Statement on Social justice

So a bunch of SBC men have got together to post a statement on Social Justice which manages to repudiate racism but entrenches complimentarianism and opposition to equal marriage in a series of 14 statements of affirmation and denial.

At one level it is vaguely useful in setting out some of the assumptions behind the disagreements, although I think there are many still unpicked, but at another it really isn't because it's another statement whereby they claim to be the only ones who are right.

I had assorted thoughts when reading it and would like to unpick them in more detail so I think tackling each in turn is the way to do this.

So affirmation/Denial 1:

Scripture
WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.

WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 2:18-25; PSALM 19:7-10; 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14-15; EPHESIANS 5:22-33; 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-4:5; HEBREWS 4:12; 13:4; 1 PETER 1:25; 2 PETER 1:19-21

Breathed out struck me first - probably because inspired is breathing in. The verse behind this (2 Tim 3:16) has God-breathed theopnustos, with no preposition if I recall correctly.

Second - I now react strongly to male pronouns for God - there's probably a separate blog post to be written about the illogic I've seen about male pronouns embracing the female when talking about humans (so I have to put up with generic he to include me) but then having to put up with male pronouns for God because that is "what he uses about himself in the Bible".

Third - we start not with the Trinity but with the Bible. Writing this I'm struck by the lack of the term "revelation". To me, the Bible is the record of God's revelation of Godself to humanity and our complete inability to grasp what that means and to mess up and turn away. Whilst I'm happy to proclaim after a reading from Scripture "This is the word of the Lord" (even if some passages make me wonder), to me the primary meaning of the Word of God is Jesus (John 1). So to me, the final sentence of the affirmation majorly problematic. Ethical and truth claims come back to what Jesus does, which is revealed in scripture, but he is beyond scripture.

Fourth - the denial sets up a false dichotomy between clear understanding based on scripture and post-modern ideologies. Grappling with scripture is complex - it was written in Hebrew and Greek, over a long period of time and has been transmitted and translated through an even longer period. One of my issues with talking about infallibility and/or inerrancy is that even if scripture (rather than God) is infallible or inerrant, it is always read by fallible errant humans and like those in ancient Israel we mess up in our reading of it. Recongising this is not downplaying scriptural authority, but is proper humility before the text. Using techniques and understandings from our culture can be part of how we understand the text better.

Fifthly, my feminism and intersectionality is based in my reading of scripture not contrary to it. Texts such as Galations 3:28 (In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female), stories such as that of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch and the question of circumcision (through Acts and in Galations) form my understand of God's inclusivity and recognition of the way in which we fallible humans have sinned in excluding people from God's plan and exploiting and oppressing them. The party of the circumcision had scripture on their side, but Paul and Peter counter it by pointing to what the Holy Spirit is doing in Gentile believers. Hearing the voices of those we have oppressed is important.

Next up: Imago Dei

Statement on Social justice - Part 2

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Now it's time for Article 2: Imago Dei

Imago Dei
WE AFFIRM that God created every person equally in his own image. As divine image-bearers, all people have inestimable value and dignity before God and deserve honor, respect and protection. Everyone has been created by God and for God.

WE DENY that God-given roles, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, sex or physical condition or any other property of a person either negates or contributes to that individual’s worth as an image-bearer of God.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 1:26-30; 2:18-22; 9:6; 2 CORINTHIANS 5:17; COLOSSIANS 1:21-22

Actually, other than a male pronoun for God and an American spelling of honour, this one is pretty uncontroversial. I'm intrigued as to why "God-given roles" is included & put first and note the choice of sex rather than gender and the absence of sexuality as specific properties. I also note the absence of Galatians 3:28 from the scriptures listed.

Next up: Justice

Statement on Social justice - Part 3

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Article 2: Imago Dei was the subject of part 2 Now for article 3

Justice
WE AFFIRM that since he is holy, righteous, and just, God requires those who bear his image to live justly in the world. This includes showing appropriate respect to every person and giving to each one what he or she is due. We affirm that societies must establish laws to correct injustices that have been imposed through cultural prejudice.

WE DENY that true justice can be culturally defined or that standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture. We further deny that Christians can live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standard of righteousness. Relativism, socially-constructed standards of truth or morality, and notions of virtue and vice that are constantly in flux cannot result in authentic justice.



SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 18:19; ISAIAH 61:8; MICAH 6:8; MATTHEW 5:17-19; ROMANS 3:31

This is the first article where I note the lack of reference to God's kingdom within this statement.

They acknowledge that injustices have arisen from cultural prejudices but do not tackle the question of the way in which those cultural prejudices were justified by use of scripture. I agree that true justice is not culturally defined, however I deny that we fallible humans can claim to have a full handle on what this is, and acknowledge that being creatures immersed in culture our understandings of justice are affected by that culture. They reference Micah 6:8, and for me acknowledging our fallibility in this is part of the third part of that quote, walking humbly with our God.

Next up: God's Law

Statement on Social justice - Part 4

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Article 2: Imago Dei was the subject of part 2 article 3 was on Justice. Now for article 4.

God’s Law
WE AFFIRM that God’s law, as summarized in the ten commandments, more succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, is the only standard of unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.

WE DENY that any obligation that does not arise from God’s commandments can be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living. We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.



SCRIPTURE: DEUTERONOMY 10:4; ROMANS 6:14, 10:5; GALATIANS 2:16, 3:10, 12; COLOSSIANS 2:14-17; HEBREWS 10:1

My first response to this one was a realisation that the 10 commandments really don't have a high place in my theology. Jesus' 2 commandment summary definitely wins for me.

I also note the use of righteousness/righteous rather than justice/just in this article. Learning Welsh made me sensitive to this distinction, in that Welsh doesn't have it - cyfiawnder/cyfiawn covers both and my understanding is that the same is true of the Greek. Having noticed this distinction, which is rooted in the Anglo-saxon/Norman French & Latin sides of the modern English language, I've come to see the ways in which emphasis on one side of this or other of this English distinction can be at the root of different emphases and understandings within the church. For me, justice is more important or maybe more resonant, than righteousness. Righteousness seems to me to be focussed on me being a good, upright person; justice on the other hand is more about everyone not just me.

As to the denial, there's nothing in the words with which I disagree. However, there is an underlying assumption which needs to be tackled. That is, that calls for social justice; talk of intersectionality; calls for repentance of homophobia are not about calling out things which are in violation of God's commandments.

This may be because I put Jesus' summary first over the 10 commandments, but I would say that the way the church has treated (and is treating) LGBTQIA+ people falls short of "loving our neighbour as ourselves". If you want to talk about the 10, I think there's quite a lot of false witness about LGBTQIA+ people out there in the discourse.

Next up: Sin

Statement on Social justice - Part 5

So in the first post in this series I tackled Scripture from the Statement on Social Justice. Article 2: Imago Dei was the subject of part 2 article 3 was on Justice. Article 4. God's Law. Now for Sin

Sin
WE AFFIRM that all people are connected to Adam both naturally and federally. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God’s law and all break his commandments through sin. There is no difference in the condition of sinners due to age, ethnicity, or sex. All are depraved in all their faculties and all stand condemned before God’s law. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.

WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.

SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 2:16, 17, 3:12,13-15; PROVERBS 29:18; ISAIAH 25:7, 60:2-3; JEREMIAH 31:27-34; EZEKIEL 18:1-9, 14-18; MATTHEW 23:29-36; ROMANS 1:16-17, 3:23, 5:12, 10:14-17; 1 CORINTHIANS 15:3-11; 2 CORINTHIANS 11:3; GALATIANS 1:6-9; TITUS 1:12, 13; REVELATION 13:8

I have no idea what they mean by all people being connected to Adam federally.

Note also the Calvinistic language here (depraved in all faculties)

Basically this one boils down to - you can't blame us for slavery!

They reference Jeremiah 31:29-30

In those days they shall no longer say:
‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge.

but they omit Jeremiah 32:18 "You show steadfast love to the thousandth generation, but repay the guilt of parents into the laps of their children after them, O great and mighty God whose name is the Lord of hosts". Whether the sins of the fathers will be visited on their children is an issue where different passages (even within the same book) have different emphases.

I think for me, it comes down to the fact we are only responsible for what we do, but the effects of what we do (or what others have done before us) can continue down the generations. So whilst white people today are not responsible for slavery, we need to recognise the ways in which that the injustices of slavery continue today. A friend on facebook shared a good definition of white privilege the other day - "White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard; it means that your skin colour isn't one of the things making it harder."

Colonialism and Slavery (which were both justified with reference to the Bible) have caused and continue to cause much suffering (which falls foul of loving one's neighbour as one's self if not of a specific one of the 10 commandments) and calling that out is Biblical. It's what the prophets did.

Next up, the gospel - well about 20% of it"