MacArthur on Social Justice - Part Three

Continuing his two part article in a series on social justice, John MacArthur begins to attempt a comparison between the controversies he listed in part one and what he perceives to be a threat from evangelical social justice proponents today.

MacArthur states that “Evangelicals as a group have shown an unsettling willingness to compromise or unnecessarily obfuscate all kinds of issues where Scripture has spoken plainly and without ambiguity.” A couple of thoughts come to mind from this one statement’s form and content that are important to note.

First of all, MacArthur speaks in collective terms of “Evangelicals”, identifying problems that he finds characteristic of evangelical culture. However, when Thabiti Anyabwile wrote earlier this year in collective terms of the white culture that created the prejudiced context in which Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, MacArthur’s colleague Phil Johnson launched into an attack on Anyabwile essentially for allegedly claiming all whites then were guilty of the assassination of MLK and all whites now need to repent for the sins of all white people (a butchery of Anyabwile’s words, that shows zero exegetical care or interpretive charity). James White would go on to do likewise. On the outskirts of that debate, I sparred with someone on Twitter about collective confession and repentance, and was under the strong impression that only individuals sin and only individuals can confess and repent of their individual sin. My words in favour of a more balanced view that allows for both collective and individual, current and multigenerational confession and repentance were misrepresented, but I can live with that. I privately requested the London-based brother call me. He did, we had a good discussion, and both went away with a better understanding of the other. I wish these men had done that with Anyabwile, but I am beginning to doubt whether they are interested in pursuing understanding or are just scrapping for a fight. In any case, the double standard here is apparent. Our black brother cannot speak in collective terms of racist white America, but our white brother can speak in collective terms of “evangelicals as a group” prone to compromise and confusion.

That said, is there any problem that I and other proponents of racial reconciliation would have with the statement? I don’t think so - the problem is how the statement is applied. “Evangelicals as a group” have indeed “shown an unsettling willingness to compromise or unnecessarily obfuscate all kinds of issues where Scripture has spoken plainly and without ambiguity.” This is precisely what people are saying on the issue of race and racial reconciliation, to which the term “social justice” has most often been applied, and to any number of other efforts wherein the Bible would have us act for the poor, needy, oppressed, abused, bereaved, orphaned and so forth. The historic complicity and ongoing compromise of evangelicals on race issues and obfuscation of plain Scriptural teaching to, depending on the person,

-        defend slavery

-        defend or make excuses for segregation,

-        defend the Confederacy and it’s trappings,

-        promote a neo- or paleo-Confederate ideology,

-        defame and denigrate those who marched, sat in, and protested in various ways to achieve basic human rights for American black folk

-        forbid or discourage marriage between people of different colours or ethnicities

-        and so on and so forth

should be called out for what it is, and churches that run downstream from the worst of these Scriptural abuses should work to systemically, corporately, and individually confess and correct the damage done.

Whether the fruit of fatalistic dispensationalism, Dispensational antinomianism, or a Gnostic-flavoured body/soul dualism, the gist of what MacArthur and his devotees seem to be saying is “Just preach the gospel” - and a somewhat reductionist gospel at that, which impacts the head and possibly the heart, but apparently not the hands, thus it does not encourage meaningfully engaging, interacting with, or practically addressing the issues of the holistic person and surrounding culture as we love God and neighbour. It smacks of the wealthy in James’ epistle, sending the poor home with nought but a sermon and some songs for a meal and a spiritual “Be warmed and filled” blessing, while they know the house is cold and the cupboards bare.

As the Holy Spirit works in his people through the preaching of the word, he reveals to them areas where repentance is needed. Since a great deal of the present dialogue revolves around people within the Southern Baptist Convention, I will use them as a case study. They once were rejecting the authority of Scripture. No more. They once were known to be very liberal on the matter of abortion, and were headed down a similar road on gender roles and marriage. No more. In a hostile cultural climate, they now believe in the authority of inerrant Scripture, are advocates for the unborn, and uphold marriage as between one man and one woman with different God-given complimentary roles. A couple of decades into firmer positions on these things, men like Russell Moore in Adopted for Life led them to rediscover and promote adoption, a portrayal of the gospel and a positive counteraction to abortion. Men like David Platt in Radical and Radical Together led them away from the false gospel of the American Dream, to rediscover the plight of the poor and the oppressed and to proactively love and care for them. Other issues have received sustained attention: things like human trafficking and the plight of persecuted Christians around the world. I have not heard MacArthur and co say anything against Christians speaking out on these social justice issues. On the contrary. The pattern looks something like this:

“Abortion is a problem”. Silence or agreement.

“Sexual immorality/deviancy/gay marriage is a problem.” Silence or agreement.

“Ignoring orphans and the poor whilst living in comfort is a problem.” Silence or agreement.

But when a coalition of conservative evangelical white and black brothers start saying “racial animosity is still a problem in our churches and land? Loud disagreement, because apparently people who have a history of being comfortable dividing over truth find such a repentant and reconciliatory message too...divisive.

MacArthur’s article drifts somewhat into a range of other topics. Without going into detail, specifying the organisation’s in view, or naming names, he touches on areas of compromise on biblical complementarity, sexual morality, LGBT issues paraded under the banner of “social justice” (a deeply unfortunate coopting of the term for unbiblical purposes). He then hits out at an even more random assortment of issues: rock concert format and entertainment centred church gatherings, pathological addiction to the praise of the world, deviations from sound gospel doctrine, “the embrace of psychotherapy, the ecumenical drift away from Protestant principles, and - yes - the recent rhetoric about social justice.” The inclusion of social justice, properly understood, at the conclusion of such a list is bizarre. The list is however quite effective at poisoning people’s minds against social justice, especially those who don’t wish to study deeply or understand truly, as without yet defining what social justice is or giving examples of the “recent rhetoric” in view, it renders it guilty by association.

When MacArthur does define “social justice”, it is he - not the brothers and sisters he critiques - who embraces “the world’s usage of that term” as the definition we should work with. He operates then from the false premise that when Christians are calling for biblical social justice, they are doing so from the same starting point and with the same philosophies, presuppositions, and goals as the rest of the world. There really is no need to complicate things with claims of “identity politics, critical race theory, the redistribution of wealth, and other radical or socialist policies. “ Unfortunately though, it has long been customary to shut down the voices of racial reconciliation advocates with warnings of leftist ideology. It is a sad but ordinary day when brothers read “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a never failing stream” and talk about what that would look like with regard to the race issue in America only to get pilloried by those who should agree with them most. Someone once accused me of buying into Critical Race Theory when commenting on the subject - I was just calling things as I saw them and had no idea what they were talking about so Googled the term. Another wrote on a feedback form for a conference seminar I did that I was drifting into identity politics - again, I had no idea what they were talking about, I was simply discussing various things that do make people different but should not divide us if we are in Christ. I for one do not find the political ideas MacArthur notes particularly sophisticated, nor do I or racial reconciliation advocates from conservative evangelical circles draw refreshment, hope, and direction from these wells. This is not, whatever superficial similarities detractors may allege and whatever common grace elements of truth may reside therein, the historic or present social justice of Christianity or of Christ-followers seeking justice.

MacArthur claims “Evangelicals who are chasing the culture are latecomers to the party of those who advocate “social justice.”” By calling for real justice, we are not chasing culture but Christ. The starting place of identity politics, Critical Race Theory, and such systems is often postmodernism and moral relativism, the aim is often revenge, and the result, bitterness. Our starting place is Scripture and a divinely declared absolute morality flowing therefrom, the aim is deep, meaningful reconciliation rooted in the soil of confession and true repentance at the foot of Christ’s cross - the result is blessing. We are not latecomers to any party - we are lazy and have allowed the world to come to our party and steal our good stuff. Allowing the world to steal and define our terms is unacceptable and we should not allow it. Rather, we should reclaim and define our terms. 

MacArthur treads on dangerous ground when he begins not only to speculate but to state the motives of those he means to critique. “The dominant motives are pragmatic”, he uncharitably writes. If by “pragmatic” he means we desire to, like the earliest church in Acts 2, impactfully serve others and have “favour with all the people” or like the qualified elder of 1 Timothy 3:7 we hope to be “well thought of by outsiders”, then fair enough. But really he means in the carnal, fleshly way of consumerism: “If it works, I’ll say or do it”. Honestly, I don’t see anything pragmatic about preaching against racism or standing for racial reconciliation in the white majority churches of the American South. At this year’s MLK50 conference, Matt Chandler even had to warn pastors that they would likely have a bumpy ride possibly ending in termination if they went home and took a stand on these issues. Is the motive pragmatism? Or might it be that people are hurting, churches are divided, neighbours are unloved, and that in violation of Jude 23, churches handle and even wear a racial sin-stained garment?

May the Lord have mercy, give grace, and guide us through these troubled waters.