Was Amos welcomed with open arms? Nope. The leadership in Israel were not pleased with Amos' warning and told him to go home. Why? Because the sacred space at Bethel, and the authority of the king couldn't be bothered with hearing from God. There is irony here, of course, that those in leadership should be most keen to hear from God, but are in fact the least. Why? Because their hearts are hard, and because they benefit from the oppression of the poor. That dynamic is true in every society in human history, ours included.
Amos 8:4-6 (NIV)
4 Hear this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the poor of the land,
5 saying,
“When will the New Moon be over
that we may sell grain,
and the Sabbath be ended
that we may market wheat?”—
skimping on the measure,
boosting the price
and cheating with dishonest scales,
6 buying the poor with silver
and the needy for a pair of sandals,
selling even the sweepings with the wheat.
Lastly, Amos broadens the indictment of oppression of the poor with examples: (1) the eagerness of the merchants to get back to business as soon as the Sabbath is over, (2) the dishonest business practices that cheat the customers. I've also read that the term Economic Justice is an affront to Justice, an insult to God. That doesn't seem to be the case here. The prophet of God is concerned with something as commonplace as dishonest scales. Should not the Church of Jesus Christ concern itself with the ways in which the poor in our nation are treated? Should not issues of homelessness, housing, education, addiction, and the need for a living wage be our concern? God-honoring Christians can disagree about HOW to address such issues, about which political or legal solutions are best, but we have been given no wiggle room as to the question of whether or not we should CARE about these things.
What does the book of Amos illustrate to us about God and Justice? (1) God cares about legal injustices, (2) God cares about economic injustices, (3) God holds the rich and powerful accountable for these injustices, (4) God will not accept worship from his people if they are involved in perpetuating these injustices, and (5) the rich and powerful are unlikely to appreciate being called to task by a prophetic voice speaking the Words of God.
Social Justice? Racial Justice? Legal Justice? Economic Justice? God cared about them then, and their lack provoked his wrath. God does not change. God cares about them now, their lack still provokes his wrath. The prophet Amos was called to bring to the people's attention these failings, we honor God when we do likewise in our time and place.
Exodus 20:7 (NIV) “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
To abuse Scripture to portray God in a light contrary to the Word of God is a violation of this commandment. This is a danger that faces those who purport to speak on God's behalf, a warning of the need to treat the Word of God with respect and honesty.
PragerU is not a university, or an educational institution of any kind, rather it is a popular social media content company founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager (co-founded by Allen Estrin), and funded by billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks (from the petroleum industry. The Wilks family founded the Assembly of Yahweh church, a group with numerous non-orthodox/heretical beliefs {they're essentially unitarian, denying the Trinity and making Jesus a created being; not to be confused with the Unitarian Universalist Church, that's a very different group}). PragerU espouses a Conservative, often Libertarian, consistently Republican viewpoint. This being America, PragerU has every right to support these views, to share them in any legal manner, and those whose beliefs coincide with those views have every right to appreciate the content that PragerU creates. However, PragerU decided to bring God into the conversation, to declare that the Bible (and God) 100% supports their position on an issue, that the Bible (and God) 100% condemns the other side on this same issue, and that those in the Church who disagree are, in essence, fake Christians. If you're going to take such a God-centered position, you'd better be able to back it up with theology drawn from the whole Bible (not just cherry-picked verses), from Christian theologians and thinkers throughout Church History, AND you'd better present your argument with honesty and integrity, "for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
Below is the transcript (in this font) of the PragerU video (link above, please watch it to see for yourself). My comments upon the video will appear in bold.
The Lord is a God of social justice.
That’s the message in many—maybe most—churches and synagogues in America and the West today.
But here’s the problem: The Bible doesn’t actually say that. It says (in Isaiah), “The Lord is a God of justice.” You’ll find a lot of references to justice in the Bible. But you’ll never find it preceded by the word “social.”
1. The "____ is not in the Bible" argument is both foolish and disingenuous. Why? Because it can easily be used against any modern concept. Let me show you. "The Lord is a God of democracy...But here's the problem: The Bible doesn't actually say that." Other words not in the Bible: capitalism, socialism, America, vote, Republican, Democrat, free trade, minimum wage, etc. I've seen this argument used before, and it is always an exceedingly weak one. Not only are modern concepts not in the Bible, which is of course a document written in the Ancient World, but the Bible you and I read isn't in its original languages. The Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic (just a few verses), and thus whether or not a particular English word or phrase is in our Bible is also a translators decision.
But you’re probably thinking, “What’s the difference? Isn’t God the God of justice and social justice?” Well, not if He’s consistent. You see, God cannot be the God of justice and social justice because social justice is not just.
2. Here is the premise of PragerU's argument: Social justice isn't just. That's a serious theological position to take, one that would require numerous examples of social justice movements and advocates actually seeking injustice, as well as significant exegesis of Scripture to establish, but instead of that, PragerU's video will next create a false Straw Man version of Social Justice to attack, declare that version to be unjust, and move on hoping nobody noticed the bait and switch. They are correct that God cannot be the God of injustice, nor of immorality of any kind, including dishonesty.
Justice is getting what you deserve without favor. Social justice is getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored.
3. Here's the Straw Man: "Social Justice is getting what you don't deserve because you are favored." No it isn't. From the Oxford dictionary: "The objective of creating a fair and equal society in which each individual matters, their rights are recognized and protected, and decisions are made in ways that are fair and honest." Or from Dictionary.com if you prefer: "Fair treatment of all people in a society, including respect for the rights of minorities and equitable distribution of resources among members of a community." Here's an important lesson in language: Word usage determines word meaning. How words are used is what they mean. Dictionaries tell us what words mean based on how people are currently using them. PragerU has decided to make up their own definition of the term social justice, which is not a definition at all, but a critique from their own political philosophy. That's not how dialogue works, but it is how punditry works, and this sort of 'argumentation' is one of the reasons why Americans are often at each other's throats. In addition to be unhelpful in actually discussing an issue, this is dishonest. The vast majority of people who advocate for social justice do NOT believe that people should get what they don't deserve. And since PragerU brought Christian Churches into this conversation (in order to condemn them), there are few Christian Churches who believe that their efforts for social justice have anything to do with PragerU's 'definition'.
Justice is blind. Social justice is not.
4. Here lies the heart of the matter and the fundamental flaw in PragerU's viewpoint: Justice isn't blind, not in the real world. It may be blind, ideally, but throughout human history it has rarely been so. Social Justice is the response to this perverted justice, it is an effort to re-balance the scales of justice, to take away the advantages that certain people/groups have (in America that would be, in order of importance for having 'justice' tilt in your direction: rich, males, who are white) with respect to justice, and also taking away the disadvantages that certain people/groups have (in America, again in descending order that would be: poor, minority, female) with respect to justice. The Rich have one version of justice (in America, throughout the world, and throughout history), the poor have another. The powerful (often associated with class, caste, or ace) have one version, the weak have another. And yes, men have one version, women have another.
Let's say a man robs a store. Justice demands but one thing: that he be tried in a court of justice, and, if he is found guilty, punished.
That is not how social justice works. Social justice doesn’t only ask if the person is guilty. It asks about his economic condition: Is he poor or wealthy? About his upbringing: What kind of childhood did he have? About his race or ethnicity: Is he a member of a group that has been historically oppressed?
5. The Straw Man version of social justice once more in action. I've never heard anyone advocating for social justice proclaim that a criminal who is a minority should be given a 'get out of jail free' card. Again, justice isn't blind. The system of criminal justice (as the example is about crime) both in America today and throughout the world and its history, is one that is unfairly tilted toward those with power (typically wealthy, but also things like aristocratic birth). The system affords them ample opportunities to avoid true impartial justice, while at the same time, stacking the deck against the weak and powerless. This is a fact of both history and the world today. It is beyond dispute, yet PragerU mentions this disparity in their video, not at all. This is the heart of social justice movements, but PragerU is declaring that God hates social justice without touching upon this element.
Justice demands that everyone be equal under the law. Social justice demands that everyone be equal. Period. Economically, socially, and in every other possible way.
Justice asks, “Who did it?” Social justice asks, “Why did he do it?”
Lost in all these social justice considerations is the individual’s own responsibility for what he did. That’s why social justice advocates have abandoned the term “justice.” They deem justice alone as unfair. And sometimes it is. A man who was beaten by his father and abandoned by his mother is more likely to commit a violent crime than a man raised in a loving home. But those facts cannot and should not determine his innocence or guilt.
Why? Because justice is, first and foremost, about truth: Is the person guilty or innocent of the crime? None of us is omniscient. We don’t know why people do what they do. After all, the vast majority of people raised in abusive homes do not commit violent crimes. Nor do the vast majority of people who are members of an historically oppressed group.
6. PragerU is arguing from the false standpoint that justice is currently fair and that those seeking social justice want to make it unfair. If that were true, they might have a point, but it isn't, neither part of it. The secular justice system in America should take into consideration if a defendant was an abuse victim, if he/she has a mental illness, and other mitigating factors. A TRUE search for Justice (with a capital J) has room for compassion, has hope for rehabilitation of offenders, and takes into consideration the circumstances behind why a crime is committed. Why? Because that's the way God judges us (more on that later). Again, this is a broken record, but PragerU is arguing against a false version of social justice, as if the idea of social justice is to excuse the guilty from any/all punishment, rather than seeking to actually allow justice to operate without its prejudices.
So, how does God judge human beings? Are we treated equally for fairly?
James 3:1 (NIV) Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
Luke 12:42-48 42 (NIV) The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Hebrews 6:4-8 (NIV) 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[a] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
More examples could be given, but when studying God's interaction with human beings in his Word it becomes apparent that God's justice is not 'blind'. It does indeed take into account the attitudes and knowledge of the people being judged, and it holds those who have received more blessings, MORE accountable. God is not a computer, he's a person. God views humanity with both righteousness (his holiness requires it) AND compassion. With both anger toward the wicked and mercy toward the repentant {See Jonah: Jonah didn't want to go to Ninevah to share God's warning with that wicked people precisely because he wanted to see them destroyed not saved, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."}
As Christians, what kind of Justice ought we to imitate? Blind justice, or God's justice? One could argue that a secular society should seek to administer blind justice and not be influenced by Judeo-Christian ideals, but that's the opposite of what PragerU is saying here as they're actually advocating for blind justice (which we don't currently have, and won't have without social justice, an irony to be sure) in the name of God, and condemning those who want a justice system that more closely resembles the way in which God judges people.
Being a victim, however that is defined, is no excuse for hurting other people. And what about those who are hurt—the victims of those crimes? Shouldn’t they, and other law-abiding citizens, be society’s first consideration?
7. Social Justice doesn't care about victims. That's a big statement, if only it were backed up with any evidence...Oh, and if you're going to bring God into the picture (which PragerU purposefully did), don't spend the whole time talking about Law with no mention of Grace. If the character of God is the barometer of whether or not our system of justice is a righteous one, it had better take into account BOTH God's willingness to punish the wicked, AND God's willingness to have mercy upon the wicked. So far this presentation is 100% Law.
Social justice advocates say no. They say we need social justice to even things out. And that means favoring the have-nots over the haves—the poor over the rich, the female over the male, and the brown or black over the white.
The Bible does not see the world this way. In fact, it speaks against it in very explicit terms.
Here’s a law in the Book of Exodus: “Do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.”
Here’s one in Leviticus: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great but judge your neighbor justly.”
Moses, the greatest lawgiver in history, declares in Deuteronomy: “Follow justice and justice alone.”
And the New Testament declares in the Book of Romans: “God shows no partiality.”
8. Here is the entirety of the thesis that the Bible is against social justice: 4 verses of scripture. Of the 4 verses chosen by PragerU, two warn against favoring the poor, and two speak of impartiality in general. If only the Bible spoke, anywhere, about NOT favoring the rich and powerful, if only the prophets had bothered to speak on this topic too...Here is a list of 100 verses commanding God's people to protect/advocate for the helpless (poor, widow, orphan, foreigner, oppressed): What does the Bible say about protecting the Helpless? Let me highlight a few of them below:
Deuteronomy 27:19 ‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
Psalm 12:5 “Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,” says the Lord; “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.”
Proverbs 14:31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.
Isaiah 58:6-7 “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Jeremiah 21:12 O house of David! Thus says the Lord: ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’
Jeremiah 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the Lord.
Matthew 23:23-24 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Or if you prefer, here is what Compassion International (one of the most respected Christian charities) has to say about God's relationship to the poor: What the Bible Says about Poverty
The point is, PragerU has badly cherry-picked scripture to create a false impression, one that it simply tries to dismiss with its next paragraph. Why does the possibility (not the reality, this isn't happening now) of the poor being favored offend PragerU so deeply (its the only type of injustice they mention) but the reality of the rich being favored day after day isn't an issue?
None of this means that there is no place for compassion in a system of justice. Of course, there is. The Bible is preoccupied with the protection of the widow, the orphan, and unfortunate. But compassion follows justice. It doesn’t precede it.
9. Yes! The Bible is preoccupied with the protection of the weak and powerless! How can your very next sentence start with 'But'? "Compassion follows Justice. It doesn't precede it." Thank God this isn't true. Compassion is integral to Justice, Mercy is foundational to Justice, Love is intertwined with Justice. Does God execute complete Justice with regard to human sin? Absolutely, that's why Jesus died upon the Cross, to take the full weight of our sins upon his perfect shoulders. {See the book of Hebrews for a detailed discussion} Do we experience complete Justice? Thanks be to God, we do not. Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for the undeserving, Christ died for sinners. THIS is the character of God, this is the Justice that we should aspire to.
Well meaning and God honoring Christians can, and will, disagree about HOW MUCH injustice exists, about which particular examples are unjust, and about HOW TO CORRECT that injustice. These can be normal healthy disagreements and discussions about the command we have received from the LORD to administer true justice, protecting the powerless. What does not fit within a Biblical framework is a viewpoint that treats the effort being made to correct injustices as an abomination to God. That viewpoint, expressed as it is here in PragerU's video, is taking the name of the LORD in vain and misrepresenting his Word.
Also, justice, in and of itself, is compassionate. First, to the victims of crime and to their loved ones. And second, to the criminal: How can you become a better human being if you don’t first recognize that you’ve done something wrong?
That’s why any time we put an adjective before the word “justice,” we no longer have justice. Economic justice, racial justice, environmental justice—any form of “social” justice which seeks to “correct” actual justice—undermines justice.
10. The word social preceding justice automatically negates it? As a former English teacher this claim leaves me scratching my head. This is another argument that doesn't make any sense because it could equally be used against other uses of adverbs and adjectives in front of nouns with silly results. For example: Agape Love, Brotherly Love, Loving Kindness, Saving Faith, Holy Spirit, etc. Why is this one example with the word justice, somehow evil when we use words like this all the time, and so does the Bible? The answer is PragerU's political philosophy, not Biblical theology.
"Any form of 'social' justice which seeks to 'correct' actual justice- undermines justice." This would only be true IF actual justice were actually happening. To correct injustice IS justice. To stop further injustice IS justice. This is the Straw Man still going, social justice doesn't seek to undue true impartial justice, but rather the perverted form of justice that many people in society have to reckon with. What actually undermines Justice in a society? When the rich and powerful guilty are allowed to go free (or get greatly reduced punishments) and the poor and powerless have the full weight of the system upon their backs, whether or not they are guilty. Is the LORD supposed to be pleased with this? Is God supposed to be smiling upon America (or any other nation) as a paragon of true Justice? If the prophets of old excoriated Israel for failing to follow God's Law with justice, what makes you think any other nation is beyond God's ire?
So, then, if social justice is not a biblical concept, why do so many churches and synagogues promote it?
Because many Christians and Jews no longer regard biblical principles as binding. Because it’s a lot easier to dispense compassion than hold people to a biblical standard. And because leftism has superseded the Bible in many houses of worship—and leftism, as a guiding principle, holds that the weak are good and the powerful are bad.
That’s why the great battle of our time is between Judeo-Christian values and leftist values. The former is rooted in justice; the latter is not.
11. And the icing on the cake? PragerU has declared that Christians and Christian Churches who follow the Bible's commands to advocate for the poor and the powerless are in fact fake Christians who care more about Leftist politics than they do about God. This is a sweeping and broad condemnation, one that would include MLK Jr., Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, John the Baptist, and of course Jesus himself who had a pesky habit of siding with the poor and the oppressed against the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin.
What does the Bible say about Right vs. Left? Nothing. What does it say about Capitalism vs. Socialism? Nothing. Take these fights outside and stop dragging God into them.
Here's an uncomfortable truth for PragerU: The only economic system that God ever created was that of ancient Israel through the Law of Moses. This system was NOT a free-market land of rugged individualism, but rather a system designed with a safety net for the poor {See Ruth and the law of gleanings} as well as a powerful mechanism to rebalance economic inequality in the Year of Jubilee. Every 50 years the entire nation of Israel was required to return all property to its original owners (leaving no families destitute with generational poverty) and free all slaves. God required his people to RESET the wealth/poverty ratio on a regular basis. This was not 'blind justice' in action, but God's justice, for it contained both mercy and grace.
I’m Allie Beth Stuckey, host of Relatable on BlazeTV, for Prager University.
12. I have nothing against Allie Beth Stuckey, but if you're going to claim that God is on your side, maybe chose a theologian and not a pundit to make the case.
Acts 20:27 (NIV) For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.
There is plenty of room within orthodox Christianity to discuss the issue of social justice with fairness and honesty. There is plenty of room to disagree about the extent of injustice and the potential solutions to it. I have family and friends, and members of my church whom love, who disagree with me on issues of social justice (racial, economic, etc.) We disagree about how to obey God, and that's ok, we're living and learning together. Historic, orthodox, Christianity, grounded in the Word of God has maintained an advocacy for the poor and the powerless, and it has maintained a prophetic voice against the abuses perpetuated by the rich and powerful. This stance honors our God, for it imitates him. PragerU is free to make its arguments in the political sphere, but if its going to try to dictate the will of God to the Church, it had better go back and read the WHOLE Bible.
"While justice can be used to talk about retributive justice in which a person is punished for their wrongdoings, most of the time the Bible uses the word justice to refer to restorative justice, in which those who are unrightfully hurt or wronged are restored and given back what was taken from them. Taken this way, the combination of righteousness and justice that God dictates means a selfless way of life in which people do everything they can to ensure that others are treated well and injustices are fixed."
"Justice flows from God's heart and character. As true and good, God seeks to make the object of his holy love whole. This is what motivates God throughout the Old and New Testaments in his judgments on sin and injustice. These judgments are both individual and corporate in scope."
