The Gospel, Social Justice, and T4G

On Friday, Oklahoma City Thunder announcer Brian Davis was suspended for saying on air that Russell Westbrook was playing “out of his cotton-pickin’ mind.” He said it in an effort to be complimentary to Westbrook for a stretch of inexplicably amazing play. No one is accusing him of being intentionally racist or derogatory. His response was as follows:

“It is with great remorse and humility that I accept this suspension for the insensitive words I used during Wednesday’s broadcast,” Davis told ESPN on Friday afternoon. “While unintentional, I understand and acknowledge the gravity of the situation. I offer my sincere apology and realize that, while I committed a lapse in judgment, such mistakes come with consequences. This is an appropriate consequence for my actions.” (USA Today)

The short suspension (one game) seems appropriate. It acknowledges the error of the statement while demonstrating sensitivity to the fact that it was spoken in innocence and ignorance.

I was a bit humbled by this whole event. I am ashamed to say that I have on occasion used this expression not even considering its racial roots. I grew up around cotton fields, but the cultural differences between Arizona and Alabama are vast. Of course, I won’t be using the expression any more. I am no longer ignorant of its historic meaning and the potential offense is not worth it. After all, I am a Christian and ambassador of Jesus Christ. My words should reflect His grace and love.

At the same time, this year’s T4G Conference erupted into a controversy about the issue of race. David Platt (at the request of others I understand) presented a message from Amos 5 (the text that MLK often quoted), raising the issue of social injustice to gospel level (Let Justice Roll Down).  Some controversy has erupted over it.

This message should not really be considered a surprise in the T4G movement. T4G’s affirmations and denials of 2006 had already raised this issue of prejudice to gospel level.

We deny that any Church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel. (2006 Affirmations and Denials)

I get what they are saying. But when you, at the same time, imply that every white person in America is inherently racist, then you are saying that every church in America is betraying the gospel.

I think I know what they meant. They were distancing themselves from the segregated churches that so much characterized the south (and other portions of the country) for more than 100 years. There is no racial divide in Christ. The glorious gospel of Jesus Christ is open to all that will call on Him and to divide believers based upon race is to deny the unity of the Church in Jesus Christ. It is plainly sin to do so. Make no mistake, fundamentalist Baptist Christianity has committed this sin in its recent past, and I believe for the most part has repented of it and abandoned it. If you or your church has not, you must.

Ethnically, churches should look like the communities they serve. All colors, languages, and economic groups should be pursued for the Kingdom and welcomed into the body. That amalgamation of people within the body will present misunderstanding and conflict. But in 1 Corinthians 13 we have been given the tools to resolve these issues and help one another grow in Jesus Christ.

But there is a bigger issue here. And that is the question of church’s responsibility to engage in and resolve the social injustices of the culture at large. It is here where it is easy to go off the rails. Israel was not a church, it was a nation and God was holding Israel as a nation responsible for the injustices it allowed in its own land. While American believers are part of a nation, they are not the nation itself. We have been trying to solve the injustices in this nation for years, whether it was the slavery issue 150 years ago or the killing of the unborn today. Even the Temperance Movement was a primarily Christian effort to resolve issues of social injustice (abuse) happening within homes as a result of alcohol addiction. What we have found is that we will never resolve the issues of the culture until the hearts of people are transformed by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul.  Or what will he give in exchange for his soul (Mark 8:36-37).

If your system of Bible interpretation sees no substantive difference between the Church and Israel, then it will be difficult to determine how these Old Testament passages like Amos 5 should be applied by the church in the present culture.

This issue divided the fundamentalists and the modernists of the early 20^th Century. After denying the scripture, the fundamentals of the faith, and eventually the gospel itself, the early modernists justified their existence by substituting the “social gospel” for the real one. Their agenda included charity work, but also social justice issues. Fundamentalists rightly recognized this as a diversion. There is no such thing as a social gospel. There is one gospel—the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and His call upon all people repent of their sin and place their complete dependence upon Him for their eternal salvation. The gospel has social implications, and as people submit to it, it will produce social transformation. But make no mistake, social justice is a result of the gospel, it is not the gospel itself.

True believers must stand for and engage in what is right in the culture. But if we raise social justice issues to gospel level, and commit our mission efforts to them instead of the gospel, we will, in fact, by our actions abandon the true gospel and all hope of real social change.