11Jan-Feb07OneWhoBuilds

One Builds C o a l i t i o n s f o r J u s t i c e,

Another Builds Family Life Centers Why churches with similar theologies can have different social ethics B Y D E N N I S P. H O L L I N G E R

T

rinity Church and Grace Community Church look quite similar on paper. Both churches have a deep allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ, both regard the Bible to be their primary authority for beliefs and actions, and both are solidly orthodox in their theological commitments.

But Trinity and Grace look quite different in the way they approach social and cultural issues. For example, while both are committed to working at issues of poverty and hunger,Trinity has put most of its emphasis on grassroots lobbying for public policy changes on the local, state, and federal levels. One of the causes its members have embraced is the need to stop policies favoring large international corporations working in poor nations and instead to establish policies empowering local farmers and merchants. Another cause they’ve taken on is pushing for more monies to be poured into the most blighted communities in America, even when the culture around them rejects this approach as useless.

Grace Church, by contrast, takes an approach of direct involvement. This is evidenced by the computer-based learn-

ing classes they’ve started for poor children at a family life center in an adjacent neighborhood. At this same center Grace members offer classes in English for immigrants and classes in micro-enterprise businesses to aid unemployed adults.

The church sends thousands of dollars each year to World Vision for development projects. Every summer work teams from the church head off to some of the poorest countries in the world to work on projects that will allow local communities and people to be self-sustaining.

Each in its own way, Trinity and Grace take seriously the biblical teachings on caring for the poor. Both churches affirm the words of 1 John 3:17: “If any of you has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has not pity on them, how can the love of God be in you?”

Both churches are also committed to overcoming the legacy left by years of slavery, segregation, discrimination, and racial prejudice. Again, though, their approaches are dissimilar. Grace focuses on education programs to help the area’s blacks and Latinos, hoping that working together on the local level will mitigate suspicion, build bridges of rec-

PRISM 2007

16

image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that move on the ground.’ Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food’” (Gen. 1:27-29). “[Jesus] said: ‘A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put his money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back’.... first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities’” (Luke 19:12-13, 16-17).

Why the variant emphases and readings of the Bible?

For Trinity and Grace it’s more than just church traditions, though that invariably has an impact. What the members of Trinity and Grace see in the Bible, and what each of us sees in the Bible, is often influenced by other factors such as our location in society and culture, and the ideological influences upon us. Each of us may seek to interpret the Bible faithfully and allow the entire Word to be our guide, but we tend to allow other factors to influence what we see and how we see it.

onciliation, and ultimately lead to a society of equal access.

Trinity goes up against structural barriers and pushes for new federal and state laws favoring affirmative action, new housing access laws, and allocation of significant financial help for minority communities with high rates of drugs, poverty, and crime.

So, why the difference between these two churches?

How is it that Christians with the same theological commitments, and even similar social goals, can espouse such contrasting approaches to implementing their social ethic? Several significant factors seem to be at play here:

1) Different readings of the Bible The Bible is a vast compilation of divinely orchestrated texts from different contexts, with different language and imagery, and different issues being addressed. It is no secret that various church traditions have tended to functionally emphasize certain parts of God’s Word over others. When it comes to ethics, for example, Anabaptists have historically tended to prioritize the Sermon on the Mount, Reformed Christians the Old Testament law, Lutherans the Pauline epistles, Anglicans the Johannine writings, and Wesleyans the New Testament texts focusing on holiness and personal and social change.

While both Trinity Church and Grace Community Church affirm the full inspiration and authority of scripture, they emphasize different biblical themes and texts. Trinity has focused on the theme of justice, drawn to a significant extent from the Old Testament prophets as well as the teachings of Jesus. In sermons, Sunday school, and small-group Bible studies, a parishioner is likely to hear frequent reference to texts such as the following: “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8).

“You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin.

But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former” (Matt. 23:23).

“Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields is crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.

You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence” (James 5:4-5a).

At Grace Community Church a parishioner is more likely to hear sermons and biblical teachings on human dignity, personal responsibility, service, and the role of the family in developing a good society. The texts referred to frequently include the following: “God created human beings in his own image, in the

2) Different relationships to culture and society One of the reasons the Christians at Trinity and Grace read the Bible differently on social issues is that they have divergent approaches to the culture and society around them.

Over 50 years ago H. Richard Niebuhr wrote what was to become a classic in Christian theology and social ethics, Christ and Culture. Niebuhr described five different ways in which Christians and churches have historically related their faith and ethical commitments to the culture: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ the transformer of culture.

At first glance the members of both Trinity and Grace seem to reflect the last approach, as they seek to make a difference in their communities and the world not just through evangelism but also through their social commitments. But underneath those apparent similarities are some significant differences with regards to society.

Part of what leads Christians in diverse social directions is their perspective on the state. Some believe the state was ordained by God to bring justice and human well-being into a fallen world that tends by nature to deny it. Others view the state with great suspicion, and are more likely to see

PRISM 2007

17

justice and social wholeness arising directly from the work of Christians and the church with individuals and communities.

Trinity members seem quite at home working with advocacy groups that believe federal, state, and local governing bodies can make significant strides in feeding the poor, empowering the powerless, and eradicating racism. While they know that the state is a fallen instrument, they have no qualms about calling it to be a harbinger of social justice.

Grace Community members also believe the state has a

very important role in society, but it is primarily to preserve order and put mechanisms in place that allow individuals and groups (like the church) to be vehicles of social justice.

Grace believes that the state by its very nature tends to undermine personal responsibility and was not ordained by God to do what the church is called to do. Its primary function is order, and the church is called to bind up the wounds of the suffering.

But why the difference? If relationship to society influ-

(All) the Good News

application of moral and judicial law. One component of this law was understood in the Hebraic traditions to mean that those who had need and lived in poverty would be taken care of by those who had access to wealth and resources. This is described in Leviticus 25 as a part of the fulfillment of the Year of Jubilee. Every 50th year, the Israelites were to proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. All property was to be returned to its original owners.Those who had debts were to be forgiven them. Slaves were to be set free.

The Year of Jubilee was to be a massive restoration of wealth so that none would have need.

Poverty and provision are also discussed extensively in the New Testament. Matthew 5 talks about those poor in spirit, whereas Matthew 25 addresses those poor in material goods. God’s expectation is that we live out biblical justice and respond to those who are hungry, thirsty, naked, or in prison, while also sharing the gospel with those who are spiritually lost.

The demonstration of the gospel should not be dichotomized into the two separate components of spiritual provision and material deliverance, as both are necessary components of the Good News of salvation. Biblical justice is the manifestation of the full gospel of Christ. The gospel is explicit in proclaiming the Good News and evangelizing the lost (Matthew 28). Therefore, the proclamation of Christ, without responding to the needs of those who are poor and oppressed, is only a part of the Good News. Another, and sometimes neglected, component of the gospel is the promise of freedom and deliverance for the poor and oppressed (Luke 4). When both components—compassion and evangelism—are expressed, the Kingdom of God is manifested, social justice is exemplified, and the Good News of the gospel of Christ is proclaimed.

BY MAE ELISE CANNON

As the Christian community grows in its commitment to social justice, it is asking questions about the difference between social justice and “biblical” justice. Certainly the compassionate acts of those who are not Christ-followers make a positive contribution to the under-resourced in society, but what is the difference when a person of faith extends a hand of compassion or responds to an act of injustice?

Webster’s dictionary defines social justice as “the fair distribution of advantages and disadvantages within society.” Social justice is manifested when all people have equal access to resources and opportunity, such as health care, employment, and education. For example, social justice is violated when children in inner-city schools are given an education that is substandard and significantly less funded than that of children living in suburban areas. Christians are called to be advocates of social justice and to respond to the fracture in structures such as the urban educational system. While Christians are called to model social justice, the theory of biblical justice expands upon the definition of social justice (alleviation of poverty and suffering) to include God’s radical plan for the redemption of those who believe in him.

Biblical justice is the scriptural mandate to manifest the Kingdom of God on earth by making God’s blessing available to all humankind.The blessings of God are both corporeal and spiritual. God’s grace and provision of salvation are extended to all who profess faith in Christ (Romans 10:9). The physical provisions and blessings of God are reported extensively in Scripture.

Old Testament ideas of justice are often described as the

Mae Cannon is the executive pastor of Hillside Covenant Church in Walnut Creek, Calif. She formerly led the social justice ministry at Willow Creek Community Church in Barrington, Ill.

PRISM 2007

18

ences Christians’ reading of the Bible and approach to the state, what lies behind these variations?

But I firmly believe that this is not the case. While we all are finite creatures who “see through a glass darkly,” there is truth that transcends our own perspectives. Because God has revealed himself in the incarnate Word (Christ) and the written Word (the Bible), there is confidence that we can discern God’s basic directions for our lives. If there are variations on how Christians interpret and apply the Word, it’s not because God has failed but rather because we allow our ideologies, traditions, personal dispositions, and social locations to influence what God may be trying to tell us.

There really is hope in the midst of all the diversity that Christians, like the members at Trinity and Grace, bring to their social concerns. First, it’s helpful to recall that the real differences between these believers are over strategies, not their primary ethical commitments. Both believe that God calls us to uphold human dignity, seek justice, overcome racism, and empower the powerless. They simply differ in strategies for achieving these biblically based ethical goals.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when many have absolutized strategies and relativized ethical norms. It ought to be the other way around.

But it’s also important for each of us to be aware of the factors that influence our strategies. One of the significant problems in our society is that opposing ideologues tend not to converse with each other, and if they do converse it frequently lacks civility. The church, of all places, ought to be a venue where believers with different paths to social concern and justice can find common cause in their core commitments, appreciate the others’ perspectives, and engage in dialogue about why they differ on strategies.

It’s important to remember that the members of Trinity and Grace share a common faith in the living Christ and common commitments to most ethical ideals. On the things that matter most, they are one.

The great hope is that Trinity and Grace will come to recognize that what separates them is secondary to the core and that they need each other. Justice coalitions and community centers are both legitimate and necessary strategies in the work to which God calls us in a badly fractured world.

There are advantages to both strategies, and there are inherent challenges in both. But both are humanly devised strategies to carry out God’s passion for justice, mercy, righteousness, and wholeness in the world into which he has called us. If the members of Trinity and Grace begin to understand this, they will start to look less like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party and more like the church of Jesus Christ— their true, ultimate, and enduring identity. ■

3) Different ideological commitments Part of the reason Christians have divergent views of the state and divergent strategies for social change is ideological commitment. Ideologies are far more than worldviews which provide our fundamental understandings of God, humanity, history, and salvation. Ideologies are social creeds that we tenaciously hold to in order to support our vested interests, traditions, and personal dispositions. They give legitimacy to our cultural values and actions within the world.

There are many different kinds of ideologies, such as political, gender, nationalistic, social, and economic. Some sociologists point out that ideologies tend to stray from objectivity, as they are often selective in the issues addressed and paint the world in rather simplistic terms. Ideologies are often one-dimensional in describing what’s wrong in the world and fail to appreciate the complex factors that often contribute to social problems and their solutions. Thus Marxist ideology boils all social problems down to economics, feminist ideology to gender, and nationalistic ideology to groups that don’t conform to the national ideal. Our ideologies are often self-imposed protections from the realities of the real world. With them we don’t have to do deal with the ambiguities and complexities that mark our societies and social institutions.

The members at Trinity Church, with their strong emphasis on justice and the state’s role in procuring justice, often seem to reflect the moderate to liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Indeed they tend to vote that way. The members at Grace Community, with their strong emphasis on family stability and personal responsibility for achieving a good society, often seem to reflect the moderate to conservative wing of the Republican Party. They, too, tend to vote that way.

While both Trinity and Grace look to the Bible as their source of social ethics and their primary authority for life, their ideological commitments impact how they read the Bible, what they see in its pages, and how they apply it to the world around them. And these social/political ideologies seem to be tied to their vested interests and their location in society.

Contrasting but complementary All of this may seem unsettling to believers wanting to faithfully follow Christ in all of life. It may appear that our Christian commitments and social ethics really are relativistic after all. It might seem that we are caught in a deterministic web of social influences that determine our faith and how it is practiced.

Dennis P. Hollinger is president of the Evangelical School of Theology in Myerstown, Pa., where he also teaches Christian ethics.

PRISM 2007

19