Christians should be people who are concerned with issues of justice in our world. From cover to cover, God exhorts his people to reflect his character and his perfect justice. There is plenty of confusion regarding whether issues of justice in our world are ‘gospel issues’ or if they are simply areas of disagreement. This requires that Christians explore more deeply modern concepts of justice than slogans or movements typically permit. What might it look like to explore the sub-terrain of these modern conversations regarding justice by conducting a linguistic thought experiment?
We live in an age of linguistic relativism. Words are malleable. Meaning has been disconnected from a correspondence theory of truth and instead replaced with relativism. While aspects of relativism can be useful for having a more well-rounded understanding of knowledge, it seems to have taken on a totalitarian manifestation in society at large. Relativism was propagated in the academy through post-modernism and has now become the general perspective of many people in our world. The most important thing is not whether the word means something objectively true but what you think it means. Think of these examples:
Anti-fascist – a group that by their name would seem to be engaged in work that is against any movement of fascism (defined as forcible suppression of opposition) and yet they themselves operate as fascists (by forcibly suppressing opposition).
People’s Republic of North Korea – a country that is a communist dictatorship where the dictator is thought to be a god and they have placed many of their own citizens in labor camps. Yet, the name republic would seem to insinuate something very different than what the name implies.
White Supremacy – what has traditionally been thought of as a belief or system of beliefs which postulates that those who are ethnically white are innately superior and qualitatively better and more valuable than other ethnicities. This term has now morphed into a definition that is equated with upholding whiteness through implicitly upholding white normativity by having expectations of people which are defined as white.
Social Justice – this term has debated historical beginnings in that some argue for its birth out of the church and others argue for its birth out of secularism. Regardless, the term is intended to connote the idea that there should be a form of justice which is applied socially. In that sense, Christians rightly stand against abortion and call out other injustices such as racial injustice. Today, however, it is a loaded term which has been absorbed and employed by Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory bringing along with it many other concepts which are materialistic in orientation and inherently anti-God. It has come to describe any disparity between groups as justice issues.
The question for Christian pastors, academics, leaders, and laity is thus: at what point is a linguistic construction too compromised to redeem? Or put differently, is there a point at which utilizing and attempting to redeem a linguistic concept is unwise?
For example, if one were to call oneself a Christian White Supremacist everyone would balk and be rightly abhorred at this concept. How could one say this? Well, according to some today, it can be redeemed in a similar way that Paul redeemed Greco-Roman worldview concepts for Christ in preaching the gospel. So too, it is argued that if we can twist the concept of White Supremacist to submit to Christ, then we can redeem it. No one I know of is actually making this argument. My point is that we all know there is a point at which a phrase becomes so corrupt that we reject its utilization by Christians.
Or consider the challenges in ministry to Muslims. There are obvious worldview differences between Christianity and Islam. In ministering to Muslims, there are unique opportunities to bridge the worldview divide in order to establish a common ground of influence for Christ. For example, using their own language such as calling Jesus Isa and showing how both religions value prayer and fasting are areas of commonality. However, it is argued by some that if we can twist the concepts of Islam to show how Christ is better, then we can redeem some or even many elements of Islam. In that understanding, a Christian could still participate in Islam but be a Christian (see insider Muslims).
“We agree that God’s justice is best and should have real impacts in society.”
What does this have to do with Social Justice? Whenever I speak to a Christian friend who touts Social Justice concepts such as anti-racist, woke, white supremacist, white privilege, etc. I actually find there is much on which we agree. In fact, I would say we agree biblically on most points. We may disagree on how justice should work itself out in society (ex. reparations) but in general we both agree with the biblical realities of sin and justice. We agree that God’s justice is best and should have real impacts in society. We both believe true life change and salvation starts with individuals and works of justice and mercy flow out of the gospel. Christians may have differences of opinion on what that looks like but we agree that justice should have societal impact. Many Christians may even call this social justice. The tension lies with what words we are attaching to biblical concepts and the principles of missiological engagement with the culture at large.
What is it we’re trying to accomplish by adopting the words of a well-established academic field in order to explain the Bible? Are we trying to reach people who believe in social justice as defined by Critical Theory? What do we anticipate their reaction to be when we take their language and twist it beyond recognition? Would we do the same with the theological beliefs of Muslims? Is there a point at which we are starting to conflate two ideologies? Are we trying to get Christians to use the language of Critical Theory? If so, why? Could we not just use the phrase Christian justice and avoid the tension all together? If we agree on what the Bible teaches, why the pressure and need to describe what the Bible teaches with ideologies that are avowedly unchristian? Are we even willing to admit that much of the Social Justice literature today has significant epistemological errors and theological contradictions with Christianity?
If I was a missionary in India, then I would want to reach people who were operating from a Hindu worldview. I would attempt to preach the gospel in a way that reached them in their language by adapting some of their worldview components and repurposing them into Christianity. That is understandable (and popularly called contextualization). Perhaps we need to do that with some Social Justice concepts in the United States. But, there comes a point in my ministry in India when I cannot just start replacing the words of Christianity with the words of Hinduism. If I was encouraging my church in India to dwell on the dharmic reality of life and consider how dharma teaches that there are universal laws regarding right behavior and social order and that Jesus came to be the fulfillment of dharma, then I would hope a elder of the church would steer me away from this language. I would imagine that those who are Hindu would be offended (not by the gospel) but by my conflation of two worldviews and that Christians in the congregation would be rightly concerned about what appears to be syncretism.
I am not saying that those who are utilizing concepts such as anti-racist, woke, white privilege, white supremacy, and social justice are syncretistic. I am wondering aloud if there is a point at which it becomes syncretistic and at what that point is?
Paul’s missionary strategies involved contextualizing the gospel. However, was Paul practicing relativism when he preached the gospel to Greeks? Was he simply trying to adopt their language and import his own meaning to their language? I would assume this would be missiologically anachronistic. I hesitate to read back into Paul our current missiological convictions.
My hope is that we would think more deeply about the terms and language we’re employing to represent: the good news that God saves sinners, the Christian worldview, and the authority of the Word of God. We Christians actually agree on much but when we start employing language from a worldview which is avowedly anti-God, is it any wonder that it naturally produces divisive conversations? In fact, the worldview itself is intended to divide, not include. It is a worldview of binaries. Is it not surprising that when we employ the language of that worldview it feels so divisive?
