For the Sake of Arguments

Reflections on how we talk about ethics, politics, and religion.
  For the Sake of Arguments
  • Blog
  • About

Sometimes the Gospel is Not the Answer

8/15/2016

16 Comments

 
Picture
I recently heard a Christian speaker talk about violence in Chicago. According to him, the answer to the problems plaguing the south and west sides of the city is simple: these communities  need to embrace the Gospel.
 
This is not an unusual way for Christians to think, of course, and it might seem to flow from some of the central tenets of the faith. Becoming Christian should make people better, right? If enough people  are transformed, that should make neighborhoods better, too. Plus, we look around our churches and see a bunch of (mostly) nice, smiling people who seem unlikely to commit murder. It is only reasonable, then, to think that if we could only bring enough of our neighbors into the Church and into faith, then a host of societal problems would be solved. While I understand the temptation to think this way, I'm increasingly convinced that this is not how Christians should think and talk about social problems.

I see three things wrong with this way of thinking:
My first concern
 has to do with why we apply it to certain problems and not others. It seems to me that we think policy and law enforcement are the answers to straightforward issues like traffic laws or infrastructure (well, except for this guy), but not complicated, difficult, or disheartening ones. I worry that evangelicals think evangelism is the answer to profound social problems like urban violence and poverty, either because these issues seem difficult or, because they don't understand the historical causes involved, the problems feel as inscrutable and unsolvable as natural disasters. It is almost a "God of the gaps" approach to politics: if we don’t see a historical cause or a simple political solution right away, then the solution must be God. This would mean we aren't committed to evangelism as a strategy of social change as a rule, but only when political solutions seem complicated and hard. 
​
The second problem I see with this way of thinking is that it can hide deep, unconscious prejudice. Let me explain: If we think we should share the Gospel with the poor as a solution to poverty, we imply that poor people are poor because they lack the Gospel, that they are not moral or Christian enough.* We reveal a judgment that poor people have caused their own poverty by a lack of moral character. This is, of course, the opposite of the biblical teaching on poverty (if you can find the passage where Jesus promises his followers that they won’t be poor if they accept the Gospel, please let me know). I don't think many in the “evangelism-is-the-answer" crowd mean to say poor people are poor because they are not Christian or moral enough (at least I hope not), but it is the direct implication of their position.

The third problem is that spiritual revival just does not work as strategy for social justice. I believe it fails for three reasons:
A) It is hard (impossible?) to produce a spiritual revival on demand, and thus this approach results only in hoping, praying, and inaction.  Evangelicals are already working for revival. How can they suddenly spark one in response to a particular problem? If rapid spread of Christianity is your only solution and there is nothing new for you to do to make it happen, what are you actually doing about the problem? 
B) Even if we were able to succeed in making enough individuals Christian, this would not automatically show them what justice looks like in their particular situation in any detail. Remember: sincere and pious Christians supported royal rule by divine right, slavery, and misogyny for centuries. Making someone Christian does not make her know or do justice automatically, at least with any specificity, nor provide her a detailed political theory. 
C) Even if A and B were dealt with, spiritually regenerated Christians with a detailed vision of justice would nevertheless still need robust laws and political institutions. Being Christian and being perfect are not the same thing. Christians still need government to maintain order and serve the common good. I, at least, know that I’m putting people in danger when I speed, but I also know the presence of police prevents me from speeding more than my conscience does. 
 
So, in conclusion, is the Gospel the answer to social problems? Well, it depends. The Gospel does reveal the truth of the final eradication of society’s ills and the incarnation of perfect love and justice in the world to come. And yes, the Gospel provides a self-sacrificing, enemy-loving standard to which we hold all provisional political visions of justice. However, the Gospel is not a sufficient strategy to solve complex and entrenched societal problems. Don’t get me wrong: the Gospel matters. It transforms Christians and brings the church into being as a witness to the Kingdom of God which is breaking into the world. It forbids Christians from consenting to hate, neglect, and indifference, and teaches us to value the vulnerable and the marginalized. But it does not eradicate the persistent everyday problems of living on Earth between the first and second coming of Christ, nor remove the difficult political tasks we share with our neighbors—Muslims, atheists, and everybody else. We share with these fellow citizens the responsibility to learn something of history, sociology, ethics, and politics and to figure out the best way to use political and social institutions to restrain evil and promote peace and human flourishing. Political efforts for justice are hard work, just like growing food, curing diseases, pursuing scientific advances, and all the other challenges of living the lives God has given us in our time on this planet.
 
The Gospel should energize us for this work, not shield us from the responsibility to pursue it. 



*if you think we solve poverty by sharing the Gospel with the rich, that is better and you avoid the current criticism, but not the third one, below.
16 Comments
Ryan Book
8/15/2016 10:06:03 pm

Dave...thank you. What you write is in me. But I need the help of people like you to organize it and crystalize it. I read your stuff and I just think, "Yes!...Yes!"
Thank you.

Reply
DB
8/18/2016 07:51:45 am

Thank you for the encouraging words. It means a lot.

Reply
Ben Sheppard
8/15/2016 10:34:54 pm

I think your first point is a big one. Sometimes it seems like there's a defensiveness underlying evangelical responses to social and personal issues, where secular solutions to problems are rejected and evenly actively undermined because they encroach on what people have come to believe "only the Gospel" can fix.

I'm thinking primarily of mental health -- evangelicals will say as a matter of course that God wants you to go to the doctor, but many people still think anything that goes on "between the ears" must be an exclusively spiritual problem. Even if they allow or encourage therapy or medication, they will often suggest something along the lines of "ultimate healing for mental illness only ever comes through Jesus." (Yet no evangelical would dare say, "Yeah, you should go to a dentist for that root canal, but your teeth will only be completely healed when you've made right with God.") The insistence of the necessity of spiritual growth to treat mental illness reaches an almost shrill degree in certain venues, which to me indicates that certain people are starting with an assumption about what the Gospel "must" entail, rather than an experiential description of how the good news of Jesus actually works in people's lives.

I think there's a lot more to that first point (especially the apparent conservative/liberal division between favoring individual choice or systemic processes), but writing a novel on your blog would take time away from the actual novel I'm writing. Looking forward to seeing more of your thoughts.

Reply
Gina Snyder
8/16/2016 06:43:45 am

I hate to make comments unless they are positive and flattering :-/, but to be honest, you somewhat lost me in the first paragraph with "we look around our churches and see a bunch of (mostly) nice, smiling people who seem unlikely to commit murder." It was a cheap shot--and judgmental about Christians being judgmental. I look around my church and see fallen people, sinful people, who need Jesus. They often don't smell or look nice. Christ followers aren't perfect and know they aren't. We all need the gospel because we are all sinners. We also need laws and justice systems for the same reason. We also need to work for justice, because we desire to be the Body of Christ to this world. Please remember in your posts to not judge all Christ followers by the comments of a few Christians. And, we are all being transformed . . . It's just so easy to jump on the "Christian bashing" bandwagon.

Reply
DB
8/16/2016 07:28:39 am

Gina,
Thank you so much for responding, but I'm not sure I follow your concerns. If what I wrote about there being nice, smiling people in churches came across as "Christian bashing" then there has been a pretty enormous misunderstanding, for which I'm sorry. I really, earnestly only meant that most people we see in church seem like nice, non-murderers. I really did not intend a swipe at hypocrisy or judgementalism or anything like that. I only meant to say most Christians I see are nice people, and I did not mean to damn them with faint praise. I did not use "nice" to mean insincere or two faced.

All this is to say I was really surprised by this comment and don't think I meant to say what it was you understood me to be saying.
David

Reply
DB
8/16/2016 07:36:00 am

The "(mostly)" part was meant to acknowledge that we all have people in our churches that aren't so nice and smiling. And that's ok!

Gina Snyder
8/16/2016 08:08:07 am

I'm sure I read into your post what wasn't intended--sorry. I've been noticing a lot of what I would call "Christian bashing" lately on blogs and posts, and it has me concerned and maybe oversensitive. I just know so many Christians in the trenches with the poor, the sick, and the defenseless. They are working for social justice. So, yes the world needs the gospel, the world needs Christians to follow Christ, and the world needs just laws. I'm done with my rant and will simmer down now :-)

DB
8/16/2016 08:39:41 am

I hear that. It is precisely that drive to get in the trenches that I meant to defend and recommend. What I meant to express in the post was the insufficiency of evangelism as a means of social intervention. The gospel is, of course, vital to Christian motivation to do the work God calls us to. Sharing the gospel is not the extent of that work, and is no replacement for responsible citizenship. This is what I meant with my closing sentence: "The Gospel should energize us for this work, not shield us from the responsibility to pursue it."

Gary Corcoran
8/18/2016 07:24:23 am

Dave,
This is my first time reading anything of yours. I greatly appreciate your perspective. The only question that kept arising in my head as I read was, does a helpful discussion on this topic not depend on a shared understanding of "the gospel"? For some, and I'm thinking of my own upbringing the gospel means soul saving without a great deal of concern for the body. For others, the gospel seems to be just the opposite. At the close of your article you gave what I took to be a definition of the gospel: "the Gospel provides a self-sacrificing, enemy-loving standard to which we hold all provisional political visions of justice...It transforms Christians and brings the church into being as a witness to the Kingdom of God which is breaking into the world. It forbids Christians from consenting to hate, neglect, and indifference, and teaches us to value the vulnerable and the marginalized." I wonder if those who say the gospel is the answer share your definition. Interestingly, if they did I might be more likely to say, yes, the gospel is the answer. The definition of the gospel that you sketch here is comprehensive enough to drive Christians into the political, the institutional, and the social spaces where positive change can happen.
I may be rephrasing what you intended here as I do see that you speak of the gospel as being the energizer for action. But what if a better understanding of the gospel includes social action? Am I entirely misconstruing you here?

Reply
Gary Corcoran
8/18/2016 07:34:37 am

I reread your article. Your final major paragraph answers my objection, I think. It may be clickbaitishness of your title that is ruffling my feathers. The gospel is the answer in the larger, cosmic sense and even as the source for Christian social action, but cannot offer the complex solutions to difficult social dilemmas that we desperately need. I agree with all of that. Still, I find myself worrying about relegating the gospel to "the by and by" or even to the position of "energizer." Thinking theologically about complex social problems would seem to require constant engagement and reflection on the gospel - for the Christian in any political space.

Reply
DB
8/18/2016 08:30:36 am

Gary,
Thanks a lot for taking the time to read the post so carefully and to respond so thoughtfully. I think you are right to point out that, if we were to have a real debate about whether "the gospel" is the answer to a given problem, we'd first have to be clear about what we mean by it. I was sloppy with what I meant by the term at different points in the post. I also have to admit that the title is not entirely un-clickbaitish. I would say that the claim that "sometimes the gospel is not the answer" should be completely uncontroversial to Christians (it should not be clickbait) and so I wanted to play on the defensiveness the statement causes. I wanted to get at why we think it is always the answer. As I mentioned to a friend on Facebook, it is not the answer to the question, "what's the capital of Kansas?" While that is sort of a smartass thing to say, what I mean is that there are all sorts of specific, technical questions that the gospel does not answer. The gospel is, obviously, not the answer to how to build an internal combustion, ride a bike, or eradicate polio. I'm preparing a follow-up post in which I try to make the point that many complicated social problems, like certain manifestations of poverty and violence, require significant technical political expertise that the Bible does not provide. So, while the gospel plays a wide variety of roles in the responses of Christians to the world around us, it is not always the answer to the technical challenges of social responsibility. I did not mean to minimize the role the good news plays for Christians as we think about and respond to our world, I just meant to say that the good news is not the answer to every question that effort raises.
David

Reply
Gary Corcoran
8/18/2016 02:32:09 pm

Dave,
Thanks for responding so quickly! "What's the capital of Kansas?" I was really hoping when I looked up Topeka that I would find it mean't "God's land" or something like that. Turns out it means "a good place to dig potatoes." So I suppose I have to concede that the gospel is not the answer in that case.

I found your comments to be incredibly clarifying and so also helpful. Agreement is not always the conclusion to discussion but with your response I am persuaded that we do actually agree. I'm always glad when I have the opportunity to say that.

Keep up the good work!
peace to you,
Gary

Kevin Yohpe
8/21/2016 02:27:24 pm

I’m glad I’m responding to this post after your exchange with Gary Corcoran and after your follow up in “On The Gospel and Good Government”. Both have addressed some points I wanted clarification on or wanted to respond to. I really think you have some great points and I generally appreciate your posts. (I’m a long time reader, first time respond-er.)

So, I think the question you are trying to answer is, “How do you end violence on the south and west sides of Chicago?” It’s a great question.

The first thing is that I did think this title is clickbait after I read the article. I joked with my wife that a better title would have been, “7 reasons why the Gospel is not the answer (number 4 will blow your mind!)”. :) But I want to address the ways you think this isn’t clickbait-ish.

I am not sure of your definition of the Gospel. At times you seem to be stating that the Gospel is “evangelism to individuals wrapped up in poverty and/or violence.” Other times you are describing it as something that changes the way we think, makes us more empathetic, or energizes us. At best it’s motivation. But your definition of Gospel in the posts is not action. The Gospel is not seeking wisdom or applying it. Or at least any action attributed as part of the Gospel is relegated to personal holiness. Gospel work could be passing out a tract maybe even doing something kind. But Gospel work is not being smart or being capable.

Growing up I had a sincere faith but the culture I was brought up in did see a very distinct line between sacred and secular. Faith was important but ceremonial. One could increase one’s holiness by going to an extra church service, reading scripture more, reciting more prayers – but when you did this you put your life on hold. And eventually you had to stop with the Christian stuff and get back to life. The Gospel was good but eventually I’m going to need to stop thinking about it and do my homework, clean my room, eat a sandwich. I also didn’t think the Gospel was related to learning about anything except for what is in the Bible.

The church that we both go to has been so helpful to help me to break down some of those false divides. Our whole lives, everything we do, is submitted to Christ. I eat my sandwich to the glory of God. And that doesn’t just mean I am moral about all things, but that I am wise about them too.

Your definition also seems to assume that gospel transformation applies only to individual hearts and not the rest of creation. Tim Keller makes the claim that ‘institutions matter’ which at first seems like a weird claim unless you’re thinking in terms of creation. To explain what he means he writes, “the church is called and empowered to engage in the repair, restoration, redemption, and re-ordering of systems, institutions, cultures, societies, and the very creation itself.”

The way you are talking about the Gospel takes me back to those old days and it’s like fingernails on a chalk board. You rightly point out that, by your definition of the Gospel, you could apply it to absolutely everything. Yes, the Gospel is good an all to redeem my soul and bring me in a right relationship with God, but when it’s cold out you need warm clothes. Yeah, I get that. But I think the argument to make is not that that we need to stop doing Gospel things and start doing things that matter. Instead I think you should argue to Christians that learning something of history, sociology, ethics, and politics and figuring out the best way to use political and social institutions to restrain evil and promote peace and human flourishing IS part of the Gospel. You have a good mind and a talent for writing so I think you could be effective to do this.

Otherwise you might want to start petitioning that your church change its vision statement to “To see the city of Chicago transformed by the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ and some things that will actual do some good on this earth.”

Reply
Kevin Yohpe
8/31/2016 08:25:50 pm

Okay, I’ve given you long enough to reply to my post. On to some other things I’ve been thinking about and need to respond to.

#2 is insightful and important for all to consider in our heart of hearts. That’s for pointing that out.

I think you’re points in #1 should open our eyes to what the Gospel really is, not to conclude the Gospel is insufficient. Sharing the Gospel is more than telling someone that Jesus died on the cross. Receiving the Gospel is more than changing the Holy book you read at night. Reference the whole book of James.

#3 part a is a straw man. Gospel transformation does not equate to ’revival’. The Gospel is effecting the Gospel in every generation. Of course whatever you think is the solution would need to be on a grandiose scale with an energy and vigor that is almost unthinkable. But that critique applies to ANY potential solution. Are there examples of massive social and political changes that have resulted in significant and sustained reductions in violence in a culture? Maybe there are, I’m not thinking of any at the moment. I can think of examples of revival.

It occurs to me that maybe this post is really about personal responsibility versus social responsibly. And since you are framing the Gospel as being only a factor on an individual and you would argue that society and history play a large role in the current violence in the city, you need to conclude that it is insufficient.

Also, this post seems to be a corrective, only arguing for social responsibility, whereas part 2 of this series is more balanced. I agree more with the tone of part 2 as it considers both sides of the argument.

And maybe my definition of the Gospel is not right either. Am I being too broad? Maybe I mean Gospel work, Gospel life, redemption, or walking in a manner worthy of calling to which you have been called. In any case I reject the division between Gospel and ‘life’ that you are implying. I don’t think you really think that division is there. But you need to realize that’s the position your essay has taken.

Reply
DB
9/1/2016 02:33:34 pm

Kevin, my previous reply was to your first post. To your second, I would say that I think we are getting my message confused. I never said that "the gospel" was one thing or another. The position I'm addressing is the one that says what is needed for the violence to end on the south side is for the people in that neighborhood to embrace the gospel, by which the speaker meant become Christian (as was clear from context). I said nothing about what the work of gospel transformation should mean as a goal for the rest of us. The claim I was responding to was that it was the personal moral responsibility of the people in the neighborhood to embrace Jesus and stop the killings. My reasons why that is a bad strategy apply to that position, not to someone who thinks "the gospel" has a really broad definition and thinks we should do all the things involved. If you think spreading the gospel means working to change policies and institutions, more power to you. I have not problem with that.

DB
9/1/2016 02:27:07 pm

Thanks for taking the time to read so carefully what I wrote. I've been traveling for a few days and have been looking forward to getting a chance to respond to you. You wrote the following: "I think you should argue to Christians that learning something of history, sociology, ethics, and politics and figuring out the best way to use political and social institutions to restrain evil and promote peace and human flourishing IS part of the Gospel." I think we agree about that. I also think I really meant it when I said that sometimes the gospel is not the answer.

I think the difference in the way we are phrasing this is in what we take it to mean that a given activity (learning sociology, eating a sandwich) is "part of" the gospel. I think you would agree that it would be odd if Christian missionaries who aim to spread the gospel thought this meant trying to get Buddhists to study sociology or eat sandwiches. It seems to me that what Christian missionaries are trying to do is to change the spiritual condition of Buddhists such that, when they do these activities (which they may already be doing), they do them for the glory of God as Christians. These folks should undertake this task in a holistic way, not just by talking, but they aren’t after the spread of sandwich eating. A Buddhist who does not eat sandwiches does not need to accept sandwich-eating as “part of” the gospel, it is not what the gospel is. If the problem is that people are hungry, and there are sandwiches, the solution is eating sandwiches, not the gospel. Now, a Christian should think of feeding the hungry as a central part of what they are to do, part of the ‘good news’ Jesus proclaimed to the poor (Luke 4:18). But, if someone didn’t know that they should eat sandwiches when they are hungry and they asked you what the best way to stop being hungry is, it would be odd to say embrace “the gospel”.

Good policies are necessary to fix the problems caused by bad policies. Christians should pursue them as a response to the good news of what Christ has done in us, but these policies are not that good news. The best strategy to end the problem of high rates of violence in certain areas is at the source of the difference between a violent neighborhood and a more peaceful one next door (that may be less Christian and more sinful, while more peaceful). The difference between them is a history and current reality of injustice. The answer to that particular, local difference is replacing very particular, technical political injustice with somewhat more just policies and institutions. Implementing “Somewhat more just policies” is not the gospel (thank God!), even if we Christians see pursuing it as part of living out the good news.

Let me be really clear: Christians working to end violence SHOULD see this as gospel work—a way we are to respond to Christ’s work in us, part of God’s redemptive work in the world—but the aim of bringing peace is still part of the sphere of life that we can share with Buddhists, atheists, and others. If we need better ways of understanding the problems and better policies, then Christians should pursue these things as part of living out the good news. But what we need are those things (good policies, etc.) and the problem will be fixed whether the person doing the necessary work has the gospel in mind or not. Just saying these communities, the victims of the injustice, need to embrace the gospel is really misguided, akin to blaming the victims for the results of oppression. That’s the mistake I have in mind. I’m not saying gospel work ends where politics begins. I’m saying the Christian mandate to love our neighbors has to include nitty-gritty political work, work that can be done by non-Christians, too. Policies are not “the gospel”, but it is what Christians should do because of what Christ has done for us.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    September 2020
    January 2019
    October 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016

    Categories

    All
    Blog Post
    David
    FTSOA Chat
    Russell

    RSS Feed

To stay up to date, follow us on Facebook and Twitter

  • Blog
  • About