June 26, 2007
Justice-ified by Faith
Preventing social justice from becoming just another program in the church.
Recently we discussed Scot McKnight’s belief that the gospel typically preached by evangelicals is too individualistic, and how it actually makes the church an unnecessary part of following Christ. David Fitch, pastor of Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois and a professor at Northern Seminary, shares McKnight’s perspective, and in this post he reflects on how an individualistic gospel makes our attempts at social justice a peripheral program of the church rather than an integrated part of our faith.
When we pastors think about leading God’s justice in the church, our first inclination is to organize a ministry. It could be a soup kitchen or an outreach event to the poor "down in the city". Sometimes we will find ways to become active in policy making on the local or national governmental level. We are tempted to make justice into another program of the church.
If we are to avoid turning justice into merely a church program we must first resist the urge to make salvation "about me." Evangelicals (of which I am one) often describe salvation as a personal relationship with God. It is intensely individual. In Christ I am justified before God as an individual. And then, after being justified through faith in Christ, I pursue a personal daily relationship with God as well as personal holiness and then of course (if we get to it) social justice. It is an add-on. In this way we split personal salvation and social justice.
It is this split which allows us to essentially turn social justice into a program. Yet imagine what it would be like in our churches if there were no such division. If we were not invited to go forward as individuals to receive a packaged salvation from God that gets us out of hell, but instead came forward to become part of what God is doing in the world through Jesus Christ—the reconciliation of all men and women with Himself, each other and all of creation (2 Cor 5:19), which BTW inextricably must still include my own personal reconciliation/relationship with God.
There are two theological culprits that make possible this separation of personal from social salvation. The first is a narrow "penal" view of the atonement. The forensic penal view of the atonement defines the work of the cross in terms of Christ paying a penalty for my sin whereby I no longer am held liable for the just penalty of death for my sin. I have no desire to get rid of the substitutionary view of the atonement but there are many rich understandings of how Christ’s sacrifice satisfied God’s wrath within the ancient history of the church that avoid the potential to commodify (make available as a transaction) what Christ did on the cross. I think we should mine these resources.
I also think we should adhere more closely to the Christus Victor (Gustaf Aulen) and Classical Views of the atonement where Jesus is seen as the Victor, the King, the one who has defeated sin, death, and evil and now reigns in anticipation of the Final Kingdom of God. For here we cannot possibly receive salvation and enter into a relationship with Jesus as victorious Lord without participating in the victory of God and the Reign of Christ over sin, death, and evil. Here personal and social are so entwined we cannot distinguish them.
The second theological culprit is the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith.” Because here justification is often presented in terms of the individual standing alone before God receiving pardon by faith. I think we should pay heed to some broader understandings of what the apostle Paul means when he describes “justification by faith.” In this regard, I believe the "new perspective on Paul" can help us. I am not in total agreement with all this literature, but I believe that Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James Dunn and NT Wright have all helped us see that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith was not about the individual's battle to be good through self-effort through the law. Rather Paul's' doctrine was an argument against the exclusion of the Gentiles from salvation apart from becoming a Jew.
For the Jews of Paul’s day, the law was the covenantal badge for being a member of the people of God. Paul claims that marker is now changed in Christ. The badge is now justification by faith as entrance into a new righteousness won by God thru the person and work of Jesus Christ. And so for Paul justification is not about relieving the individual Jew’s guilty conscience (ala Martin Luther) who is always striving to maintain the standard of God's law. It is about the establishment of a new righteousness of God among a new people through Christ. This righteousness (justice) is both a vertical reconciliation with God as well as a horizontal reconciliation of all humanity and creation.
Once we see justification in this light it cannot be separated from being part of the new justice/righteousness God is working in the world. As a non-individualist (American) reading of 2 Cor 5: 17ff proclaims, “For anyone united in Christ, there is a new creation: the old order has gone, a new order has already begun. (REV). We have entered into the marvelous world of God reconciling all things to himself (vs.18) that we might become the righteousness (justice) of God (vs. 21).
If we are to resist the urge to make justice into another church program, then we must overturn this split between the personal and the social. We must go from preaching “accept Christ as your personal savior” to “you are invited to enter a relationship with God through Christ that changes everything”. We must go from being justified, to being justice-ified. Justice should no longer be something we do, but who we are.
Posted by UrL on June 26, 2007
Comments
I concur 100%, as I do with most (not all)of Fitch's pondering. The challenge is in how to implement the merging of the personal and social in a way that 'changes everything' without making monstrous sacrifices of our culturally preconceived ideas regarding religious institutionalism. Of course we really cannot.
The sacrifices should and must be made if we are going to take even a half a stab at meeting the overwhelming social problems of this planet. Our institutions are all guilty of carrying a lot of inefficiencies and ineffectiveness around with them that have long outlived their relevance in terms of cultural contextualization. It would do us all good, as well as serve the Kingdom of God and mankind to let go of them...if only we could.
Posted by: J. W. at June 25, 2007
You're losing me. I have a college education, but I have no idea what you're saying we should do. Or change doing. This is theogibberish.
Can you speak more clearly?
Posted by: Trevor at June 25, 2007
I disagree with his blaming the individual elements of salvation for the lack of believers involved in social justice and the programming orientation to social justice efforts. There is no need to completely re-conceptualize / redefine / reword salvation to accomplish improvement in social justice. I point the finger at the institutionalizing of believers faith by the institutionalizing of believers gathering where 99% of what is promoted is programs led by hired experts to channel crowds into ministry with one-way communication. Everyone knows that institutionalized believers are mostly self-centered and comfort oriented, and thus lazy. (80% of the work is done by 20% of the people.) God did not design crowd oriented (30-15,000 people in one room) dominated by one-way talking. He designed one another communication in intimate groupings Heb. 10:24-25. He did not design vision flowing through one big shot. He designed it flowing through all the saints. Acts 2:17-18. Social justice is HARD work. Cathedral oriented faith does not prepare them for this. There is a way to gather where 100% of the event is driven by 100% the people.
Social justice also requires money. The institutional system of church requires the consumption of 75-85% of the giving just to make it comfortable. There IS a way to do church where 100% of the giving goes out the door for what God really asked for.
It’s a system change, not a salvation change.
Posted by: Tim at June 25, 2007
"We must go from preaching “accept Christ as your personal savior” to “you are invited to enter a relationship with God through Christ that changes everything”." This is a great post but I can't see any difference between these two statements except that the first must happen in order to get to the second. How is this different from evangelical preaching of the last 100 years?
Posted by: Melody at June 25, 2007
I like and agree with Tim's comments, but how can a system change that comes from anything other than a change of heart and mind, via a broader, socially transforming salvic message amount to anything more than what Fitch defined as the reduction of social justice to the level of 'just another church program?'
That seems to answer Melody's query as to how this is at all different from evangelical preaching of the last 100 years. The problem with traditional evangelical preaching has been that we have seldom gotten to that second step. Christendom has been content to have a personal savior because it has been obsessed with personal holiness (i.e. I don't smoke, I don't chew, I don't run with those who do) and seldom has shown any regard for the Gospel's implications for society at large. I suppose it has something to do with each generation growing exponentially narcissistic. It's more and more all-about-us all the time--arguably one of the greatest tragedies ever for the Church.
Posted by: J. W. at June 26, 2007
I agree with many of the commentators here about this article and echo the concern that it is theogibberish. What I am currious about is how does Mr. Fitch align his views with the last 200+ years of evangelical missions work?
What I mean is that evangelicals have always taught "personal justification through faith" and yet all throughout the history of evangelical missions we see countless examples of people who, upon realizing what that justification and faith meant, started ministry among the poor, downtrodden, street-kids, prostitutes, etc. This whole obsession with 'justice' now adays has been going on for centuries. The Emergent church is getting in the game late! Evangelicals have been doing it for decades in Africa, Asia, South America. Did some botch it up? Sure, but how many ministries have each of us been in that went 100% by the plan? Scott McKnight and all the "progressives" nowadays are trying to make 'justice' a big thing, to make it chic, when it has been going on for a while. The only difference I see between Evangelicals of the last 200 years and the Emergent Church and post-modern Progressives, is that the Evangelicals didn't stand around and talk about justice and make T-shirts out of it and sell books about it, they went and did it!
Scott McKnight and others! I challenge you and the Emergent Church to stop the gibberesh and actually go and do! All you will be doing is joining hundreds of thousands of Evangelicals who have been out there waiting for you to get in the game!
Blessings,
Posted by: Truth Seeker at June 26, 2007
I think that the answers become more clear if you can deconstruct just a little be further and go beyond these surface level issues of how atonement "works". Instead, think about letting go of the whole idea of atonement as a salvation from a personal penalty that must be either "paid by Jesus death" or "earned by correct beliefs". In other words, I think we should throw out the whole idea of any sort of personal salvation from a bad status in afterlife. The idea of life after death may be the worst thing that ever happened to religion.
I suggest that salvation should be viewed as a correction of whatever problem a particular person or group of people are facing in THIS life. For a starving person, salvation will be a new situation where they have enough food to live. For an addict, salvation would be to stop that addiction. For a person deep in debt from a lifestyle of materialism, salvation may be selling all he has and giving it to the poor or changing his priorities. For a community, salvation may be repenting of its exclusive mentality. For a nation, it may be changing its ideas about war and peace or opening its borders. Jesus seemed to tailor the message of salvation to each individual AND to each community (system) he addressed.
Posted by: Progression of Faith at June 26, 2007
I agree with Trevor. I read several articles in this series, and it seems to me that they present desired effects with no plan of action. You may be implementing these principles in experimental congregations and even giving guidelines for pastors to do so, but 1) I don't live near any of those congregations and 2) I'm not a pastor. I want to know how the rubber (me, an individual, and all others) should meet the road. Or should I unsubscribe from this RSS feed because I'm not in the intended audience?
Posted by: Chris at June 26, 2007
Oh I like what Tim is saying... but that is another topic... or is it?
The "personal savior" person only needs to refresh on sunday mornings the rest of his life is his.
While the “you are invited to enter a relationship with God through Christ that changes everything” person sees Sunday morning as a pep rally, part of whole, the rest of the week has game time, practice, workout time etc...
Posted by: Ryan DV at June 26, 2007
David,
I anticipate that this will continue to be a huge battle - much of evangelicalism is not thrilled with the "New Perspective" and they are even less thrilled with moving away from Penal Substitution toward a Christus Victor view of Atonement.
Posted by: Bob Robinson at June 27, 2007
For those saying this is theological gibberish (I would disagree with that contention), I would offer this as possibly a simpler explanation. Christianity is not primarily about us (Christians). It is not just about being sure about our eternal destination. Christ saves us so we can be a blessing to others.
I find it interesting in Ephesians 4:12-13, when Paul is describing different ministry gifts he says the reason they are given is "prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." He didn't say to prepare God's people to go win souls or evangelize. It seems to me that "works of service" would include more than just sharing the "Four Spiritual Laws" with someone.
Posted by: phil at June 28, 2007
Trevor nailed it ... "theogibberish." I need to remember that one.
I do not believe we need a "new (and improved?) perspective on Paul" I think the historical, straightforward reading of Paul works just fine.
I also think we need to shy away from calling the doctrine of justification by faith a "culprit" that keeps us from taking part in "social justice." This is just new code-speak, anyway.
It's been my experience in eighteen years of pastoral ministry that people who have been truly, biblically justified by faith have no trouble ministering to their fellow-man.
Our primary responsibility is serving as Christ's ambassadors to assist the lost in being reconciled to God. Social action and ministry a"re the means toward that goal, not the actual "end that this writer has portrayed them to be.
Any Gospel absent "justification by faith," not the new and improved version, is no gospel at all.
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com
Posted by: Geoff Baggett at June 28, 2007
This discussion illustrates clearly the need for a renewed understanding of the Kingdom. Jesus came to show us how to be the people of God on earth, He taught us to pray - Your Kingdom Come on Earth... So when we serve the poor and those on the margins it is NOT just so we can preach to them the "gospel", That is the gospel. Living in the Kingdom is living our lives as Jesus would live them... making all things right. This inlcudes inviting people into a new "kind of" life in Christ but jus getting people "in" and on their way to heaven is selling short the good news of the Kingdom that Jesus preached.
Posted by: Chad Miller at June 29, 2007
Geoff,
Fitch, I think, is talking about discipleship and obedience, not salvation. When Jesus becomes Lord of our lives, he's Lord of it all, including our social interactions. This is an overused example, but lots of Southern Christians who'd be justified by faith didn't think that Jesus's Lordship extended to their relationships with African Americans.
The emphasis on social justice comes from the Bible. So we're saved by faith, and we read the World and we read Isaiah 58:
Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD ?
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him,and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Then your light will break forth like the dawn,and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness [a] will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard."
Now all of a sudden this Jesus who is Lord of my life has given me a boatload of work to do, because he wants to be Lord of the whole world and I've just volunteered to be part of his agenda. That's, I think, the essence to what Fitch is driving at.
Posted by: bob smietana at July 5, 2007
Stating "justification by Faith" formulated by the Apostle Paul , it is read from a Bible-translation by all Evangelicals as if the Apostle is stupid.Based on Romans 3.22...justified through Faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe...( in Jesus Christ)...a tautologie or circular reasoning without any value.The Gr. Text has an subjective genitive for the first statement instead the translated accusative objective, and a present tense participle active voice for the second statement , to give us a meaningful statement about justification.
Posted by: freudewald at July 8, 2007