Some see the evangelical debate about social justice as a disagreement on strategy or emphasis. But it is much more than that. If the language of social justice is incompatible with biblical justice, then using it to connect with our culture is not an error of strategy but a change in theology. This matters.
Church history has many examples of debates which would have been better undertaken in private or perhaps not at all. Paul’s command to ‘make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace’ (Ephesians 4:3) is always vital to remember.
Is the debate about social justice and the woke agenda one over which evangelical Christians should agree to disagree? I don’t believe it is. Some disagreements are particularly important because they impact upon truths at the heart of the gospel – this is one of them.
The social justice of our day is seen in the efforts of Black Lives Matter and the climate change emergency coalition. The justice they are seeking is about ‘the redistribution of wealth, privileges and opportunities… [it is about] equity, not equality… so it is redistribution with a view toward achieving equal outcomes for various specified groups’ - Voddie Baucham
When I use the term social justice, I am not referring to the diligent pursuit of fairness and justice by Christians in the past. Their actions reflected the principles of biblical justice, grounded in the character of God and expressed in his moral law. William Wilberforce laboured for decades to outlaw the slave trade, and his victory brought real freedom for many. His efforts were not in pursuit of the kind of social justice that is being advocated today.
The social justice of our day is seen in the efforts of Black Lives Matter and the climate change emergency coalition. The justice they are seeking is about ‘the redistribution of wealth, privileges and opportunities… [it is about] equity, not equality… so it is redistribution with a view toward achieving equal outcomes for various specified groups’ (Voddie Baucham).
This means that the goal of social justice is completely different to the goal of the Bible. Advocates want to tear down God-given authority structures, such as the family and the church, since these are ‘tools of oppression’. They are seeking a completely different kind of society. This won’t be like heaven on earth. It will be a world without God, the Bible, our Creator’s definitions of good and evil, and the offer of full and free salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
One of the crucial errors at the heart of this new social justice framework is a redefinition of sin. All Bible-believing Christians know that there are sins of commission and omission, so there are times when it is wrong not to act or speak about something.
Scripture speaks of sins that are common to particular groups – men are prone to be unloving to their wives (Ephesians 5:25) and women are prone to reject the leadership of their husbands (Ephesians 5:22). The rich are tempted in particular ways, as are the poor (Proverbs 30:8-9).
But that’s not the same as saying that if you are a part of a particular group you will almost certainly be sinning in the ways that are common to that group; or that the sins committed by others with whom you share some group connection are your sins regardless of what you have personally done.
Social justice says exactly that. The Lord is clear that our judicial guilt only applies to our personal sins and they cannot be shared within family groups. God says, ‘The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child’ (Ezekiel 18:20).
In this new definition of justice, the only way to be innocent of the sins of others in a group to which you belong is to be opposed to their sins and working against the effects of those sins among all those affected. In the language of the woke agenda, you are either an ‘ally’ – tirelessly working to meet the needs of an ‘oppressed’ group – or you are an ‘enemy’ – through silence or inaction in meeting the needs of ‘oppressed’ groups.
Those are the only two options. If we accept the framework and this binary choice then who wouldn’t choose to be an ally?
Many Christians in the West recognise that they have received blessings that others have not. We have education, wealth, and opportunities that many around our world do not. Social justice advocates want us to feel guilty about this and to see it as a privilege for which we should automatically feel ashamed. If we allow this, the unrelenting psychological pressure exerted by social justice thinking will weigh very heavily upon our consciences. This is a great error.
