Article by Cameron Spink

 

On October 27^th Jim Wallis (presidential advisor and founder of the Sojourners magazine) debated Albert Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on the topic of social justice. Namely, "Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?". Jim Wallis was in the affirmative and Albert Mohler took the negative to this question. The question, as it stands, relies on both parties personally believing the position they defend. And they do, Wallis is a progressive who is a regular activist and very much in the President's ear. Mohler is a conservative who is convicted in the purity of the Gospel by itself.

 

This debate is very civil from the outset. It appears that both men respect the credentials and the ministries of one another. One could be almost convinced that these two men were arguing two sides of the same coin. Do not be deceived, though. Mohler advocates that "the preaching of the New Testament is the preaching of the Kingdom. It is first and foremost the preaching about how sinners can be made right with God. The apostolic preaching in the book of Acts, did it have social implications? Of course it did, but the preaching itself is the preaching of the Gospel" (67:37). He elaborates upon this saying "the Gospel is about how sinners, who rightly deserve nothing but the eternal condemnation of God, nonetheless are redeemed by His decisive act in Jesus Christ, to redeem sinners" (110:50).

 

Jim Wallis states his definition as "justice is integral to the Gospel" (108:30) and is "not an add-on or an extra-curricular or a secondary or something that happens...." (109:33). It should be clear that these definitions are not equal. Where this separation occurs is the interpretation of Luke 4:18-19:

 

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives

and recovering of sight to the blind,

to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Luke 4:18-19 (ESV)

 

Wallis would advocate that this decree by Jesus incorporates a directive to help the poor and to right injustice. Mohler would be of the opinion that this verse is merely endorsing the proclamation of the Gospel to the poor and a social justice agenda cannot be attached to the essence of the Gospel by this verse. Frankly, Wallis' argument is untenable. While acts of social justice are important for Christians to do it is not at the essence of the Gospel. To try and place social justice at the centre is to undermine the Gospel greatly and to distort the purpose of the Church.

 

During this debate Jim Wallis uses many anecdotes. In fact, the amount of tales he tells stretches to the absurd. He defends his position with them and not with Bible verses. Such a strategy should be a strong warning sign when discussing a theological issue. One such anecdote he discusses is his interactions with the Occupy Wall Street movement and he states that "they're talking about massive inequality which, by the way, is a biblical issue" (89:00). He also mentions "economic unfairness" (92:00). It is easy to say this, but he needs to point to Bible verses to defend his position. The bulk of verses that speak about justice in the Bible are in reference to God's righteous judgment against human kind. It should also be said that the people involved in Occupy Wall Street are, more likely than not, participating in jealous, which is condemned in the Bible.

 

Jim Wallis insinuates that the Gospel is a non-practical vessel without social justice being attached to it. For instance, some of the anecdotes he told basically end up with people asking "why do you do the things that you do?" (64:06) which provide him with the ah-ha moment to confirm that he is a Christian. This suggests that as Christians we have the moral superiority over others. That it is the example of our actions that bring people to Christ. But this begs the question; can a person be swayed by an atheists good deeds? Why should a Christian doing good influence them more? So we see that our actions are auxiliary, a response to the Gospel and not the Gospel itself.

 

I am an avid fan of Albert Mohler. There are very few men like him in theological circles. Yet I felt that in this debate Mohler had the opportunity to really stamp on Wallis' misguided assumptions about the Gospel and the way he uses Jesus for his own political purposes. He did not even engage with Wallis in the actual debate about this and it was only in question time that we see Mohler really rejecting what Wallis was saying. Dan Phillips, Christian blogger, has elaborated on this point and I find his analysis of the debate both succinct and worth reading. Mohler is clear on the Gospel but he also needed to be clear on his rejection of Jim Wallis' definition from the get-go. After all, he knew what Wallis was going to say and such perversities should not be left to stand.

 

What is required from the Church is very simple. The Church must stand on the truth that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Through this truth disciples will be born. Part of their role is to minister to the poor and help the poor. However, this role is not, nor should it ever be, the essence of the Gospel. To portray the Gospel as such should not be tolerated.

 

http://www.henrycenter.org/media/player_video.php?id=318