In Protest...

Westboro Baptist Church is the true Christians best friend.

(This is called a shocking statement introduction, hang with me for a bit...)

If you’re not familiar, this church is known for protesting military funerals and such. They are anti-everything: war, homosexuality, Judaism and a host of other issues. While I might agree with some of their positions, I disagree most vehemently with their method of addressing these issues. 

These people demonstrate what James 2 pictures, people who have words, but lack works. 

^“14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? ¹⁷ Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” NASB

The folks at Westboro appear similar to the folks James dealt with: they have lots of words about issues, but will their words actually help solve… anything? You see, Christianity is much more that saying something about morality, or about God for that matter. Christianity is about following a person: Jesus Christ. As Christians follow Him, they must be like him. How would Jesus deal with a person who was cold and hungry? He’d call for a pizza and give them his coat. 

I agree with the Westboro folks that homosexuality is wrong, but I’d rather hold the hand of someone dying from AIDS than hold one of their ridiculous signs. I agree with many other Christians that abortion is wrong, but I don’t think protest can take the place of compassion. And, by the way, compassion comes at a price. If everyone who held an anti-abortion sign adopted a child abandoned by drug addicted parents we really might rock the world. Would that make James nod his approval? I think it just might. Words aren’t enough. 

Christian, put your sign away and reach out to do good. Rock the world.

BS and Social Justice

In recent discussions at seminary, we have broached the topic of ‘social justice,’ which seems to me a loaded and very elastic term. It’s elastic because different people mean different things when they say it, and it’s loaded because it opens the door to broader economic and political discussions. The very term ‘social justice’ strongly implies that if you are opposed to it, you are, in fact, promoting ‘injustice.’ The definition of ‘social justice’ becomes an important part of the discussion, what, exactly, are we talking about?

This is the basic problem in any discussion of anything, and particularly social justice: it isn’t very clearly and concisely defined, and there is no broad agreement among theologians of a biblical understanding of just exactly what social justice is. Without a clear definition, anyone interested in the problems of human society and how to resolve those problems (all of us?) ought to enter the discussion with their BS detector turned on and tuned in.

Social justice seeks a foundation in the biblical understanding of man as created in God’s image, and as a result of that creation, humankind should interact with mutual respect and honor. There’s no problem here. The problem comes when mutual respect and honor are violated, either through abuse of power or by indolence. It is wrong for the rich to use their position to marginalize the poor, but it is also wrong for the poor to expect their support from others at no cost to themselves. The same Bible that admonishes the rich to use their wealth properly (1 Tim. 6:18) also implements a no-work, no-food tough love ethic (2 Thes. 3:10).

One of my favorite books begins like this: “One of the most salient features or our culture is that there is so much bulls**t. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.” Any discussion of social justice must be rigidly defined and carefully compared to what the whole Bible says about human interactions. What I’ve examined recently reads Scripture selectively to affirm its narrow vision of ‘social justice’ and conveniently ignores important contrary evidence.