Understanding the New Calvinism: Social Justice
Image
(Read the entire series.)
The New Calvinists are quite concerned about social justice, and rightly so. As citizens of this planet we have an obligation to care for the world and the people in it, not only spiritually but physically as well. But many make the mistake of not distinguishing between the mission of individual Christians, as dual citizens of both heaven and earth, and the mandate given to the church as the corporate people of God, which is outlined in the Great Commission. As a result not only can the church lose its unique place in the world as the one institution ordained by God to preach the Word, function as Christ’s body and make disciples, but the gospel itself can be mutated.
Timothy Keller perhaps is the most influential representative of the social agenda approach to ministry within New Calvinists ranks. The official vision statement for the church he pastors, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, in New York City, reads:
As a church of Jesus Christ, Redeemer exists to help build a great city for all people through a movement of the gospel that brings personal conversion, community formation, social justice, and cultural renewal to New York City and, through it, to the world.1
Keller and Redeemer clearly see the mission of the church as having a social dimension in which the church helps to bring about cultural renewal, social justice, elimination of poverty, and more. And while this has the appearance of benevolence and love, it is lacking any New Testament mandate or warrant for the church. Historically when the church has added solving the world’s social problems to its mandate it has eventually lost its way and the social agenda became its primary ministry. The theologically liberal denominations and institutions stemming from the late 1800s in America are “Exhibit A” proving this thesis. They exchanged their gospel mandate for mercy ministries and ultimately forfeited their uniqueness as the church.
And there is a further concern—confusing the gospel. Drawing from N.T. Wright and the “missional” understanding of Christianity, Keller infuses a social dimension into his gospel definition. Keller’s gospel is more than the good news that Christ has come to reconcile us to God; it is also the call to solve the world’s problems of injustice, poverty and ecological concerns. He quotes N. T. Wright, not Scripture, to support his view:
The message of the resurrection is that this world matters! That the injustices and pains of this present world must now be addressed with the news that healing, justice, and love have won… If Easter means Jesus Christ is only raised in a spiritual sense—[then] it is only about me, and finding a new dimension in my personal life. But if Jesus Christ is truly risen from the dead, Christianity becomes good news for the whole world—news which warms our hearts precisely because it isn’t just about warming hearts. Easter means that in a world where injustice, violence and degradation are endemic, God is not prepared to tolerate such things—and that we will work and plan, with all the energy of God, to implement victory of Jesus over them all.2
Later in The Reason for God, Keller makes clear what he means:
The purpose of Jesus’ coming is to put the whole world right, to renew and restore the creation, not to escape it. It is not just to bring personal forgiveness and peace, but also justice and shalom to the world…. The work of the Spirit of God is not only to save souls but also to care and cultivate the face of the earth, the material world.3
Scripture knows nothing of this type of gospel message. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find such a commission given to the people of God. And as E. S. Williams points out, “Of the many works of the Holy Spirit revealed in Scripture, caring for and cultivating the material world for its restoration and purity is not one.”4 You will, however, find a similar message in the emergent church, N.T. Wright’s “New Perspective on Paul,” and those reviving the old “Social Gospel” agenda.
Williams documents that Keller’s book Generous Justice speaks of and leans on the teachings of Gustavo Gutierrez and his book, A Theology of Liberation. “But he does not tell his readers that Gutierrez was [is] a Dominican priest, widely accepted as the founder of liberation theology.”5 This should be considered carefully before one follows Keller and others too far down the social justice road as the mission of the church.
As one author writes, “At root…is a question of how to engage the culture without losing one’s soul. Fundamentalism feared losing its soul and did not engage the culture; evangelicalism feared being different from the culture and is in danger of losing its soul.”6
Conclusion
In 2009 Time Magazine published its list of ten ideas changing the world today. Number three on that list was New Calvinism.
If you really want to follow the development of conservative Christianity, track its musical hits. In the early 1900s you might have heard “The Old Rugged Cross,” a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of “Shine, Jesus, Shine.” And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are…well, hark the David Crowder Band: “I am full of earth / You are heaven’s worth / I am stained with dirt / Prone to depravity.” Calvinism is back, and not just musically.7
The article goes on to point out it is not traditional Calvinism that is changing the world, but the New Calvinism variety that is being described in this paper. Some of the things I have detailed in this article and the last concerning New Calvinism have been positive. But much is challenging the very definitions of the church, as well as having powerful theological ramifications. We dare not ignore New Calvinism, but as always it is to be examined in the light of Scripture.
Gary Gilley Bio
Gary Gilley has served as Senior Pastor of Southern View Chapel in Springfield, Illinois since 1975. He has authored several books and is the book review editor for the Journal of Dispensational Theology. He received his BA from Moody Bible Institute. He and his wife Marsha have two adult sons and six grandchildren.
- 67 views
[Bert Perry]A former pastor of mine noted that in the second century, the church grew greatly in part due to providing care for the victims of an epidemic in Rome. The article doesn’t say what the disease was, but it apparently was one that was survivable with very modest care-giving, but was almost always lethal if care was not given. Those pagans who were cared for often gave Zeus the boot as the worshippers of Jehovah gave them what their own relatives would not.
We model that reality with hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, and the like today, and I think we need to understand our duty for social justice in a few terms. Would love to see if Ed and Joel (or others) might agree.
- It seems that the model used by the ancients—certainly Christ and the apostles model this—is of personal interaction with those in need. You don’t get to just write a check and sent it 10,000 miles away and call it good.
- It also seems that the ancients—really all of our forebears prior to this century—tended to eschew big publicity in their charity.
- It also seems that our “evangelism specific” activities might do well to apply these two principles.
- And if we do, I wonder how much of the resource constraints Ed mentions might go away…..
I think there is confusion here once again over the meaning of “the church.” My understanding was that individual Christians did these things, certainly strengthened by the example of other Christians. I do not know that they sent teams into foreign lands and raised funds for them to do this relief there. They may have. What individual Christians do, however, the church does, because the church IS believing individuals. We do know from the epistles that churches sent relief to other churches in need.
My concern, as mentioned earlier, is displacement for traditional missions, like Bible translation, church planting, etc. I am all for helping needy people, too,especially those that help people learn to provide for themselves (teach a man to fish, etc.). I would rather see convictions — rather than fads and generational preferences — guide our choices.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek]My concern, as mentioned earlier, is displacement for traditional missions, like Bible translation, church planting, etc. I am all for helping needy people, too,especially those that help people learn to provide for themselves (teach a man to fish, etc.). I would rather see convictions — rather than fads and generational preferences — guide our choices.
My concern is with the concept that there are 2 different kinds of mission works – #1 “Traditional” works (church planting, Bible translation, door-to-door evangelism, printing and distributing tracts, etc.) and then there are #2 “social” works (medical care, education, orphanages, soup kitchens, addiction counseling, etc.).
I think that when one makes a division of this kind, one may end up with an impoverished ministry.
For example, have you ever seen a missionary presentation that went like this?
A missionary is focused on “church planting,” so he rents a building hangs a sign, sets up chairs, then goes around town saying “y’all come! We’ve planted a church.” And after a while, we now have 6 semi-regular attendees. We are starting a Bible Institute. Alcohol addiction is a major problem in our area, we need to pray that God changes people’s hearts.
After the presentation, during the Q&A, the missionary is asked, “what is the greatest obstacle to your ministry?” Missionary’s answer: “the spread of Calvinism.”
Now I pray that God blesses this missionary’s ministry. I pray that many people hear the gospel and believe it through this man’s ministry. But I think all of us need to constantly be reconsidering our concept of missions.
If we follow the Great Commission then we will be planting churches, certainly. But the Great Commission is not “to plant churches,” it’s to make disciples and teach them. Planting a church is often the fruit, not the means, of its accomplishment. I think we need to recognize that there are many different, creative, and good ways of making a disciple, and many of those ways are called “social” ministries.
My concern is with the concept that there are 2 different kinds of mission works – #1 “Traditional” works (church planting, Bible translation, door-to-door evangelism, printing and distributing tracts, etc.) and then there are #2 “social” works (medical care, education, orphanages, soup kitchens, addiction counseling, etc.).
Where do you see this in the NT?
But the Great Commission is not “to plant churches,” it’s to make disciples and teach them.
I am curious as to why you left out baptism which requires a church.
Here is the type of “social justice” organization that is supported by many in the “younger generation” that you seem to be disparaging:
It seems to me that a lot of younger people (and older people) are fine with “mission” that doesn’t include the exclusivity of Christ and the making of disicples. And here is where the rub is. The organization you link to is not a church. And that’s fine. Providing water for people is a good thing. Helping to thwart human trafficking is a good thing. I don’t know anyone who disagrees.
The issue is whether or not that is what Christ commanded the church to do as the church. Can a church be a church without doing these kinds of things? That is the key question, it seems to me. What does it requires to be a church?
I wonder, though, why you reach back 50 years to Lestor Maddox. Are you under the impression that that is a widespread issue today? What is the statute of limitations on using guilt by association with sinful people from past generations?
[Larry]My concern is with the concept that there are 2 different kinds of mission works – #1 “Traditional” works (church planting, Bible translation, door-to-door evangelism, printing and distributing tracts, etc.) and then there are #2 “social” works (medical care, education, orphanages, soup kitchens, addiction counseling, etc.).
Where do you see this in the NT?
But the Great Commission is not “to plant churches,” it’s to make disciples and teach them.
I am curious as to why you left out baptism which requires a church.
Where do I see it? Well, Jesus and the apostles went out preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, but also healing and casting out demons. Of course, they did these things supernaturally with sign gifts and the NT doesn’t give us a record of what they did after those gifts had ceased. My conclusion is that Christian doctors didn’t stop healing unbelievers and Christian business men & women didn’t stop helping the poor even though they did so with natural means.
Why did I leave out baptism? Because my argument is not that Christians should be doing these things without the church, just the opposite, we should be doing them as the church, through the church, under the authority of the church, and being accountable to the leadership of the church. I considered baptism to be natural and logical to my thought process, not contrary to it. For example, tomorrow! A former student of one of our Christian schools (a ministry of a local church) here in Togo is being baptized (yes, at a church). Her family is muslim and forbade her from coming to church. Ministries like the hospital the Christian schools provide us with opportunities to give the gospel to more people, and I believe, are more effective than only going door-to-door or handing out tracts.
I think there is confusion here once again over the meaning of “the church.” My understanding was that individual Christians did these things, certainly strengthened by the example of other Christians.
When it comes helping the poor outside of the church, the argument is often made by certain conservative evangelicals and most fundamentalists that the early church organized themselves to help other poor Christians, but left helping the poor outside of the church to individuals within the church. Therefore, they automatically jump to the conclusion, “that’s how we should go about it too!” However, we need to be very careful not to confuse description with prescription. When it comes to helping those in need, the book of Acts and the Epistles are mostly describing how the church helped the poor and needy, rather than prescribing how they were to help the poor and needy (with some notable exceptions such as helping widows, those who refuse to work, and “doing good to all, especially to the household of faith”).
I find it fascinating that the early church adopted certain aspects of the surrounding culture’s ways of doing things (as long as it wasn’t evil) such as how to take care of the poor. For instance, when the church first began in Jerusalem at Pentecost, it quickly adopted the synagogue model of helping the poor, taking up offerings to help fellow Christians who were in need. Later, the Apostle Paul uses the offering model among all the Macedonian and other Gentile churches to bring a large financial gift to the impoverished Jerusalem Church. Yet as the church expanded throughout the Roman Empire, and faced slander and persecution from non-believing Gentiles (I Peter 2:12-3:17) they seem to have also adopted aspects of the Greco-Roman benefactor. However, instead of all of the Pagan pomp and circumstances that gave glory to the rich for their good deeds and at the same time humiliated the poor for their dependency on the benefactor (the poor were often pressured to publicly proclaim and shout to everyone near the benefactor’s home how needy they were and how great their rich benefactor was for helping them) , Peter encourages his Christian audience to do good deeds publicly for the purpose of pagans giving glory to God (I Peter 2:12), to silence the ignorance of foolish people (I Peter 2:15), to obtain a blessing(of suffering) (I Peter 3:9-14), and for apologetic purposes (I Peter 3:15). Likewise, Paul makes sure there the church of Galatia understood that these good works were to be done towards everyone, but with a priority towards Christians (Gal. 6:10).
Discussion