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
An interesting thing happened to me two Sundays ago that has been gnawing at my mind since. As I always try to do when we have visitors join us for worship, I spoke with a new family in the brief moments before church was to begin. They were, like so many individuals and families that had joined us for a week, or two, in recent years, looking for a new church home. Other than visitors from out-of-town, and those who join us of their own accord without a previous church background (an answer to prayer!), most of those who seek a new church are doing so because of something that was amiss where they had previously attended.
Given that this happens fairly regularly, and that some of these new folk will stick around while others will keep looking, my brief conversation with this family wouldn't have stuck in my mind if I didn't have a pertinent section in my sermon on Romans 15:1-6 that I had actually written in as an addition that very morning when I was reviewing my message:
"A quick note, the current habit of Christians self-sorting into homogenous local churches which only contain people who look, act, and think like they already do is in part an attempt to avoid this hard work of self-transformation and discipleship, and thus inherently an unhealthy development in the Church as a whole. Given modern mobility and technology it will not be easy to overcome the tendency of most people to seek out a church primarily on the criteria of being 'comfortable' there."
At that point in the sermon I added an ad-lib to the effect that the people here in this congregation don't need to agree with me on everything, especially the cultural and political issues of the day (about which most wouldn't know if they agree with me or not given my reluctance to speak publicly on them, as I've noted over the years).
Without sharing the particulars of why that one family had joined us a few weeks ago, I knew it wasn't because they were avoiding the challenges of discipleship by seeking out a homogenous church community.
But, as pastors often do when they realize that a portion of their sermon touches directly on the life of someone sitting in the pew, I hope I wasn't misunderstood, I hope it didn't feel like I was aiming those words in their direction.
{FYI, 95% of the time the whole, "He's talking about me in the sermon!" phenomenon is the thought of the person in the pew not the intention of the person behind the pulpit. After writing and delivering more than 750 sermons, I can honestly say that it has never occurred to me to aim what I'm writing at one individual or family, that's just not how the sausage is made.}
Here's why I hope I wasn't misunderstood: There is indeed a big difference between those who seek out a "comfortable" church where they won't be challenged in their beliefs and attitudes, and those who seek out a healthy church where they will be discipled and asked to serve.
It isn't an easy decision to leave a church, at least it shouldn't be, even if that church has become an unhealthy, even a toxic place. To leave feels like giving up, like conceding that you don't see much hope of things changing anytime soon. Honestly, this topic ought to feel different to single people than to parents. I may feel confident that I can protect myself from negativity in a church that has grown unhealthy and still be a positive influence on those around me, but taking that risk on behalf of your kids is no small thing. Honestly, I wouldn't let my kid be a part of a church overflowing with the hatreds of "Christian" Nationalism or the materialism of the Prosperity Gospel, to give two common examples, even if I felt called to stay there myself and try to make a difference.
In the end, I'm not in the business of "sheep stealing." If people come to our doors because there is a problem (real or imagined) with the place they previously worshiped, we will welcome them with kindness no questions asked, that goes without saying. Maybe God is leading them here, maybe he isn't, I'm certainly not in a position to judge that matter for them. If where they were previously wasn't a healthy church, for whatever reason, they will be welcome among us, and hopefully they will find God's presence and the challenge of discipleship in our midst. But I'm not trying to grow this church on the back of disgruntled Methodists (sadly a numerous bunch in our county given recent events), disillusioned Presbyterians, or angry Catholics. What I hope for, and what all of the clergy I've known and worked with in this community for more than a decade likewise hope for, is a collective Church in our community that allows those who don't know Jesus to see glimpses of him in us. What I hope for, and so do my fellow pastors, is that we together may add new members to the family of God, new sinners saved by grace, new lives redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. There will always be a rearranging of chairs within our various congregations, some growing some shrinking, and a flow of people between us, what matters in the end is whether or not that migration is making the Church healthier or unhealthier, whether or not it is supporting or harming our universal collective mission of being salt and light in this world.
Romans 14:22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
After buying Twitter, the world's richest man, Elon Musk, has numerous times "condemned himself" by approving of racist and antisemitic statements and conspiracy theories. While Musk has insisted that, "nothing could be further from the truth," much of the world isn't buying it, not when it keeps happening, not when he seems to have so little interest in repairing the damage he is causing.
The latest example was Elon Musk's reply, "You have said the actual truth" in response to this tweet:
I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much. - The tweet on X (formerly Twitter) to which Musk replied.
This of course comes in the context of the horrific mass murders in Israel on October 7th, and is a repetition of the deeply antisemitic conspiracy theory that inspired the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter and the Charlottesville wanna-be Nazis who shouted, "Jews will not replace us" known as the Great Replacement Theory.
The point is, by now, anyone who has an opinion worth hearing on the subject of immigration, Jews, and racism is aware of how dangerous the White Supremacist's conspiracy that Jews are financing global migration to eradicate white people really is. And yet, Elon Musk felt the need to lend his support to this idea and share that "opinion" will his 100 million + followers.
Whatever the outcome is down the road for Elon Musk, X (Twitter), and the rising tide of antisemitism that we must once again confront, there is a profound lesson for all of us to be learned from watching Musk try to defend himself against his own words: If you support evil, don't be surprised when people associate you with evil.
If you share, promote, and like antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories, the world is going to conclude that you yourself are an antisemite. That's not unfair, it isn't unwarranted, it is an application of Jesus' wisdom,
Luke 6:45 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
Nine people murdered at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015. In August 2017, White Supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia marched with torches shouting, "The Jews will not replace us!" Eleven people murdered at Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 2018. Twenty-three people murdered at an El Paso, Texas Walmart in 2019. Fifty people murdered at two mosques in New Zealand in 2019. And now, ten people murdered at a grocery story in Buffalo, New York on May 14th, 2022. All of the killers were white men, and all of their targets were chosen because of race. It is racism at its most vile, empowered by the ability of one person to murder dozens in a few moments, but otherwise little different in terms of the hatred involved and the goal desired from the lynching's of the Klan. The history of this attitude in America also includes the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the Know Nothing party's anti-immigrant rhetoric, and similar such efforts to preserve America for people 'like us' in skin tone and culture.
It would seem like an obvious response to condemn the ideology of those who perpetuate mass murder, it was certainly what happened in America after 9/11 to Islamic Fundamentalism, but in fact the "Great Replacement" has been gaining acceptance and supports from well known pundits and politicians in recent years (in the midst of the ongoing slaughter of innocents), most notably from Tucker Carlson.
How does one avoid politics, my goal, when pundits (and politicians) are advocating an ideology that continues to inspire mass murderers? In this case, I cannot. What America's immigration policy should be is another conversation, but what cannot be mainstreamed is the notion that White lives are of more value than non-White lives. There is not way around the conclusion that the "Great Replacement" theory embraced by Tucker Carlson (and others) is making this 'us' vs 'them' mathematical calculus.
Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV) Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Galatians 3:28 (NIV) There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Revelation 7:9 (NIV) After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
I have heard Galatians 3:28 quoted against those fighting racial injustice, along with MLK Jr's famous, "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Both of course out-of-context uses that twist the meaning in the opposite direction to protect racial injustice. In fact, it is the White Supremacists, and those adjacent to them advocating the "Great Replacement" who ignore the call of Scripture to ignore race for the sake of the Gospel. To God, our Creator, it is anathema to proclaim that 'we' cannot let 'them' replace 'us'. Who do 'we' think we are? By what right do we deserve this land, this nation, any more than they? Nationalism gives us reasons to thump our chests and call it 'our land', but a Christian Worldview that affirms that we are but stewards of God's Creation must reject such claims of preferential treatment, we live here by the Grace of God, not our own merits.
The Church is growing rapidly in the non-White parts of the world, it has been for the past several generations at the same time that is has been shrinking in Europe and America. The Church is less White today than it was thirty years ago, and that trend continues. That the Church in the West is struggling is cause for grief, repentance, and renewed faithfulness, that it is growing rapidly in much of the rest of the world is cause for celebration, joy, and hope.
The Gospel rejects, utterly, racial superiority. The Gospel rejects, utterly, tribalism and nationalism. The Church in America must have none of this, millions of self-proclaimed Christian Americans may look to Tucker Carlson and others pushing the "Great Replacement" as some sort of 'savior' of Christianity, but like Vladimir Putin has monstrously proven himself to be, this is a false hope, an anti-Christ (in the New Testament sense, something against-Christ). One cannot 'save' the Church through racism, one can only stain the Bride of Christ.
Addendum: Following the revelation that the Buffalo shooter was influenced by the "Great Replacement" Theory, Tucker Carlson responded by defending his ongoing use of it because, in his mind, it isn't a conspiracy theory but a reality. That this 'theory' is based upon an us vs. them mentality, viewing the lives of American citizens as inherently superior to those of the rest of the world, reminds us that its roots are in Nationalism and Racism, concepts that are anathema to the Universal Church.
Having been singled out in the original petition that started off the "Grove City College is going 'woke'" scare, I thought it worthwhile to read for myself what is contained in Reading While Black by Anglican Priest and Wheaton College professor, Esau McCaulley (I've heard him interviewed previously on the HolyPost podcast and been impressed). What dangerous ideas are contained herein, or is it all just Culture War smoke? Is there not value in having students at a college that is 94% white with only one Black professor (himself singled out by the resultant committee as part of the problem)??
That being said, let me share the first passage that made me set the book down and think (from page 11, it didn't take long):
In my evangelical seminary almost all the authors we read were white men...It seemed that whatever was going on among Black Christians had little to do with real biblical interpretation. I swam in this disdain, and even when I rejected it vocally, the doubt seeped into my subconscious. Eventually I started to notice a few things. While I was at home with much of the theology in evangelicalism, there were real disconnects. First, there was the portrayal of the Black church in these circles. I was told that the social gospel had corrupted Black Christianity. Rather than placing my hope there, I should look to the golden age of theology, either in the early years of this country, or during the postwar boom of American Protestantism. But the historian in me couldn't help but realize that these apexes of theological faithfulness coincided with nadirs of Black freedom. (p. 11)
As someone who grew up in a county that was 95% white, going to a school that was 99% white and a church that was 100% white, I had no direct knowledge of the state of the Black Church in America, but Esau's observation that much of Evangelicalism has written off the Black Church as hopelessly tainted by the Social Gospel is an accurate reflection of the vibe that I felt as a young person. I can't point to a specific moment or person who advanced that notion, but it was there.
While it is true that the theology of any era of the Church could be tainted by the failures of that era in specific areas of sin, and the failures of a culture do not necessarily infect individuals within it {For example: Bonhoeffer rising above the Nazi-tainted theology of the Germany he grew up in}, that being said, the connection between leading American theologians and the dehumanizing treatment of Blacks should not be papered over. How could it be a Golden Age when so much of the American Church was acquiescent to, or even championing, such injustice? How can Evangelicalism be healthy if we don't reckon with this history, or worse yet, try to dismiss it? {For example: The troubling whitewashing of Jonathan Edwards' ownership of slaves by John Piper}
I learned that too often alongside the four pillars of evangelicalism...were unspoken fifth and sixth pillars. These are a general agreement on a certain reading of American history that downplayed injustice and a gentlemen's agreement to remain largely silent on current issues of racism and systematic injustice. How could I exist comfortably in a tradition that too often valorizes a period of time when my people couldn't buy homes in the neighborhood that they wanted or attend the schools that their skills gave them access to? How could I accept a place in a community if the cost for a seat at the table was silence? (p. 11-12)
And here is where the strong push-back against the idea of racial reconciliation following the murder of George Floyd comes into play. McCaulley's book was published in 2020, since then the amount of conversation and effort poured into being 'anti-woke' and anti-CRT, including official statements from the seminary presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaks to the truth of the 'unspoken pillars' that he refers to. Efforts to speak to some of the true horrors of American history or efforts to understand and combat the racism that still infects our society today, have been condemned as threats against Christianity {thanks, in part, to the merging of Church and State in Christian Nationalism, to be a 'good Christian' one must be a patriotic American}. In his analysis, Esau McCaulley is speaking the truth, but it isn't one that many within Evangelical circles want to hear, hence the drive to purge Christian Colleges of such viewpoints.
{Further reading: When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home, a response to Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law which details the history of Redlining (the practice of keeping minorities out of white neighborhoods)}
I had difficulty with how the Bible functioned in parts of evangelicalism. For many, the Bible had been reduced to the arena on which we fought an endless war about the finer points of Paul's doctrine of justification...But I wondered what the Bible had to say about how we might live as Christians and citizens of God's kingdom...what about the exploitation of my people? What about our suffering, our struggle? (p. 12)
Here too I can relate to his observations about much of Evangelicalism. There is great emphasis on getting theology exactly right, but much less emphasis on the practical implications of that theology in the lives of disciples of Jesus. The social ethic of millions of American Christians {American is put first for a reason, it reflects part of the sickness} has been reduced to Pro-life (narrowly defined), anti-LGBTQ, and whatever Culture War topic is dominating the punditry at the moment. Does not the Bible have things to say to us about far more topics than these? Our call as followers of Jesus is supposed to be all-encompassing, yet only a handful of issues dominate all discussion and passions, and racial injustice is decidedly not one of them.
Rather than being a voice that Christian college students should be sheltered from, Esau McCaulley is sharing hard truth that the Church needs to hear, another indicator that the controversy at Grove City College is far more about politics than theology.
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 a recent speech author and apologist Josh McDowell caused a significant commotion by proclaiming the the primary cause of inequality for Black families in America is that Black households don't prioritize education and hard work. That he was doing so in the midst of a speech lambasting Critical Race Theory as unbiblical because it sees oppression in systems and not just individuals made his statement ironic in addition to its casual racist stereotypes given that Josh McDowell is blaming the systems of Black families and culture rather than the individual young people he claims are growing up to not value education and hard work. Here is the quote:
"I do not believe Blacks, African Americans, and many other minorities have equal opportunity. Why? Most of them grew up in families where there is not a big emphasis on education, security — you can do anything you want. You can change the world. If you work hard, you will make it. So many African Americans don't have those privileges like I was brought up with,"
After the uproar McDowell attempted to backtrack claiming that his statement didn't reflect his own beliefs, but much damage has already been done to his reputation.
That racism is indeed a structural problem, and not just the actions of individuals is not a difficult proposition to establish, although it is anathema to a significant portion of Evangelicals in America today to say so. I've already written against such rampant Individualism:
So yeah, I've written a lot in the last couple of years against the notion that systematic racism doesn't exist and against the over-dependence of Evangelicals today on Individualism. It turns out that a false individualism is at the heart of Josh McDowell's theological error as well. Also from that same speech is this fiasco that is being overshadowed by the racist stereotype that went with it:
During his talk, McDowell also criticized critical race theory (CRT) which he claimed "negates all the biblical teaching" on racism because it blames systems instead of individual sin. "There's no comparison to what is known today as social justice with what the Bible speaks as justice," he said. "With CRT they speak structurally. The Bible speaks individually. Make sure you get that. That's a big difference." {quoted from the Christian Today article}
Wait, what?? The Bible speaks individually ONLY and NOT structurally? The prophets don't excoriate Israelite society, its government and rulers because of their unjust laws and practices? Jesus doesn't flip tables in the temple, upbraid the power structures in Jerusalem time and time again? How Josh McDowell came to a place in his worldview that he would believe and teach this nonsense is itself a hard question, but there is no doubt that he is in deep error here, and that he is not alone.
My rebuttal (link above) of the PragerU video goes into much detail against this false individualistic version of the Gospel, this is a political gospel, one rooted in Ayn Rand style individualism, but antithetical to the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview.
The response of many Christians to the COVID-19 pandemic has put into plain view the paucity of Individualism, the utter failure of an ethic based on the needs/wants of the individual and neglecting community responsibility. McDowell's dismissal of systematic racism (as part of his political assault on CRT) is equally foolish, and equally unbiblical.
"One Nation Under God" is a painting by contemporary artist Jon McNaughton, his own interpretation of the piece, and why he chose the figures in it that he did is explained on his website: McNaughton fine art company. And while McNaughton's view of American history and contemporary culture is a decidedly partisan one, that isn't the reason why his painting is blasphemous, but rather his insistence, as the painting makes abundantly clear, that the U.S. Constitution was given to the Founding Fathers by God. While the U.S. Constitution, and very necessary subsequent Bill of Rights, are collectively the most profound political documents since the Magna Carta, and are indeed a significant step forward in the realms of human governance and freedom, to call them God-inspired, or divinely given in some fashion is to take an imperfect document created by fallible men, and coat it with a false veneer of holiness. It is as if McNaughton is saying that the concept of limited federalism is God's preferred form of governance. Except that God has never said any such thing, for although democracy was known in the ancient world as a cautionary tale about mob-rule (given the way in which the Athenian Empire collapsed), the only forms of government mentioned in the Bible at all are tribalism, theocracies, monarchies, and empires. As such, the Bible neither recommends nor condemns democracies or republics. Inspired by Christian thinkers and/or the Bible is NOT the same thing as given by God. The Church was founded by Jesus and established by the Holy Spirit, no human nation, including the United States of America, can make a similar claim {Future fulfillment of Abrahmic promies in a Messianic Kingdom notwithstanding}.
"The fact that Christ holds the Constitution is very significant. I believe it was a divinely inspired document." - Jon McNaughton
Aside from this false impression that the U.S. Consitution has some sort of seal of approval from God is the blatant and horrendous association of Jesus Christ with the Constitution's declaration that Black Americans are only 3/5 of a person (for census purposes: The 3/5th Compromise) with no rights whatsoever, a status shared to a lesser exent in our nation's founding documents by women and Indians. To associate Jesus Christ with the racial and sexist views of the past is to portray the Gospel as the White Man's Gospel, once again a blasphemous thought that flies in the face of the declaration by the Apostle Paul that, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).
As important a step forward as the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights have proven to be, they remain an example of human sin-nature, of the embrace of a political compromise at the expense of the fundamental human rights that the Declaration of Independence declared, but failed to deliver. It would take more than 600,000 deaths in the U.S. Civil War one hundred years later to rectify that error, and another century to begin to unravel the further injustices heaped upon the newly freed slaves. The point is simply this: there is both praise and criticism that justly belongs to the Founding Fathers and the documents they produced, to pretend that Jesus Christ would hold up their work as a shining example is nothing short of blasphemous.
Christian Nationalism has been gaining steam in America, seeking to fuse duty to God with duty to country and make patriotism a Christian virtue. Unfortunately, this idea has been tried before, with disastrous results, and to the extent that the Church in America follows this path, it will once again sow the seeds of its own failure and shame.
"Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?...But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.ÑThe rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!
'By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion.'
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour." - Frederick Douglass, born in America, 1817, a slave.
Some things in life are confusing, including the Word of God. There are passages and episodes in God's Word that, rightly, are head scratchers to us. Sometimes we simply need more study to find the author's intent and the original audience's understanding, sometimes we need to conform our hearts and minds to Christ-likeness, and sometimes we won't find the answers we're looking for (like Job). As long as it spurs us on toward wisdom, confusion is not our enemy, but a reminder of the humility God requires of us. So, why did Jesus do that?
I grew up in West Michigan with two uncles who were UAW members. For many people, thinking about the UAW conjures up stories about Jimmy Hoffa, the good old days of Detroit's Big Three, or the involvement of the UAW with Democratic politics. In 1955, something happened in Milpitas, California, that didn't have anything to do with what you think of when I say UAW, and it had an unlikely accomplice: the Quakers.
In 1955, a developer named David Bohannon built a white-only subdivision named Sunnyhills in Milpitas, other developers built similar whites-only housing projects. Ford had announced that it was moving its assembly plant from Richmond (north of San Francisco) to Milpitas (north of San Jose). It would not be difficult for the white middle class UAW workers to find new housing in the area, but almost impossible for the plant's Black workers.
At this point, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC, a Quaker group committed to racial integration) offered to helped Ford's housing committee find a developer willing to build integrated housing. There was just one catch, everyone else was committed to stopping any such project.
The first hurdle was financing, no San Francisco Bay or San Jose area financial institution would lend them the money to build the houses, so the AFSC went to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's vice-president, also a Quaker, who agreed to finance the project (this despite Met Life's own history of financing racially segregated projects).
Problem solved, now we can move ahead and build homes for workers with good paying jobs, right? Nope. The Santa Clara Board of Supervisors rezoned the chosen housing site from residential to industrial. When they picked a new plot, the Mountain View officials made it clear that no permits would be issued. A third attempt resulted in the local town increasing the minimum lot size to 8,000 square feet (from 6,000), ensuring that such homes would be unaffordable to middle class workers. The builder recruited by the AFSC gave up and walked away from the project.
The new builder hired by the AFSC wanted to build two separate segregated projects, a white one in the suburbs and one for Blacks between the Ford plant and land zoned for heavy industry. Here is where this ugly story finds a ray of hope. The choice of moving ahead with these two projects was put to the UAW workers of the new Ford plant. The majority of these workers were white, and had much less trouble finding housing than their co-workers. "Although the membership was overwhelmingly white, the union adopted a policy that it would support only developers who would commit to integrated housing." (The Color of Law, p. 118, emphasis mine)
A third builder obtained a tract of land next to David Bohannon's whites-only Sunnyhills project. The UAW was able to tell its Black members in Richmond that a new development, Agua Caliente, was being built. "David Bohannon's company, however, remained fiercely opposed to an integrated project adjoining Sunnyhills, and after a San Francisco newspaper reveled the plan to establish 'the first subdivision in the Bay Area where Negro families will be sold homes without discrimination,' the company began to pressure the newly formed Milpitas City Council to prevent the construction of Agua Caliente by denying it access to sewer lines." (p. 119) The City Council follow suit, raising the sewer connection fee by a factor of 10. It was a clear plan to prevent minorities from living close to Sunnyhills. When the builder persisted, despite this racist price increase, Bohannon's company filed a nuisance lawsuit to prevent the project from using a county owned drainage ditch between the properties. The UAW, not known for rolling over, responded with their own offensive, boycotting the Sunnyhills project, and showing up at open houses to discourage other would-be buyers.
Eventually, Bohannon sold his company to a new developer who also purchased Agua Caliente, and construction was able to be completed. Problem over? Not yet. The FHA continued to refuse to insure mortgages to borrowers living in integrated neighborhoods (a racist federal policy), making the cost of mortgages to buyers in the development higher with an increased 5.5-9% interest rate. This could be thought of as an 'integration fee', designed to discourage integrated housing projects. The UAW offered to guarantee the loans with its pension fund, at which point the FHA backed down provided that the development be converted to a co-op so that Blacks owned a piece of the housing development not individual homes.
In the end, the efforts of the Quaker AFSC and the UAW resulted in a completed project, but the higher cost of delays, legal fees, and financing made the homes affordable only to Ford's highest paid workers. The Ford plant closed in 1984, and today Milpitas has many Hispanic and Asian families, but only 2% of the population is Black.
"The Milpitas story illustrates the extraordinary creativity that government officials at all levels displayed when they were motivated to prevent the movement of African Americans into white neighborhoods...part of a national system by which state and local governments supplemented federal efforts to maintain the status of African Americans as a lower caste, with housing segregation preserving the badges and incidents of slavery." (p. 122)
While this story is disturbing for how deep and abiding it reveals racism to be in America's story, it also shows a second theme: the power of good men and women to fight injustice, even if they can't always achieve a clean win. So, when you need an interesting historic anecdote, share the time that the UAW worked with Quakers to integrate a housing project in California.
* This post is adapted from The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein
I'm the thirty-first pastor of my church (counting interims, otherwise 27th) dating back to 1867. I have no idea if any of the prior ministers participated in local policies of racial segregation, or if any of them preached racist sermons. What I know of this church's history makes me think that they would have been unlikely to hire or tolerate such a man, but what I also know of American history reminds me that racism has been much closer to home than most of us are willing to admit. If one of them, or a few of them, were racists, I can only say that we have repented of that sin, for the biblical definition of repentance is turning away, and no such attitudes or actions would be in any way tolerated by anyone here.
What causes this introspection? A chapter in Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law entitled IRS Support and Compliant Regulators. Why this chapter? Because it shows the complicity of many churches to the policies of racial segregation that permeated our nation for most of the 20th century.
The IRS was silent for decades when non-profits who enjoyed tax exempt status blatantly violated the 13th-15th amendments by participating in, even championing, race based discrimination. These efforts, sadly and shamefully, included churches.
"Churches, synagogues, and their clergy frequently led such efforts. Shelley v. Kraemer, the 1948 Supreme Court ruling that ended court enforcement of restrictive covenants" {ie illegal agreements to prevent non-Whites from moving into a neighborhood, until 1948 these were legally enforced in America, resulting in the evictions of thousands of Blacks from homes they had purchased} "offers a conspicuous illustration. The case stemmed from objections of white St. Louis homeowners, Louis and Fern Kraemer, to the purchase of a house in their neighborhood by African Americans, J.D. and Ethel Shelley. The area had been covered by a restrictive covenant organized by a white owners' group, the Marcus Avenue Improvement Association, which was sponsored by the Cote Brilliante Presbyterian Church. Trustees of the church provided funds from the church treasury to finance the Kraemers' lawsuit to have the African American family evicted. Another nearby church, the Waggoner Place Methodist Episcopal Church South, was also a signatory to the restrictive covenant; its pastor had defended the clause in a 1942 legal case...Such church involvement and leadership were commonplace in property owners' associations that were organized to maintain neighborhood segregation." (p. 103-104, emphasis mine)
"The violent resistance to the Sojourner Truth public housing project for African American families in Detroit was organized by a homeowners association headquartered in St. Louis the King Catholic Church whose pastor, the Reverend Constantine Dzink, represented the association in appeals to the United Housing Authority to cancel the project. The 'construction of a low-cost housing project in the vicinity...for the colored people...would mean utter ruin for many people who have mortgaged their homes to the FHA, and not only that, but it would jeopardize the safety of many of our white girls.'" (p. 104-105)
"On Chicago's Near North Side, a restrictive covenant was executed in 1937 by tax-exempt religious institutions, including the Moody Bible Institute, the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the Board of Foreign Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church." (p. 105)
That America's history contains generations of this evil is shameful, that America's Churches whole-heartedly participated, even led, this unholy effort is a grave stain on our Gospel witness. It was not just churches or Christians (self-professed) in the South, it was not just the distant past. It was all over the country, and millions of people still alive today where either its perpetrators or its victims.
So, I don't know all of the details of the history of my church. I fear that if we knew the whole story we'd find this somewhere in the past. May we never revel in self-righteousness, may we never forget that our path to God is paved entirely by Grace.
Romans 5:8-11 (NIV)
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Below: Links to some of my other blog posts on the topic of racism.
In a series of 4 connected sayings, Jesus explains the nature of the world that God created, emphasizing that the Truth is intended to be disclosed and that both the righteous path toward God and the wicked path away from God are self-reinforcing. Why? Because that's the nature of reality. The universe has a moral law just as much as it has a natural one. Moving toward God is light and life, moving away is darkness and death; it cannot be otherwise because apart from God there is nothing.
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."
