Author Archives: lewinkler

About lewinkler

I am a professor of theology and ethics at the East Asia School of Theology in Singapore.

What’s in a name? Some Thoughts on “Pronoun Hospitality”

What’s in a name?

Genesis 2 explains that Adam was to name the animals as one of the ways to fulfill God’s mandate to “have dominion” over the created order. When Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were brought to Babylon, one of the first things the king did to assert his authority over them was change their names to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, fundamentally altering his identity.

Names both impart and express identity, and the one who does the naming claims a special kind of authority over who or what is named. Names are also expressed in language and whether or not we realize it, our understanding of language impacts how we understand and relate to the world around us.

Unfortunately, we live in an age that is deeply confused and ambivalent about language, reality, authority, and self-identity. The prevailing attitude is that reality is primarily (if not solely) conventional and therefore socially constructed. In this view, language does not correspond to a reality external to the speaker, but instead creates and determines it.

Christians, in contrast, recognize that language, properly understood, refers to a concrete external reality that is created not by us but by God. As His creatures, we are part of that external reality which has a givenness that is presented to us as a gift. Refusing to accept and submit to this givenness is described in Romans 1:21 as a refusal to honor “God or give thanks to him.”

According to Genesis 1:27, one important creational gift God has given to us is our sexuality: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Thus, our sexual gender is not determined by us or the culture in which we live but is a concrete and immutable gift from God for a very important purpose, namely, to reflect and reveal His nature in the world together in a complementary way. Consequently, names and pronouns have traditionally been expressed in gendered language in recognition of this God-given and divinely-determined reality.

Recently, a debate about the use of gendered pronouns has arisen within the Christian community. Some argue we should be “hospitable” in our use of preferred pronouns and that 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 supports an accommodating stance by saying, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

The idea is, “to the trans I become trans” by using their preferred pronouns as an act of love and an affirmation of their humanness so that I can share the gospel and hopefully see them come to Christ. This idea is considered especially important since trans people (and the broader LGBT+ community in general) often claim that any refusal to use a person’s preferred pronouns is a denial of their humanity and dehumanizes them. Consequently, they will not continue the conversation or relationship, and any opportunity to share the gospel will be lost.

Proponents often share lots of stories about people who came to Christ who say that they would never have listened if the person sharing the gospel had refused to call them by their preferred pronouns when they were not believers.

It would be easy at this point to be somewhat pragmatic and say that since it results in people coming to Christ, we should accommodate and be hospitable towards the way they describe themselves, just as we generally allow people to define themselves in other (non-sexual) ways.

However, many Christians are deeply troubled and concerned by the accommodation to and use of such pronouns. For them, this is a matter of honesty and telling the truth to ourselves and others about who God created us to be. While we do have some God-given freedom to define some aspects of our identity, we are not free to do so in areas designed by and given to us by God, no matter what we think or how we feel about them. Thus, using pronouns that do not correspond to our God-given sex constitutes a loss of integrity and surrenders to the spirit of the age, all in an attempt avoid offending someone. In short, it is an attempt to please people rather than staying true to God and the gospel (Galatians 1:10).

In an August 14, 2023 Christianity Today article entitled, “Should I Offer My Pronouns?”, the debate is framed this way: “Which takes precedence: using language that reflects God’s immutable design, or using language that honors our neighbors’ wishes and invites them into deeper relationship?” In short, which is more important, showing deference to the expressed preferences of the person you are relating to or ensuring that your language conforms to what you consider to be true reality? The latter is often depicted as bordering on, if not explicitly, unloving, whereas the former is put forth as showing love and honor to the person in order to maintain the relationship and preserve opportunities to share the gospel.

Quotes like these may initially sound persuasive, but they are deceptive because they subtly suggest a false dichotomy between being truthful and being loving and honoring to others as persons. As Brad Bright once said, “truth without love is not God’s truth, and love without truth is not God’s love.” Truth-telling is an indispensable aspect of loving one another. Without it, trust, one of the primary foundations of love, simply cannot be built. This is why Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 13:6 that love “rejoices with the truth.”

When it comes to gender designation, language matters. And the fight over pronouns demonstrates this. If it wasn’t important how we refer to ourselves and one another using language, then the whole pronoun debate would be largely trivial. But referential language matters immensely because it concerns descriptions of God-determined realities and not mere social or conventional constructs.

One of the great rebellions of our age is the refusal to recognize the givenness of our nature and our insatiable demand to self-determine all aspects of our being, especially in the area of sexuality. Everyone is told that authority is ultimately vested in the self. To be “authentic,” I must decide who I am, and no one else can and should tell me who I am. But as I have written about elsewhere, this is a dehumanizing and destructive lie that must be vigorously denied and refuted.

Created realities like maleness and femaleness are considered by Christians to be endowments, built into the created order by divine design. Far from being discardable and infinitely malleable, they are meant to be gifts to be received and submitted to with gratitude. And they are intended to show God’s nature and image in the world. It should therefore come as no surprise that confusing our understanding of what it means to be male and female would be a major goal of the evil one. What better way to obscure God’s nature than to confuse male and female image bearers who together are meant to show what He is like through their gendered natures?

Now of course, we can be (and sadly often are) guilty of telling the truth harshly or without love. However, being committed to telling the truth is not inherently unkind or unloving as some would have us believe. Sometimes love requires “speaking the truth in love” to those who do not want to hear it. It is a severe mercy to be told that what you love will ultimately dehumanize and destroy you, but we should not back away from the truth just because we might offend someone.

Whether or not they understand this, agreeing to use someone’s preferred pronouns is essentially affirming that their sexual feelings are the best and truest determiner of who they truly are and are an essential aspect of their humanness. But this is not unlike arguing for God’s existence by admitting in advance that atheism is true. The foundational questions surrounding humanness and identity are precisely what’s at stake in the discussion. As George Packer puts it in the aforementioned CT article, “If you accept the change [in pronoun use]—as, in certain contexts, you’ll surely feel you must—then you also acquiesce in the argument.”

God’s kindness does not lead us to affirmation but to repentance. As such, we can be kind and empathetic but also crystal clear. And we need to be able to explain to others why we cannot speak to them from their own premises but are compelled to speak with and to them from what we believe to be the proper foundation of reality, namely that being created male or female is a divine gift and blessing, not merely a cultural or self-generated and self-determined perception.

Can we really trust the Bible?

Author and/or Title	Date It Was Written	Date of First Copy	Number of Copies	Total Time Gap in Between
Caesar’s Gaelic Wars	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	10	1000 Years
Sophocles’ Plays	496-406 B.C.	1000 A.D.	193	1400 Years
Homer’s Iliad	900 B.C	100 A.D.	643	1000 Years
New Testament	48-90 A.D.	92-130 A.D.	24,633	40 Years

Jesus Amidst the Rubble

1 Reply

It’s all over the internet, a picture of baby Jesus lying amidst the rubble of a bombed-out building. The idea is that if Jesus was born in Gaza today, He would not be safely lying in a manger on silent and holy night, but in a war zone with His life in desperate danger.

Doubtless, such an image helps shake us from the contemporary temptation to forget the radical nature of Christ’s coming to earth, not as a conquering messianic King like the Jews expected, but as the vulnerable suffering servant, born a defenseless baby in a tiny backwater town to a displaced peasant couple.

And when the angels appeared to announce His coming, they did not come to the rich, powerful, and well-connected. They didn’t even come to His parents. Instead, they appeared in the middle of nowhere to the lowliest of the low, a dirty, despised, and devalued class of people—shepherds—to make their declaration. And what was the message of this terrifying event? A Savior is born “who is Christ and Lord.” In short, He was the long-awaited Messiah (Christ in Greek), and He was Lord, the King above all Kings.

We know this in part because of Isaiah’s prophetic promise in chapter seven telling us that “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” and later in chapter nine that “the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.”

In this light, we would be deceived to think that Jesus’ birth was somehow safe, sensible, and apolitical. Herod understood all too well the nature of Christ’s coming, and his paranoid political madness cost the lives of countless boys below the age of two because Jesus was a clear and present danger to his godless earthly reign.

Herod’s attempt to eliminate Jesus as a political threat, however, betrays the perennial tendency in our own time to make Jesus primarily an earthly political figure in a world of God-defying injustice, as if Jesus came to save the world by becoming another (presumably better) earthly king. To be sure, He came as King, but a King who first and foremost came to serve, suffer, and sacrifice Himself to save us from the disordered debris of a world damaged and shattered by sin.

But it takes deep humility to recognize and admit our dire and dreadful state of disorder. Instead, we desperately try to rebuild and renovate the wreckage of our lives, devising many creative and clever ways to deny or sweep it aside, reform it into more acceptable shapes and sizes, or even to somehow make peace with it.

The profound irony is that this seemingly helpless baby Jesus amidst the rubble is our only hope for restoration and peace. He lovingly dwells in the midst of our battered and broken lives, miraculously molding us into something strong, significant, and beautiful. But He only does this when we finally relinquish our futile attempts to redeem ourselves and fully trust in Him alone to forgive, restore, rebuild, and transform us from the inside out.

James and Paul: Contradictory or Complementary?

1 Reply

The relationship between James and Paul has sometimes been a source of consternation and confusion. How can James 2:24 declare Christians are “justified by works and not by faith alone,” whereas Romans 3:28 says believers are “justified by faith apart from works?” Is this not a clear case of intra-canonical contradiction?

Some have sought resolution by suggesting that James doesn’t belong in the scriptural canon. For example, although he later changed his view, in his 1522 edition of Preface to the New Testament, Martin Luther called James an “epistle of straw,” wishing it had not been canonized by the early church. Others have asserted that the two really do conflict with one another since the Scriptural witness is a human product and contains multiple streams of irreconcilable thought.

If, however, a commitment to the divine authority and consistency of the biblical canon is maintained, can James and Paul be understood as complementary? The answer is at least two-fold. First, we must consider how each author uses the Greek word, dikaióo (translated “justified” in English) within its semantic range of meanings. Second, we should recognize how each one responds to the same basic problem of antinomianism. Once these two issues are clarified, it becomes clear that James and Paul complement rather than contradict each other.

First, Paul and James use “justified” in two related but distinct ways. Paul primarily (but not exclusively) uses the word in a forensic and legal sense to denote the notion of being juridically declared righteous before a holy God. To be “justified” in this sense is to be pronounced legally righteous apart from any evidential basis.

Paul clearly uses the term this way in Romans 3:20-22 when he states, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight, . . . and this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Paul is clear here that no one can be justified (seen as righteous) before God by doing good works (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9).

Why, then, does James 2:24 explicitly state “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”? James, it seems, is concerned with evidential and visible proof that one is truly righteous. In this sense, to “justify” is to visibly demonstrate to others that you really are a righteous person. In fact, this use of the word is not uncommon in other New Testament authors. Luke 10:29 and 16:15 demonstrate this “Jamesian” use of the word, and Paul himself appears to be using it this way in Romans 2:13. As James says in 2:18, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.”

James then proceeds to use Abraham as his exemplar for demonstrating his faith by doing what God asked him to do, namely sacrifice Isaac. But also notice that James 2:23 explains that Abraham was declared righteous before God way back in Genesis 15:6 but speaks (in James 2:22) of its completion and fulfillment in chapter 22 of Genesis. This highlights the evidential proof of that Abraham’s righteousness is both genuine and maturing, versus superficial and insincere. As James 2:19 points out, one may claim to believe in God but, like the demons, that assertion is insufficient proof that one’s faith is truly salvific. This is the critical difference between believing that God exists and genuinely believing and trusting in God.

In Romans 4, Paul also highlights Abraham’s justifying faith in Genesis 15:6, but his primary concern is about the declarative and forensic aspects of saving faith. Thus, he does not address the demonstration of that faith in subsequent life events until Romans 6. There, Paul directly deals with the next logical question: If a person is justified before God by faith alone, then why care or be concerned about living righteously? Why not continue doing wrong so God’s grace towards sin increases? Here Paul makes it clear that a failure to be transformed by the gospel is a failure to understand the radical change that has taken place in the believer’s life when they place their faith in Jesus.

A common short-hand way of summarizing this is to say that true believers are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone. As John Calvin put in Acts of the Council of Trent in response to Canon II of the sixth session of the Council, “It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.” Genuine faith will naturally and inevitably bear fruit in observable good works. Paul was saying as much in Romans 6 and James was making the same point in James 2.

Thus, while both authors refer to Abraham’s faith, they highlight different manifestations and aspects of that faith. Paul emphasizes the juridical aspect such that when Abraham trusts in God’s promise, God immediately declares him righteous (Genesis 15:6; cf. Romans 4). James, on the other hand, emphasizes the living and visible proof of that divinely imputed righteousness which was revealed in his subsequent willingness to sacrifice Isaac, the son of the promise (Genesis 22; cf. Galatians 4:23).

In conclusion, then, when properly read and understood in their contexts, James and Paul come together like two side of the same coin. Each one clarifies the significance of Christian faith, providing a complementary and more comprehensive understanding of what it truly means to believe in and subsequently be transformed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The implication for anyone claiming to know Christ is clear: Do I convincingly demonstrate in everyday life that Christ is my King? Am I becoming increasingly like Him over time or do my thoughts and actions merely reflect the ways and ideologies of the world around me? Thank God, we do not have to earn our way into His family and kingdom, but if we truly have believed, there should be a growing family resemblance and ever-increasing loyalty to and affection for Jesus Christ as Lord and King.

What’s on your bucket list—and why?

3 Replies

The idea of a “bucket list” was popularized by the 2007 film, “The Bucket List.” It’s a list of things to do and places to go before you die, i.e., “kick the bucket.” For example, I would love to visit Alaska, a state extolled for its transcendent natural beauty, but one I have only seen in pictures.

I should, however, clarify that I have very little to complain about concerning the life experiences enjoyed and amazing places seen. By God’s grace, I’ve experienced the magnificent majesty of the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Park, enjoyed the beaches of Southern California, Bali, and Phuket, trod the Great Wall of China, eaten armadillo in the jungles of Bolivia, visited the Bavarian and Austrian Alps, wandered the north woods of the upper Midwest, paddled in the crystal clear fault lakes of the Canadian boundary waters, seen the corals of the Great Barrier Reef, swam in the bracing cold of the Great Lakes, seen the Holy Land, the Coliseum in Rome, the Tower of London, the ancient ruins of the Seven Churches in the book of Revelation . . . . The list could go on, and yet, I’ve still never been to many breathtakingly beautiful places in Europe, Africa, Russia, New Zealand, or even outer space. Given my age and income level, it’s likely I won’t see most (if not all) of them before I die.

Even if I had the time and money, however, the sheer size and majesty of this world (not to mention the universe), would make it extremely hard to “see and do it all” in a single lifetime. Seeing the obsessive passion with which some people create and pursue the fulfillment of their bucket lists, I can’t help but wonder if certain assumptions lie beneath the fervor to see and experience as much of the world as possible before death.

Probably the primary motivation is that since “you only live once” (which is true), you can only enjoy what this world has to offer before you die (which is false). The materialist assumption that lies behind the drive to do everything possible before death suggests that once you die, you simply no longer exist. We should therefore “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Corinthians 15:32). But if we are made for eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and have trusted in Christ, we can confidently anticipate a gloriously indescribable future beyond this fleeting life that will be spent forever in a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21-22). Even the most breath-taking experiences we can muster in this passing life are mere faint and shifting shadows compared to the unimaginable magnificence of the life that is to come.

Please don’t misunderstand me. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to see the many splendors of this world that God has made. He has, after all, created it to reflect His own majestic beauty and bountiful wisdom. The heavens really do declare His glory (Psalm 19:1). Creation is a dim but very real reflection of the glory of our God and Maker, making it a many-splendored thing, worthy to be explored and experienced with awe and gratitude.

The drive to both make and complete a bucket list, however, can cause us to forget that as wonderful and beautiful as the things of creation are, they ultimately pale in comparison to what we will know and experience in eternity. Even if you never fulfill your wanderlust, even if you never have all the thrills and experiences that our existential age promotes as essential for fulfillment (you assuredly will not), it is a profound and concrete comfort to know that these longings are merely meant to remind us that we are ultimately made for another (and magnificently better) world.

As C. S. Lewis so beautifully put it in Mere Christianity, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably, earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”

Here is how John describes this magnificent world in Revelation 21: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, . . . And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’”

I’m putting this destination, accessible through faith in Christ alone, in the pole position of my bucket list. And thanks to Jesus, when I finally do kick the bucket, it’s a place I will never have to worry about missing out on. After all, He will be there in all His unmasked glory, and I will finally see Him face to face.

Misdirected and Inordinate: Some Thoughts on Disordered Desires

What is the purpose of sex?

Does the Bible condone or condemn slavery?

2 Replies

Given the widespread consensus in contemporary thought that slavery is wrong, why does the Bible seem strangely ambivalent concerning this institutional horror? In fact, one looks in vain in either the Old or New Testaments for an overt call for the abolition of slavery. Neither does the Bible prophetically thunder against its evils as an institution. In fact, as shocking as this sounds, slavery was widespread and generally accepted by almost everyone in ancient times as a basic and accepted aspect of society.

Having said that, however, the Bible does address the subject of slavery in certain ways that bear highlighting. First, compared to the practices and laws of other nations of that time and place, the Old Testament “softens” a lot of the stipulations surrounding its practice. Masters were not to be harsh toward slaves, provisions were made for their well-being (e.g., Deuteronomy 15-13-14), and they were offered freedom after only seven years of service. Exodus 21 gives examples of the appropriate ways in which the Israelites were to treat slaves.

Part of the reason for this “softening” of slavery was because the Israelites themselves had been slaves in Egypt. This harsh bondage was something for which the Egyptians were punished very harshly by God. Thus, the Israelites were to treat their own slaves kindly (e.g., Deuteronomy 24:17-18) and not be guilty of an offense in kind.

Although the Old Testament undercuts the harshness and length of slavery, it was still widespread and accepted in the ancient Near East. This acceptance of slavery as a normal social institution continued up until the time of the Roman Empire in the first century. In fact, by the time of the New Testament, it is estimated that as many as one-third of the Roman empire consisted of slaves!

Still, slavery at that time (as well as in the ancient Near East) was not directly parallel or comparable to slavery in the modern era. First, slavery was not necessarily based on race. It often resulted from foreign conquest or from being unable to pay a debt. Second, being able to move up and out of slavery was both possible and sometimes even common. Third, many “slaves” were actually quite educated and skilled workers, being paid decent wages which were enough for them to buy personal goods and save for the future.

Nevertheless, as a whole, slavery was still a brutal and exploitative institution, and while the Old and New Testaments do not crusade for its abolishment, there is no doubt that the New Testament especially sows the seeds for the condemnation and abolition of slavery after the time of Christ. See, for example, verses like 1 Corinthians 7:21-23, 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, and 1 Timothy 1:10. In this regard, the book of Philemon is especially significant. Here Paul tells Philemon to consider his escaped slave, Onesimus, a “beloved brother” and equal in Christ. All these passages and more clearly point toward human equality under the gospel of Christ and away from the degradation and oppression of institutional slavery.

Many feel (and I agree) that in the progress of revelation, this was the moral trajectory God was moving toward with its foundation in the fact that all human beings—male and female—are created in His image (Genesis 1:26-27) and therefore worthy of equal respect and opportunities for flourishing.

Ultimately, the Bible neither overtly condemns nor openly condones slavery. It does, however, strongly mitigate and change the nature of the institution such that its teachings eventually led to an almost universal renunciation and abolition of it in the modern era, something that would have been impossible apart from the biblical view of the equal value and dignity of every human being made in the image of God.

Should Christians publicly discourage and oppose homosexuality?

2 Replies

I recently heard a Christian remark, “I agree that the Bible teaches homosexuality is wrong, but why should we make non-Christians conform to our moral standards, especially when our own Christian life is largely unaffected?” While the statement reflects several contemporary ideological and ethical assumptions that give it an appearance of wisdom, it actually conceals several significant moral perils and falsehoods.

To begin, the statement assumes that a Christian view of morality is relevant only to Christians and has no bearing upon the rest of humanity. This is both true and false, depending upon the nature of the ethical behavior under consideration. For example, Christians are often called to higher ethical standards than non-believers with respect to things like love. Christians must not only love God and one another, we must also love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44). When forced to go one mile, we ought to go two (Matthew 5:41).

We should not compel non-Christians to live up to such demanding standards of moral excellence. They are specifically Christian responsibilities that God not only expects, but through His Holy Spirit also empowers and enables believers to fulfill. But when it comes to more general ethical standards, these are designed by God to benefit every human being, regardless of religious affiliation. This is true because all humans are made in God’s image.

This assumes and affirms, however, that there is a divine creation order, something directly challenged by contemporary ideologies that claim we are not subject to any transcendent design plan. Many today suggest that we can (really, we must) create our own meaning and define our own identity. But if we are created by God in His image, then we are designed according to His purposes and plans. Our identity and meaning are grounded in our unique status as creatures stamped with this divine image.

Attempting to step away from or outside of that transcendent creation order is a recipe for difficulty and adversity. As C. S. Lewis puts it, “Moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.” Thus, some actions are more destructive than others when it comes to human beings in general, not just for Christians in particular.

Throughout history, the nature and extent of these more universal prohibitions has been debated, but until very recently, most societies considered things like submitting to and honoring parents, preserving innocent and vulnerable life (especially human life), truth-telling, sharing with those in need, as well as sexual modesty and propriety to be good for the overall flourishing of everyone in society, religious or otherwise. The crucial question, then, is this: Is the condemnation and avoidance of homosexual behavior a uniquely Christian sexual standard, or is this standard good for humanity in general, regardless of religious beliefs and commitments?

First and foremost, it’s important to remember that human sexuality is inherent to God’s image since He created us, “in His own image . . . male and female,” (Genesis 1:27). In this light, Scripture also affirms that marriage is the union of one male and one female (Genesis 2:24, cf. Matthew 19:4-6). Furthermore, this God-determined creation order is universal, predating our fall into sin. Together, male and female sexuality is divinely designed to reflect and depict God’s nature in the world. By submitting to this gendered and sexual creation order, we actually reveal some of God’s character and nature to each other.

Consequently, homosexual behavior is not merely problematic for Christians in particular, it is destructive and harmful for the long-term well-being and flourishing of every divine image-bearer. It not only distorts a fuller reflection of God’s character as seen through both sexes, it downplays the God-designed unitive and complementary nature of the two sexes, diminishing the procreative sexual mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

Historically, this debate is neither new, nor has it been especially controversial. Even when homosexuality was tolerated, it was seldom considered normal or good for society as a whole. Thus, the West’s current obsession with and widespread promotion and celebration of an ever-growing list of unbridled sexual expressions is uniquely unprecedented and perilously untested.

Returning to the original statement, it further assumes that homosexual behavior is acceptable because it is largely a private activity, having little impact on society in general or the Christian in particular. Of course, most who actively support homosexuality and same-sex marriage don’t believe this. They adamantly argue that everyone should publicly accept and actively promote the fulfillment of homosexual desires as both normal and normative. For these pro-LGBT+ advocates, anyone who disagrees with and opposes their ethical viewpoint is a villain and immoral actor in this cultural conflict. They understand perfectly well that this issue is not a private moral affair. It impacts the basic ethical and societal notions of marriage, family, and human sexuality. Since the family and our understanding of human identity are foundational to society, any fundamental change in our conceptions of them will profoundly alter the society itself. By its nature, human sexuality is decidedly not just a “private affair.” It strikes at the very heart of what it means to be genuinely human.

In a related vein, the statement also ignores the role that legislation plays in the public vision of the common good and overall human flourishing. While making or keeping something illegal will not prevent the breaking of that law, it does, on some significant level, say something very important about the nature of the activity. It helps discourage its pursuit, giving it a decidedly negative moral connotation in the general society. This is precisely why the LGBT+ lobby has worked so hard to legalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage. They clearly understand that this helps not only makes them appear socially permissible but also morally and socially acceptable.

Yet another problem with the statement is that it subtly places human freedom, the power of the will, and the (especially sexual) desires of individuals above tradition, Scripture, and history—not to mention God Himself. There is a failure to comprehend the nature of human choices and how social cohesion and general human flourishing are often contained within a moral vision that sets carefully considered and long-established boundaries around certain arenas of human desires. In short, it has long been understood that not everything we want to do—even urgently and powerfully—is good for ourselves and society.

Of course, same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior are not the only relevant threats to societal flourishing, but they are symptomatic of a bevy of moral and ideological commitments that in the name of “moral progress” and “social justice” are tearing apart the social fabric of strong and healthy communities. God is certainly patient and gracious, but radically departing from the biblical norms of such foundationally formative social aspects like human sexuality, identity, marriage, and the family will inevitably be destructive, both communally and individually.

Just how destructive and how rapidly such harms will manifest themselves is hard to say but departing from the biblical vision of these foundations always, sooner or later, results in widespread social degradation and disintegration. Therefore, Christians must display greater courage and wisdom to graciously but actively discourage the legalization and public celebration of same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior, not because we are “unloving,” “hate gays,” or are “homophobic.” To the contrary, we oppose these precisely because we deeply care about the flourishing of everyone made in God’s image—same-sex attracted people included.

I admit not all Christians agree with this conclusion. Some believe we are better off being political and social separatists. Others claim that God’s love condones or even supports homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I have argued elsewhere against this latter view and for reasons stated here consider the former view unwise and unsustainable.

I am also keenly aware that in today’s moral climate, such claims may seem not only ridiculous, but deeply offensive and even dangerous. I have no illusions about the likelihood that this (until recently widely supported) prohibitory perspective will be reembraced by western society anytime soon. This is not because it’s wrong, but because the (fallacious) contemporary western conceptions of the family, human sexuality, and identity make it seem implausible, unpopular, and perhaps even cruel and psychologically harmful.

Nevertheless, we must not ignore the dangers or even promote the lie that flouting God’s creational purposes and plans will lead to greater human flourishing. It will only do the opposite. Satan made the same false and deceptive promise to Adam and Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:1-6), and He continues to make it to us today. As Proverbs 14:12 warns, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

God, in contrast, offers everyone a life of genuine flourishing through the arduous but infinitely rewarding path of humble submission and joyful obedience to Him, our loving and wise Creator and King. As Deuteronomy 30:19-20 puts it: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, so that you and your descendants may live, and that you may love the LORD your God, obey Him, and hold fast to Him. For He is your life.”

Jesus, Justice, and the Social Gospel

2 Replies

There’s a lot of talk these days about social justice. Caring about and correcting injustice has suddenly become fashionable and trendy in popular culture. Many in the Church have jumped on board the social justice bandwagon. Who, after all, is more concerned about societal justice than Jesus?

There’s nothing wrong with following a cultural trend that moves society in the right direction, of course. Who can seriously argue against the need to eradicate racism, abolish sex-trafficking, and advocate for fair wages and safe working conditions for the underprivileged? Still, I as argued in previous posts, Christians must avoid being misled by false or inadequate definitions of justice. They also need to discern what are the means and ways used to rectify such wrongs, unmasking and repudiating any use of ungodly and unhelpful methods masquerading as “social justice.”

But what about Jesus? Was He a “social justice warrior,” or has the contemporary movement simply used His name and made Him into a caricature of the biblical portrait? One of the primary passages cited to prove that Jesus was all about social justice is Luke 4:16-21. Used by Jesus to formally inaugurate His earthly ministry, the passage mentions proclaiming “good news to the poor,” providing “liberty for the captives,” “sight for the blind,” and freedom “for those who are oppressed.”

Another popular passage is Matthew 25:31-46, which comes at the end of His earthly ministry. Here Jesus lists the activities and criteria He will use to judge between the righteous and the wicked. He puts it this way to the righteous: “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”

On the face of it, this looks like a program of social justice at its finest, and it would hardly be appropriate to question the value and importance of Christians caring for people in the situations Jesus mentions. Christians certainly should be actively caring for the poor, needy, and disenfranchised! This is inherent to God’s kingdom work on earth and should not be relegated to some sort of second or third-class concern.

Having said that, however, when Jesus begins His earthly ministry of social care and service, one looks in vain for any significant political activism, commentary, or critique. This is not due to a dearth of potential material, of course. The moral atrocities, slave system, oppressive racism, and socially sectarian Roman policies of Jesus’ time are well-documented. In addition, Jesus’ followers fully expected and hoped for Jesus to be, as Messianic King, an expressly political figure (see, for example, Acts 1:6). Despite many clear opportunities, Jesus unveils no formal political activist program to rectify the systemic evils of His time and place. In fact, it is remarkable how utterly apolitical Jesus’ ministry of social justice actually is.

I highlight this to make a critically important point: Jesus did and does care about those who are oppressed, disadvantaged, and damaged by a sinful system and society. But the solutions He offers, while endowed with supernatural power, are not especially political or external in nature. Instead, they are mainly invitational, educational, and especially spiritual and moral. And while many are manifest in clearly material ways, those solutions point beyond the material toward our need to first and foremost be reconciled to God.

In contrast, many contemporary Christians advocating for social justice tend to couch it almost entirely in political and systemic terms. In their minds, social justice means the political reformation of societal systems and norms so that marginalized people can be empowered, heard, and taken seriously. The unjust social systems are assumed to be the primary (if not sole) reason these people are marginalized. What is often ignored or discounted is the individual problem of sin. In this sense, marginalization is real, but the reasons for it are not merely political and systemic, grounded primarily in the sins of others. There are intensely personal moral and spiritual problems here as well, and the means to providing genuine solutions must also account for our individual need to repent and be reconciled to God as well as to others.

I say this to demonstrate that when talking about Jesus’ brand of social justice and the gospel, the kinds of priorities and programs promoted by those passionate about social justice today often miss the primary problem of personal depravity. If you disagree, consider the book of Acts. Granted, in Acts 2:42-47, they “had all things in common.” The picture presented sounds very socialistic and just, but it was an entirely voluntary kind of sharing and not governmentally mandated or coerced. In addition, the rest of book says virtually nothing about these types of arrangements among Christians. It’s not that they had or didn’t have them. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. That’s beside the point. What’s important to notice is that they prioritized sharing the gospel, planting churches, and making disciples. They pursued virtually no formal program for rectifying the overtly racist and unjust social systems of their time.

Instead, they directly ministered to the spiritually poor and blind as well to those who were materially afflicted in various ways. As Matthew 15:14 and Revelation 3:17 make clear, the problems highlighted by Jesus in Luke 4 were not simply material, they were also deeply spiritual. They had material manifestations, of course, but every physical solution He provides points beyond itself to the spiritual significance of His miracles.

In this way, the need for physical healing ultimately points beyond itself to the need for spiritual help and healing. As Jesus points out in Mark 2:17, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Beyond a normal doctor, we need the Great Physician to spiritually heal us. Our need for physical sustenance points beyond itself to our spiritual need for heavenly bread. Thus, Jesus is our real physician as well as our “true bread” (John 6:32). While we need healing from physical blindness, our deeper need is for spiritual light and guidance. Thus, Jesus says, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).

In light of this, the ministry accounts of Jesus’ early followers show that they were largely disinterested in much of what many today consider “social justice.” Instead, they primarily focused on proclaiming the simple message of the gospel concerning our need to trust in the crucified and gloriously risen Christ for the forgiveness of sin and helping those who believed to grow together in their new-found faith. But again, this does not mean that Jesus and His followers were unconcerned about people’s physical problems and needs. After all, when there was a famine in Jerusalem, many churches took up a collection to help the poor and needy there (see 1 Corinthians 16:1-4), and Paul speaks about his eagerness to “remember the poor” in Galatians 2:10. Not only this, Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 25:31-46 that Christians are supposed to feed the hungry, give drinks to the thirsty, welcome strangers, cloth the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned.

We cannot and must not ignore our Christian obligations to care for people in need. There is no dichotomy between sharing the good news that Jesus Christ came and died to save sinners and meeting the social and physical needs of people made in God’s image. But the ministry of the early church reveals that their primary mission was concerned about helping people be reconciled to God. They met physical and social and educational and economic needs, but not through political action committees or any educational, economic, and social initiatives enforced by local, state, and federal governments.

Instead, while proclaiming this divine message of healing and hope, they also fed the hungry, gave drinks to the thirsty, healed the sick, visited the imprisoned, clothed the naked, parented orphans, educated the illiterate, prayed for their leaders, loved their enemies, and cared for one another. And they did all of this at great personal and communal cost, placing no demands or expectations upon the governments of their time to rectify these widespread and on-going social injustices. They understood that before Christ’s second coming, the “kingdom of God” was not, first and foremost, a political and material kingdom, but a spiritually powerful kingdom that in Jesus’ own words was “not of this world” (John 18:36). As a result of this kind of ministry, they radically change the course of history and “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).

I close with an acknowledgment and a warning. First, I acknowledge that in democratic societies, Christians still have genuine opportunities to influence and encourage good governance, and they should take full advantage of that. I also agree that political, educational, economic, and social institutions have an important place in helping to bring about a more just society for everyone, so long as they are willing to hear wise counsel and enact genuinely just policies.

My warning, however, is this: When something (like social justice) becomes vogue in the broader culture, the church should be wary of uncritically jumping on board the populist bandwagon. Given many of the openly hostile and anti-biblical assumptions of contemporary culture, it is no accident that some brands of “social justice” openly embrace things like abortion (touted as “women’s healthcare and reproductive rights”) and the LGBT+ lobby (touted as “justice for the marginalized and oppressed”). In this vein, you can no longer be anti-abortion, question the wisdom of sex-change operations, or consider sexual intimacy outside the context of heterosexual marriage immoral and still be “standing on the right side of history” or an advocate for genuine justice.

I am reminded of the dire reprimand in Isaiah 5:20-21: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!”

Only when Jesus returns as the conquering King will social injustice and sin be completely eradicated and everything rectified. It is to that eschatological political vision that Christians must continuously look while seeking to bring the healing and hope of Jesus into the midst of a crooked and perverse generation where we are to “shine like stars” in the face of so much moral injustice and spiritual darkness.