Christian Living
Essentials of Faith
Evidences for Faith
Applying Your Faith

Review: The Statement on Social Justice and The Gospel

In June of 2018, 13 predominate evangelical figures initially signed The Statement on Social Justice and The Gospel.  It is interesting to note, a couple of the initial signers are minorities.  This is important when it comes to social issues such as racism.  It is a statement of affirmations and denials broken down into 14 sections.  We will study and analyze in each section statements that relate directly to social issues.  From this we can better determine if this statement accurately reflects spiritual truth in regards to social issues and The Bible.

Section 1 is about the authority of scripture.  Right off the bat they make a bold statement, "We deny that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching.Thabiti Anyabwile of The Gospel Coalition brings up a valid point regarding this statement.  He feels that the terms used are "so imprecise" that he is not sure he asks "What are we talking about when we talking about reconciliation or  intersectionality or critical race theory?"  This is a good point.  To better grasp that Statement, we need to define these terms.  

Generally we can understand intersectionality is that socially constructed frame work that shows how social issues may be connected.  More specifically, when we consider racial systemic oppression and how it effects various areas in life throughout the society.  Critical Race Theory, generally, is the theoretical frame work within society that predisposes two things: (1) that white supremacy is maintained over time in various parts of the post-racial culture.  (2) how to address the maintained white supremacy and transform the construct to achieve racial emancipation and anti-subordination.  

At the heart of these two socially constructed concepts is the premise that starts with man leaning on their own understanding on how social issues relate and carry on completely void of any biblical framework.   The error in Thabiti Anyabwile's reasoning is that he, and others, apply these humanistic concepts to the Bible (eisegesis) and not vise versa (exegesis), which amounts to nothing more than confirmation bias.  In the Statement, the Author's argument is that the Biblical concepts need to be first applied to social issues and then, more accurate, but secondary, frameworks can be conceptualized.  But, considering that a majority of sociologist and others who build these humanistic frame works have no belief the the Bible's relevance in the first place.  He argues that the exegesis of scriptural truth is paramount and primary, then, with the ideals accurately pulled out from scripture, can be used to properly address secondary worldly issues to seek a true and lasting solution.  The eternal and spiritual matters are primary concerns where as worldly issues and social systems are secondary.  Preaching the gospel (life, death, and resurrection of Jesus) is of greater importance than the systemic oppression of Rome and other worldly governments and societal systems.  (see The Political Activism of Jesus and Can We Rightly Judge with Statistics).

In essence, the Statement is declaring that it is the socially constructed frameworks of these systems and theories that are not "consistent with biblical teaching".  And that, through Critical Race Theory, to achieve racial harmony, is not a biblical approach to reaching true and lasting peace.  Simply stated, these are worldly constructed and focused theories, drawn from a worldly understanding, to transform an social issues.  The dilemma in these man-centered frame works and theories is that they fail to see the ultimate source of the issue, which is sin. This issue is directly related to morality and right and wrong.  Without a Biblical foundation, to determine what is a right solution, or a rightful judgement, is faulty at its premise.  Racial supremacy is morally wrong but the only way to know this is to know absolute good- God.  So naturally, these frameworks draw from various sources of moralism from various "moral" sources.  This brings us to the next sentence in the statement.  "We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture." Thus, when Deepak Chopra, a wildly popular spiritual guru, The Mormon President, and a popular westernized Islamic Imam all support these kinds of frames works and theories, it leads the society to think that these frame works and theories are moral or lead to a more moral right society.  This is untrue because it is void of a Biblical understanding.  The Statement denies their competency to see TRUE moral good without "clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture".  

Simply put, the Statement declares that scripture alone is the only source and authority in determining right and wrong, AND determining practical social theories to change society for good and true justice.  Depending on or using in addition to scripture, "intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are are not consistent with Biblical teachings".  The question we can ask is:  Is the Bible and God's revealed Word enough for societal change?  Or, do we need, in addition to Scripture, studies and social theories to address social injustice?  Psalm 19:7-10 and 2 Timothy 3:16-4:5 helps us answer that question.  Considering all the intersectionality and critical race theories, 1 Cor. 2:14-15 also helps us clearly see the answer here.  The most strongest force in changing the hearts away from racial oppression, is scripture alone (Hebrews 4:12).  Even when asked by the Pharesees regarding social issues, Jesus pointed them back to scripture (Matthew 19:4-6).

Even though there is heated debate about how this Statement reduces the importance of intersectionality and critical race theory, making it subordinate to scripture, the Statement itself (in the context of the definitions above) is true.  And that is a tough pill to swallow, even for the respected Thabiti Anyabwile. 

Section 2 hits the Identity concept.  When we are asked, who are you?  Some will say "I am a wealthy white conservative male Protestant Christian". Others may answer "I am a black moderate female Christian".  Yet others may answer "I am a gay liberal non-binary gender with no religious affiliation".  These kind of identifiers, race, gender, ideology, sexuality, and religion do not contribute or subtract to our value or dignity "as an image-bearer of God".  No matter what adjective we use to descriptive ourselves, they are only worldly descriptions, and that having been made in the image of God transcends these worldly identifiers.  Therefore, the Statement in section 2 is true and biblically accurate.  This directly relates to social justice because some will place a greater importance on race, gender, or sexuality; more so than their true identity as an image-bearer of God.  

Section 3 gets into the topic of Justice. God is holy, righteous and just, therefore he requires those who have been made in his image to be holy, righteous and just.  Obviously, due to our sinful natures, we cannot always do this.  But through Christ, we can "make every effort" and strive to do what is good (Psalm 34:14), seek holiness (Hebrews 12:14), pursue peace (Romans 14:19), and seek justice while defending the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17; Micah 6:8).  Justice that is "merely socially constructed" is again, worldly focused; and any principle of Justice that is not founded in Biblical Justice, is not true or lasting justice.  The Statement affirms what God affirms and denies what only attempts to mimic a god in their own image of their own man-centered version of worldly justice.  This Statement attempts to maintain the absolute superiority of Biblical justice as apposed to worldly justice with the absence of Biblical truth. 

Section 4 affirms the accountability before God and denies the accountability before men, societies, and governments.  To clarify, Christians are instructed by God to obey the government and the laws, as so long, as they are just and do not cause us to violate God's Law;  Jesus absolutely and perfectly summed up God's Law by saying "Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind... And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’" (Matthew 22:37-38).  Any thing that takes away, prevents, or perverts this, is something image-bearers of God should not obey, follow, or advocate for.   In a society that 'guilt trips' or manipulates people into subscribing to its 'additional' or contradictory laws is actually in contrary to God.  When that society tries to impose a worldly view of so-called righteous living or charge of sin or call to repentance for anything outside of God's Law, is truly and ultimately unlawful.  This directly relates to the charge of subconscious inherent racism or white guilt.  Now, some whites may be guilty before God of a racism they were unaware of, not all, by default, are racists.  And to charge of all whites as inherently racist or have some level of subconscious racism is not supported Bibically.  

One objection to the denial in this section is that the Law of God guides us into holiness, and thus, part of that guidance is social justice activism.  They fail to understand that holiness is a RESULT from faith in the rightness of God's Law, which show us our eternal state before God and direct us to our dire need for the Savior Jesus Christ.  No one is justified by the Law.  No social justice activist is justified by the Law.  The desire to be actively involved in social justice issues, in a right standing before God, comes AFTER faith in the Gospel Message.  If this is not true, then we must ask, are Atheists who are stellar social justice activist doing what is right and good?  No, they can't be, because they first do not have faith, and thus, doing it for their own or a humanistic end.  We can simply turn to Luke 7:36-50 and see the importance of the Law of God on our hearts, that leads us to the greater appropriation for forgiveness and grace, thus, compels us to be active in our faith.  The Statement of Section 4 is in line with God's Word.

Section 5 addresses the issue of Sin within all people.  Because sin is an eternal offense against God, it doesn't matter the intensity of sin or the amount of sinful actions; all have the same value and scope of punishment which is eternal separation from God.  The Statement is absolutely correct when it states "All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin".  This includes humanistic constructed frameworks and ideas of "intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory" (Section 1)The Statement denies that "any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin".  This is the work of Jesus alone.  Then it makes a controversial statement "We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin".  This directly relates to the humanistic notion that all white people are inherently racists and are connected to the past sins of slavery.  But does state "Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins".  White people (or any person, no matter their race) that approve and embrace racism, yes, are guilty of the same sin that infected the nation generations ago; but again, not all white people are inherently racist.  That notion alone is racially prejudice, self defeating, and hypocritical.  Regardless, racism is sin.  Racist ideals can be passed down through generations, but only through those generations who approve and embrace those ideals.  Are all white people still guilty for slavery today because of the current existence for racial systemic oppression?  No, but those who approve and embrace racial systemic oppression are.  Those white people and supporters of racial injustice carry with them the collective subsequent guilt of that sin.  Keep in mind, that during the historically more severer systemic racial oppression, not all white people agreed with it and risked their lives to protest it.  Between 1882 and 1968, 27% of lynchings were white people who fought against racism (The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States, 1880-1950).  Are those white people to blame for the sin of racism too?  This Statement, no matter the controversy if may stir, is Bibically sound.

Section 6 proclaims the Gospel.  The most important message in all the world.  Paul himself declares "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:"  It is monumental to note that he did not include a social justice message.  There was all kinds of injustices and ethnic oppression going on, yet, Paul proclaims the gospel message "as of first importance".  Then he goes through and lays out the key elements of the true gospel message without adding any notion of the cultural oppression the Jews and jewish Christians faced at that very time.  Paul himself did not rebel against the unjust imprisonments he faced.  The Statement denies anything can be added to the gospel without changing into something else.  Adding to the gospel message or another message as equally important lessens the ultimate value of The Gospel.  Because the Gospel is a message, a good news, it does not, within the message itself, call for an obligation to just living.  Obligation and duty were not elements Paul included in the message.  BUT faith, as a result of believing the message, will naturally lead to a inherent sense of obligation and duty to live justly and obey God's Laws.  Paul could have, if he was lead by the Holy Spirit, to include another element of a call to social justice in the gospel message, but he did not and the Holy Spirit did not compel him to do so; neither should we.  The Statement in Section 6 is Biblically sound.

Section 7 discusses the source and effects of Salvation and boldly states "salvation is granted by God’s grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone".  No systematic reforms in the social structure will assist in leading people to salvation.  The reverse is then also true, no systemic reforms, no matter how humanistic and worldly they are, will prevent someone from being saved (John 6:37).  The Bible is clear that there is no other way to come to salvation (Acts 4:12).  The Statement does declare that salvation does not "renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life".  Christians are sill sinners, but saved by Grace.  Because Salvation comes from God, and God alone, the Statement denies that ethnicity prevents anyone from understanding the gospel message or mitigate the duty to repent and believe.  Our flesh does not prevent God from doing his glorious work in us.  The gospel message does not need to be changed or morphed to better reflect ethnic struggles or cultural differences.  Jews, Samaritans, Romans, Greeks, cultures of Asia minor, and as far as the East, the Persian wise men, all came to know who Jesus really was and what he was going to do and did do.  Even today we see the underground church in China, and North Korea, minority Christian communities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, and all around the world, believing in the Gospel Message. Thus the need to reform the gospel message to better fit minority communities is actually a lack of faith in God and a humanistic attempt to be God.  This Statement is true and in line with scripture.

Section 8 gets into what they affirm and deny regarding the universal church.  The role of the church is very well layed out when it stated "the primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine, observing baptism and the Lord’s Supper, refuting those who contradict, equipping the saints, and evangelizing the lost". This is universally true for all the churches world wide for all time.  It also states that the church is obligated to "obey the governing authorities established by God and pray for civil leaders".  Which is explicitly stated by Paul in Romans 13:1-7.  When it gets into what the Statement denies, is where a lot of people will object.  It states "We deny that political or social activism should be viewed as integral component of the Gospel or primary to the mission of the church".  Their key phrase is "integral component".  This implies that political or social activism is part of The Gospel message.  This is addressed in section 6.  We must keep in mind the cultural and political climate in which Jesus and the Apostles were in.  The ethnic systemic oppression was great, more grand that it is today.  Yet, they were completely focused on the gospel message without making political or social activism any way part of their message.  Yes, Christians should be involved in seeking justice and standing against oppression and racism (Section 3).  But, the absolute primary mission and focus is first and foremost, the Gospel Message.  The Statement even says "Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society...".  This is not a rejection  of political or social activism.  This is a focus of priorities, of which, the Gospel is the absolute priority.  The early church was not encouraged to support and engage in the riots and revolts the Jews did in 66AD, 115AD, and 132AD; though, some may have participated. But that participation would have gone against, what Paul, God, revealed (Section 3 and 4).  Lastly, as addressed in Section 5 and 7, The Statement denies that laws or regulations posses any inherent power to change sinful hearts, thus, establishing and maintaining the primacy of the Gospel Message.  This section is in line with Biblical truth.

Section 9 interestingly brings up the issue of heresy.  A topic that the modern church shies away from but was greatly addressed in the early church.  The Statement accurately defines heresy as "a denial of or departure from a doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith".  The Gospel message is essential to the Christian faith.  The Statement as a whole seems to be addressing a modest slow departure from the primacy of The Gospel and a distortion of what The Gospel Message actually is.  They include within the scope of heresy, "the elevation of non-essentials to the status of essentials".  Which is also true, when considering "works-based" theology.  Paul states to the Galatians that "
but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-9).  The Statement then desires to limit the use of accusing someone or something as heresy by stating "
accusations of heresy should be accompanied with clear evidence of such destructive beliefs."  Which too is in line with biblical discipline prescribed by Jesus (Matthew 18:15-17).  The Statement they say that every failure is not an act of heresy to force conformity and thus, only charges of heresy that are accompanied by clear evidence that proves a denial and departure from essential elements, such as the Gospel message, are legitimate.  Why is this important?  This establishes the charge of heresy for anyone who attempts to add social justice to the Gospel Message.  This is important because we are told to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3), expose that which is destructive (Eph. 5:11), and have nothing to do with such people who "having a form of godliness, but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5).  And they deny its power in that they feel they need to add to the gospel message to make it, as they feel, more effective to the culture or ethnic groups (2 Timothy 3:5).  The Statement is bibically accurate.  

Section 10 gets into another hot button topic in this culture.  A topic that has already been addressed in the 1987 Denvers Statement and the 2017 Nashville Statement.  They are simply reinforcing the biblical truth of human sexuality and marriage.  This statement, in the denial, clarifies some more recent cultural claims.  In it they state "We deny that human sexuality is a socially constructed concept.  We also deny that one's sex can be fluid".   Within the image of God, there only two genders declared by the creator, male and female (Genesis 1:26-27).  This is before sin entered the world.  The Statement than openly rejects the humanistic culturally constructed category of "gay Christian".  This is not to say that Christians are superior but that the claim of being openly, willingly, and happily "gay" is an actual admission of sin, of which, those who are saved by Grace reject their sins.  Christians who experience and struggle with same-sex attraction, who openly and willingly admit that their attraction is sin and a struggle, are not in this category and no different from other Christians who struggle with other sins.  This statement then expresses that "sexual minorities" do not actual face injustice and discrimination before God; because their sexualized identity is contrary to what God has declared right and good.  Thus, their oppression is actually an worldly constructed oppression of their actual sinful oppression.  Paul does not advocate for acceptance of their sexuality, but the opposite (1 cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).  

Section 11 address the unique in role but equal in value gender  roles known as Complementarianism.  These unique and naturally different inherent qualities are good, proper, and beautiful to God.  These differences were declared before sin entered the world.  These roles ordained by God even reach into the roles within the church.  Where as, "qualified men alone are to lead as pastors/elders/bishops and preach to and teach the whole congregation." as declared in scripture (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).  In areas and cultures where men are not available, of course, woman must fill the role, but the role is designed, by God, for men.  When considering the American church, there are plenty of men to fill the role.  The Statement denials are important and are needed to be stated.  The value and worth of men and women are equal, even in the different roles.  The difference in roles does not disparage or inhibit men or women from flourishing in faith, because faith, is a gift from God and matured by the Holy Spirit, not the local pastor.  Men will be held accountable for the role, or lack of it, and women will be held accountable for their role or lack of it- equally.  Churches with women pastors, who endorse, support, and encourage what is contrary to the roles God has ordained will be held accountable by God as this is willful and blatant disobedience to God.  There can exist biblical feminist where as they strive and seek to support and empower women to fulfill their Godly ordained roles within marriage and in the church.  The affirmations and denials are in line with God's Word.

Section 12 dives right into the most predominate objection to this Statement; the statement on Race and Ethnicity.  The Statement starts by saying "Though people often can be distinguished by different ethnicities and nationalities, they are ontological equals before God in both creation and redemption".  That within each ethnic and nationality "All that is good, honest, just, and beautiful in various ethnic backgrounds and experiences can be celebrated as the fruit of God’s grace".  Each and every ethnic culture can and should celebrate its diversity and uniqueness, that which is good, honest, just, and beautiful; and glorify God for it.  But the Statement makes a controversial statement "“Race” is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority.".  This absolutely true.  Who decides at what point in the gene pool and or region to separate people into various racial groups?  It wasn't God, it was man.  Since we can all be traced back to a common ancestor (the bible declares it to be Adam and Eve), at what point to people become African American and a Caucasian?  Clearly, there is some degree of physical features such as skin pigment and historical locality but Adam and Eve contained all the genes of both, what race where they?  Are African Americans only labeled such because their "ancestors" came from African?  What about their ancestors, they didn't sprout from the ground in African?  Weren't their ancestors from a different region too?  If we hold to the biblical truth about where we all came from, we all are middle eastern are we not? So why are we not all labeled Middle Eastern Americans?  Because, not only does genes and location of ancestors are used to determine "race" but also cultural and national traits play a role in how societies and governments construct each "race".  Thus, "race" is a humanistic construct to differentiate between different people, which, actually, loosens the ties to a single Godly image-bearing unity and sets up relative definitions to separate people into various groups. But, even in the face of separation due to differences, these differences can be equally celebrated and valued when they are subject to God.  They are even tools used by God for his glory.  Paul highlights this in 1 Cor. 9:20.  African Americans can be used by God to more closely relate to and reach other African Americans better than another race who relates less and is less understanding of the cultural norms and customs.  

But sin always finds away because all people in all people groups are sinful.  The Statement denies that Christians should segregate themselves.  This is true, and Paul rebuked Peter for it (Galatians 2:11-12).  It denies that there are any legitimate reasons for divisions based on the worldly construct of race within the church.  Then the Statement makes a bold claim "We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression".  This hits right to the heart of the teaching and theory of White Privilege and Systemic Racial Oppression.  It is NOT a denial of history or occurrences.  Some people, individuals, may use their race to seek advantages or others to seek entitlements under the claim of victim-hood.  These are realities and are selfishly wrong.  Thus, encouraging this wrongful self-seeking mentality is what is being rejected.  Not all white people experience privilege and not all black people experience racial oppression.  This is true.  To impose this ideology on all people, whether they actually experience it or not is missing the reality of the need for The Gospel primarily.  Each and every person will be held accountable for God as an individual, including those who support imposing an ideology and people it does not apply to.  We admit that the wording of this section could be better but the essence of the issue can still be understood.

The last sentence is another big statement, "...we deny that a person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice".  Perception does not equal truth.  Some may feel oppressed when unable to receive resources and assistance, but, in actually, the resources may not be there and the assistance may not be readily available in the first place for various other unrelated reasons.  Thus, the feeling of oppression is not legitimate.  Some may feel oppressed when they face legal consequences for committing an just illegal act.  Others, may feel oppressed in that they are restricted from living out their lifestyles, that are contrary to God.  Again, these are not true unjust oppression.  True and legitimate oppression is when some is actually discriminated against based on their socially constructed race out of hatred or malice.  That is injustice.  But that is not based on feelings but based on the nature of hate and malice.  favoritism of one race over another is contrary to God (Romans 2:11).  And out of that favoritism, another race is hated and shown malice, and this is injustice and legitimate racial oppression.  This statement denies that feelings alone of oppression is proof of it.  The statement does NOT deny though that it can and does exist.  It is sin, and sin exists.  It takes some sifting through and deep understanding but at the core, this Statement is bibically sound.

Section 13 discusses more broadly about Cultural norms. Some aspects of a culture, that reflect divine revelation and the nature of God should be celebrated and promoted within the culture, but also exists various other cultural norms that are sinful and carnal.  It is these that we are called out from.  The Statement affirms that the cultural sinful norms should be repudiated and overcome through conversation and peacefully engaging the culture all the while training both mind in heart in biblical truth.  The Statement denies that some people and sub-culture groups are unable to be freed from their moral defects and spiritual deficiency that entrap them.  And that Christians need to actively engage the immoral culture with love, grace, and kindness of God in truth.  Essentially, the Statement affirms that everyone can be reached with the Gospel.  This is biblically accurate.

Section 14 is very similar to Section 12 in the area of Racism.  The Statement openly says that racism is sin and needs to be openly condemned and renounced by all who hold it.  That Statement does proclaim that in all cultures contain laws and systems that foster racism.  It includes "our own".  It validates the belief in systemic racism.  It then addresses the growing teaching that only the dominate race within that culture can be racist when it states "We deny that only those in positions of power are capable of racism, or that individuals of any particular ethnic groups are incapable of racism".  And more importantly it denies "that the contemporary evangelical movement has any deliberate agenda to elevate one ethnic group and subjugate another".  Thus, "white evangelicalism" does not contain a deliberate agenda of subtle racism.  It then also address the call for the church to make confronting systemic racism a top priority or equal to proclaiming the gospel and preaching scripture "that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture".  This statement is to keep the church focused on God's Word as the highest priority.  This does not negate the need to openly condemn and renounce racism.  This too is important and much needed, BUT is not to be placed at the same level of preaching God's Word and the Gospel.  

Final thought

When we review the Statement in its entirety we see that the function is to keep the hearts and minds of the church on the authority of scripture alone and the primacy of the Gospel Message in the face of constant social change.  When considering the context in which the New Testament was written, there was a greater degree of ethnic systemic oppression imposed by Rome, and imposed by the Jews on the new Christian sect.  You would then have to ask, why Jesus and the Apostles didn't call for open social activism against the ethnic systemic oppression specifically?  A lot of those who reject this Statement often claim it is though John MacArthur and the 9,000 other signers are trying, in their "whiteness" to hold on to their power and the power of "white evangelicalism".  But they ignore that a lot of minorities have too signed and agreed with this statement.  What is also ignored is this racial prejudice of "white evangelicalism" is a form of racial prejudice still plaguing the church, in those who use it to disagree with the Statement.  This focus on "white evangelicalism" and not how this Statement is actually in tune with Holy Scripture, reveals that some of the minds within the church are not focused on Scripture alone as the sole authority of truth in the world; but instead attempt to supplement Scripture with humanistic theoretical constructs in an attempt to impose a worldly solution for change.  The Statement does NOT claim systemic racial oppression does not exist.  In fact it states the opposite.  BUT HOW to address the real issue of systemic racial oppression is not found in political activism but faith in the true Gospel message.  The desire to supplement the true Gospel message with a social justice tone is actually a lack of faith in the power of the Gospel.  The Statement condemns racism and racial prejudice.  It rejects the systems that contain these sinful elements.  To claim that this Statement supports racism or systemic racial oppression is dishonest and false.  To claim that this Statement is an attempt to defend "white evangelicalism" is also dishonest and false.  We must also always keep in mind that these Statements are NOT canon, and are not God's Holy Word.  That even too, the statements for and against this Statement are made by sinners; which, also, supports the essence of this Statement's argument.  That Scripture alone is authority and the Gospel alone changes cultures, not opinions, intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theories. 

Key points to take away from The Statement:
  1. The Bible is the sole authority of morality and truth.
  2. The Bible does not need to be, and should not be supplemented with social constructed theories and solutions to reach a real true lasting peace.
  3. The Gospel alone is the most important message.
  4. The Gospel alone transforms hearts.
  5. A Gospel Message supplemented by social constructed theories is a different gospel.
  6. Transformed hearts and minds, by The Gospel alone, lead people to seek solutions for sin within the society. 
  7. Racism and segregation are sin.
  8. Systemic Racial Oppression exists, and is sin.
  9. All who agree with or support Systemic Racial Oppression collectively carry with them the guilt of historic racism.
  10. Not all white people agree with or support Systemic Racial Oppression.
  11. Christians can be, and should be, Social Justice activists. 
  12. Salvation and rightness with God does not come through the application of
    social constructed theories and solutions; but from the Gospel Message.
  13. The Church's primary mission is to preach God's Word in faith, truth, and love and proclaim the Gospel; which will have a real lasting impact on social change.
  14. Marriage is between a man and a woman; any thing else is a sexual perversion due to sin.
  15. There are only two genders; Male and Female.  Both unique and different roles, but are perfectly equal in worth and value.
  16. The claim of persecution and oppression of "sexual minorities" are not true forms of oppression but are in fact sin.

If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

No comments:

Post a Comment

What do you think?

Top Articles in the Last Month

Flag Counter