Hello,
I believe this article by journalist Heather Clark does a good job covering the recent controversy over the statement on the Social Gospel.
https://christiannews.net/2018/09/2...ate-over-role-of-the-church-in-social-issues/
I think many folks are calling on Christians to take sides on this statement and to be either for or against this statement. But I think there are many out there like me, who agree mostly with the statement but wish it were better worded (less reactionary, and more encouraging of the Church's involvement in society).
This statement, while good, should not be used as a litmus test of orthodoxy.
It is a reaction. Being hesitant or refusing to sign it, does not mean we are SJWs. Being "almost right" or "good enough" is not enough for me to sign the statement.
I despise SJWs and their white guilt and pushing of homosexuality within the church, etc, but I simply do not think the statement by Ascol, et al, did a good job of addressing these problems.
I disagree with this statement by Justin Peters as quoted in the beginning of the article:
“It is not the Church’s mission to engage society or try to busy itself with fixing injustices of any type in society,” Justin Peters of Justin Peters Ministries and Kootenai Community Church in Idaho, one of the drafters of “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel,” told Christian News Network. “That’s what we’re concerned about.”
The article quoted me in the following:
"Johnson said that he largely likes the statement, and is grieved that a conflict exists over the matter, but would just “like to see a better statement written which both condemns the Marxist categories of ‘social justice’ even while vigorously encouraging Christians to do more in all realms of life.”
“We need greater involvement in the world, not less,” he said. “There is no ‘Benedict Option’ for Christians. We must remain engaged—now more than ever. I am afraid Christians will get concerned about wrong conceptions of justice and shrink back from this realm, when the answer is not less social action, but more action, and of a better type.”
I sent Heather Clark an article that I thought best summarized my position, and I am so glad that she ended the article by quoting R.C. Sproul in-depth.
RC Sproul's position here is a good summary of my own conclusions on this matter:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/do-we-believe-whole-gospel/
From the Clark article, quoting Sproul:
"Sproul stated that while the apostate churches who were only focused on “social justice” were indeed a concern, the Church’s reaction was also faulty in that many consequently withdrew from ministries of compassion so as not to be involved in social activism and thereby appear liberal.
“Many evangelicals at this period in history, in order to preserve the central significance of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, gave renewed emphasis to evangelism,” he explained. “In many cases, this emphasis upon evangelism was done to the exclusion of the other pole of biblical concern, namely, mercy ministry to those who were poor, afflicted, and suffering.”
“So glaring was the dichotomy between liberal and evangelical concerns that, sadly, many evangelicals began to distance themselves from any involvement in mercy ministries, lest their activities be construed as a surrender to liberalism,” Sproul lamented. “The fallacy of the false dilemma takes two important truths and forces one to choose between them.”
He emphasized that the Church should not be urged to choose between the two.
“The problem with this fallacy, as with all fallacies, is that truth becomes severely distorted,” Sproul said. “The New Testament does not allow for this false dilemma. The choice that the Church has is never between personal salvation and mercy ministry. It is rather a both/and proposition. Neither pole can be properly swallowed by the other. To reduce Christianity either to a program of social welfare or to a program of personal redemption results in a truncated gospel that is a profound distortion.”
To repeat Sproul's words:
"The New Testament does not allow for this false dilemma. The choice that the Church has is never between personal salvation and mercy ministry. It is rather a both/and proposition. Neither pole can be properly swallowed by the other. To reduce Christianity either to a program of social welfare or to a program of personal redemption results in a truncated gospel that is a profound distortion.”
I repeat again: This statement, while good, should not be used as a litmus test of orthodoxy.
I believe this article by journalist Heather Clark does a good job covering the recent controversy over the statement on the Social Gospel.
https://christiannews.net/2018/09/2...ate-over-role-of-the-church-in-social-issues/
I think many folks are calling on Christians to take sides on this statement and to be either for or against this statement. But I think there are many out there like me, who agree mostly with the statement but wish it were better worded (less reactionary, and more encouraging of the Church's involvement in society).
This statement, while good, should not be used as a litmus test of orthodoxy.
It is a reaction. Being hesitant or refusing to sign it, does not mean we are SJWs. Being "almost right" or "good enough" is not enough for me to sign the statement.
I despise SJWs and their white guilt and pushing of homosexuality within the church, etc, but I simply do not think the statement by Ascol, et al, did a good job of addressing these problems.
I disagree with this statement by Justin Peters as quoted in the beginning of the article:
“It is not the Church’s mission to engage society or try to busy itself with fixing injustices of any type in society,” Justin Peters of Justin Peters Ministries and Kootenai Community Church in Idaho, one of the drafters of “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel,” told Christian News Network. “That’s what we’re concerned about.”
The article quoted me in the following:
"Johnson said that he largely likes the statement, and is grieved that a conflict exists over the matter, but would just “like to see a better statement written which both condemns the Marxist categories of ‘social justice’ even while vigorously encouraging Christians to do more in all realms of life.”
“We need greater involvement in the world, not less,” he said. “There is no ‘Benedict Option’ for Christians. We must remain engaged—now more than ever. I am afraid Christians will get concerned about wrong conceptions of justice and shrink back from this realm, when the answer is not less social action, but more action, and of a better type.”
I sent Heather Clark an article that I thought best summarized my position, and I am so glad that she ended the article by quoting R.C. Sproul in-depth.
RC Sproul's position here is a good summary of my own conclusions on this matter:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/do-we-believe-whole-gospel/
From the Clark article, quoting Sproul:
"Sproul stated that while the apostate churches who were only focused on “social justice” were indeed a concern, the Church’s reaction was also faulty in that many consequently withdrew from ministries of compassion so as not to be involved in social activism and thereby appear liberal.
“Many evangelicals at this period in history, in order to preserve the central significance of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, gave renewed emphasis to evangelism,” he explained. “In many cases, this emphasis upon evangelism was done to the exclusion of the other pole of biblical concern, namely, mercy ministry to those who were poor, afflicted, and suffering.”
“So glaring was the dichotomy between liberal and evangelical concerns that, sadly, many evangelicals began to distance themselves from any involvement in mercy ministries, lest their activities be construed as a surrender to liberalism,” Sproul lamented. “The fallacy of the false dilemma takes two important truths and forces one to choose between them.”
He emphasized that the Church should not be urged to choose between the two.
“The problem with this fallacy, as with all fallacies, is that truth becomes severely distorted,” Sproul said. “The New Testament does not allow for this false dilemma. The choice that the Church has is never between personal salvation and mercy ministry. It is rather a both/and proposition. Neither pole can be properly swallowed by the other. To reduce Christianity either to a program of social welfare or to a program of personal redemption results in a truncated gospel that is a profound distortion.”
To repeat Sproul's words:
"The New Testament does not allow for this false dilemma. The choice that the Church has is never between personal salvation and mercy ministry. It is rather a both/and proposition. Neither pole can be properly swallowed by the other. To reduce Christianity either to a program of social welfare or to a program of personal redemption results in a truncated gospel that is a profound distortion.”
I repeat again: This statement, while good, should not be used as a litmus test of orthodoxy.
All Christians should think thusly. 
