A Biblical Perspective on Wokeness (Part 4 of 4)
/We have considered the big idea of “wokeness”, the calls to action being made, and the reasonableness of the worldview of the modern social justice movement. To conclude, let’s (finally) consider the biblical nature of these ideas. Should Christians adopt this worldview and why or why not? There are 12 points below and the first one is connected to responding to this worldview in general from the standpoint of reason…
1. Christians value and seek reasonable substantiation for ideas. As we begin to evaluate things we do so reasonably. Christians can disagree about the condition of a society and certainly will. However, Christians should agree to seek significant substantiation for significant claims. In writing his account of the life of Jesus, Luke begins by saying, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account…” In other words, Luke has sought reasonable substantiation. Christianity is based on historical fact and eyewitness accounts that can be tested. This is how the Gospel spread in the very beginning as the disciples were “…prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”; and they did it with “gentleness and respect” (1 Pt. 3:15). “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—” (1 John 1:1).
Now, at the heart of the issue with this worldview as it is being embraced in the church concerns the reality of the Law and the Gospel…
2. Christians distinguish between the Law and the Gospel, with the Gospel as the spearhead of the church’s mission. The Social Justice Theory (SJT) movement is a movement solely of “law” or commands. It is solely about doing works of justice. And while Christians proclaim God’s Law, which includes a call for all people to love each other, the unique spearhead of the church’s mission is not law but Good News of great joy. The spearhead is not the Law nor is it societal transformation (here and now) either. The spearhead is the Gospel in the midst of great societal evil. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19-20). The church brings to the world a uniquely Christian message about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the sufficient grace of God. Because of the importance of this point it is worth quoting R.C. Sproul here:
“God has chosen to save the world through the foolishness of preaching the gospel…The power is in the gospel, and the gospel has a certain required, specific content. It has to do with the person and work of Christ, who came as our Redeemer. He bore our sins on the cross, was raised for our justification, and promises that all who put their trust in Him will participate completely in the inheritance that the Father gives to Him, which is by faith. That is what we should be preaching. That is where the power is. The preaching of the gospel has been at the forefront of every revival in church history that has had an impact on the world.”[1]
When the church embraces the message and mission of the culture around it, such as the SJT mission and message, it either mixes law into the Gospel or removes the Gospel entirely as the principal message of its mission.
With that said, let’s focus on some areas where there is some agreement…
3. Christians are to love all people as image-bearers, regardless of skin color, culture, history, and the like. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (James 2:1).
4. Christians use the Bible to shape their entire worldview and practice, including how they view social and political engagement. In other words, yes, Christians can and do engage society and politics with the guidance and influence of Scripture. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
5. Christians should be least surprised by sin, sinful laws, sinful policies, and the like. “All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:12). Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies (Ps. 7:14). “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9).
Now, let’s go back to areas where Christians should really diverge…
6. Christians define sin and justice according to the Bible. While SJT uses various standards to determine what is just, the Christian looks to God through His Word to determine what is just. SJT is able to condemn racism and bless abortion simultaneously, something the Bible does not do.
7. Christians do not assume the presence of specific sins and reject the resulting abuse of doing so. Rather, Christians are to be charitable in interpretation of events, discourses, and the like in order to avoid slander and baseless accusation of sin. Biblically, Christians base accusations on evidence, especially the testimony of witnesses. “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). In Matthew 18:15-20 Christians are commanded to privately reason with someone regarding their sin. If they refuse to admit it, Christians are to continue reasoning with them with witnesses. Christians do not jump to conclusions nor accuse people of specific sins without substantiation. This worldview jumps to conclusions by accusing specific people of specific sins based on vague assumptions. This will continue to result in abuse of all kinds, including pastoral abuse.
8. In evaluating sin in society, Christians do not equate the condemnation of a sin with the condemnation of a particular event or incident. I disagree that condemning racism necessarily means, for example, having the same opinion on a particular event such as the incident with George Floyd. It is highly tactical move for the SJT movement to demand you voice an opinion on a highly specific, often complex matter or else you will be considered to lack compassion and concern or you will be considered a racist. In other words, “silence is violence”. Silence does not necessarily communicate a lack of compassion and concern. To condemn racism is one thing but to formulate an opinion on something as complex as a police encounter, based on a video sometimes less than 1 minute long with no context, is entirely different. Silence on such a matter may actually communicate compassion and concern for everyone involved and a goal of “preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor” (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 144). Silence on a specific incident may communicate a charitable view that a person ought to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Silence on a specific incident may communicate that there is no evidence of racism yet shown.
The practice of SJT to demand guilty verdicts apart from due process is slanderous and is revolutionary in nature. For the church to step into the same stride to condemn people of racism without evidence is to join a movement based on an assumption and based on the principle that “might makes right”. To accuse someone of lacking compassion and concern because they haven’t formulated an opinion on something they know almost nothing about is tactical bullying. It is a way of silencing those who disagree with you. If only the many proponents of this worldview applied their own logic to themselves, then they would have to conclude that their own silence on abortion reveals a lack of compassion and concern for babies. However, I am not willing to make that accusation against them even in the face of their typical silence.
9. Ultimately, Christians focus on the heart to produce cultural change. While Christians can and engage laws and policies, this worldview does so almost entirely at the expense of focusing on the role the sinful heart plays in the problem posed. “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). As C.S. Lewis wrote, “…all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly….You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.”[2] While laws and policies can and should restrain sin, they will never be able to justify, sanctify, and glorify humanity.
10. While desiring societal change, Christians are not responsible to establish moral reform outside of the church and thus outside of faith in the Gospel. The church is not responsible to establish God’s peace and justice among those set on living in rebellion against God, for how could it do so? Israel could not make Babylon the Kingdom of God. The Roman Christians were not commanded to sanctify Roman society. SJT has only the world itself to trust in to bring about its vision of utopia. The church, however, is to establish peace and justice within its body and looks to the second coming of Jesus to establish peace and justice in perfection. This does not mean God’s people do not seek to love and do good to all, far from it. But it does mean that the church is not responsible to establish the new heavens and new earth before Jesus does so (2 Pt. 3:13).
Lastly, we must consider the general concepts of race, skin color, diversity, and multiculturalism…
11. Skin color does not equate to culture, personality, history, preferences, and the like. Multicultural and multi-skin color are not synonymous. Two people of different skin colors can share the exact same culture and history. To pretend as though people of the same skin color all think alike and share the same history is like saying all people with blue eyes share the same past and culture. It is an affront to reason every time the church continues to communicate that one’s skin color communicates something about one’s past and culture. Ironically, in an effort to fight against racism, many in the church are fighting to uphold racial categories and telling people to make assumptions about people based on their skin color, which is the kind of thinking that is foundational to racism. Ironically, in an effort to celebrate the image of God in everyone the church continues to stoop to the level of SJT and boil people’s identities down to their skin color.
12. While Christians value all people in all cultures equally, nowhere in the Bible are local churches commanded to be multicultural. God’s Church is multicultural. Praise God! Local churches in nations with great diversity are often naturally multicultural. Praise God! The Gospel unites extremely different people. However, local churches are not commanded to incorporate multiple languages, multiple musical sounds of various cultures, or to dress according to multiple cultural norms. There is nothing wrong or unbiblical about a church who only sings songs in Ugandan style, only speaks Mandarin, or is only comprised of people with black skin tones.
Enormous complexities, often left unanswered, arise with the call for local churches to be multicultural. If local churches are to be multicultural, how does a church know when it is multicultural? How many skin colors must be present? And what percentage of what skin color must be present? How many ethnicities must be present and what percentage of what ethnicities must be present? Is a given local church in China made up of only Chinese believers failing to be multicultural and thus failing to value all people? And how does a local church go about becoming multicultural? How does a church preach, sing, affirm the faith, and pray in multicultural ways? And what does a local church do when a city around it is comprised of only one culture?
In the end, Christians should want to be reasonable and a lot about this worldview is unreasonable. This worldview operates on a very different way of reasoning in general and often bases concrete claims and ideas on assumptions and theories.
In the end, Christians must love all people and do good to all. Christians desire societal reform and are not surprised by great evil. But it is not uniquely Christian to call for moral reform in society and thus we cannot compromise the Gospel. Unique to Christianity is the message of grace. The Gospel is the spearhead of the church’s mission and must always be. The Gospel alone changes hearts and thus changes societies. Even still, Christians look to Christ for the new heavens and new earth.
In the end, Christians should condemn sin generally but wait to level specific accusations of sin and evil until substantiated reasonably. Thus, Christians value being slow to speak and quick to listen because Christians seek to protect the names and reputations of all people.
In the end, Christians do not reduce people to the shade of their skin, though valuing God’s physical creation. While Christians celebrate culture and celebrate that God saves from all cultures, Christians should not look at local churches and base how multicultural they are on skin color nor should they hold churches to a vague standard of multiculturalism, a standard never set by the Bible.
And in the end, Christians should not embrace the very ideologies that lead to racist atrocities in the first place – like judging people based on their skin colors. Christians must affirm the image of God in all people, reject partiality according to James 2, and continuing bringing the Good News of forgiveness to all people as the forefront of their mission.
Footnotes:
[1] R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess, 91-92
[2] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 73
