Archive for the ‘Doing Justice’ Category

Posted on August 27, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

Black Economic Empowerment and Individualism?

In thinking a little further about the whole Yebo Yethu thing a thought struck me – I know it doesn’t happen often, and when it does happen its not always that profound but just try stick with me on this one…

I’ve been doing a huge amount of thinking and research into the whole subject of community and even doing the odd talk on the subject recently. This has all been in the context of ecclesiology – my study of the church – which, for obvious reasons, is quite high on my priority list at the moment. An issue that I continually bump into is the rampant individualism of the modernist west and how it has saturated our lives, thought patterns and the structures in which we work, live and have our being. But thinking about the Yebo Yethu issue got me thinking about Black Economic Empowerement (BEE) in general in South Africa. I wonder, just wonder, if the reason that so many white people can’t stomach BEE is partly because they’re wrapped up in an individualist worldview.

So a white, individualist might look at something like Yebo Yethu and conclude that it is discriminatory in nature because it doesn’t allow HIM/HER, the individual, to invest in Vodacom shares. The collectivist (whatever colour he/she is) on the other hand looks at Yebo Yethu and sees that THEY, the collective group of non-whites who make up the majority of the country and who have often in the past had limited opportunity and know how in the area of investment, are being given a chance to invest and learn more about investment. A collectivist could then look at the whole situation and conclude that South Africa as a nation (white/black/coloured/indian etc) will benefit from this programme. Now obviously there would be a number of caveats I’d have to include – so for example if these programmes were attempting to build up the nation at the extreme exclusion of a minority group then I think it would also have a problem, but as I see it whites in this country still have plenty of investment opportunites – so I don’t think the exclusion can be described as extreme. And I do think that ultimately it is for the good of the collective.

So my my thought is: I wonder, just wonder, if western individualism is stopping us from building this country into the country it should be. Maybe I’m just a naiive optimist who hasn’t in any way, to date, incurred loss due to BEE or affirmative action – or maybe I’m right. What do you think?

Posted on May 19, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

Stetzer on the Kingdom of God

Ed Stetzer is amazing in how he blends, so effortlessly, his conservative theology with serious contextualization and missionary endeavour. Today he has some warnings for us who would reclaim the use of ‘kingdom’ langauge. Here’s a preview:

“It would be a tragedy if we failed to learn that the last group that used the Kingdom of God to talk of justice often forgot to talk of Jesus.“

Posted on May 16, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

A Gospel that Speaks to China and Burma

We could sort out every last person on this planet. We could show them that their self-declared autonomy from God has, and continues, to wreck this world on so many levels. But then we’d still have Burma and we’d still have China – we’d still have an earth revolting in the pains of childbirth. We need a Gospel that both puts an end to autonomy and liberates a broken world. We need God’s story of redemption. A story of creation redeemed. And that story must change how we live now. The creation is waiting for God’s work in us.

Posted on April 30, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

My Little Experiment – Part II

“It’s pointless shining the brass on a sinking ship”

That’s a sentiment that many evangelical Christians have applied to social justice, mercy ministry, racial reconciliation, transformation, upliftment, work and calling, environmental issues and a whole lot of other issues relating to this current world and its inhabitants. The ship is going down so don’t bother. The alternative? Well, just do evangelism, that’s all that really matters – in other words – get people into the life boats. Now based upon the many answers to the first post I must take issue with a philosophy of evangelism only. Surely Christians do not continue their existence in this world simply to evangelize the lost. I think we can see this if we draw an analogy from the previous post.

Many of you gave answers, some of which I might not necessarilly go with, but I’m not here to sort out your doctrine of personal godliness, rather I want to make an analogy. Consider the following answers that were posted:

“We are already righteous before the Lord if we are Christians because of the cross and if that is our status we should be living like God’s holy people, striving to live out our status.”

“God has brought you out of darkness into light: therefore live as children of the day.”

“We are to pursue godliness despite attaining it in this world because (1) it serves as a proof of the initial work God has begun in us; (2) God is in the business of redeeming us now, and while we await our final redemption/salvation, it has been inaugurated in a unique way on the cross and through the resurrection (and by the Spirit)”

“I am just trying to live out the reality of who I am, “in Christ”.”

“I am a child of God, therefore it is my desire to live as a true child, not so I can get a big reward, but purely because it is who I am through the work of Christ.”

“Because the grace of God teaches (instructs or trains) me (with the intent of forming proper habits of behaviour).’(Titus 2:11-12 with additional comments from Louw & Nida). Sometimes I put in very little effort at all, I’m simply being propelled by the good news concerning Jesus.”

There’s a common thread running through those comments. It is the idea of living in the light of future expectation – and its a certain expectation. Be holy because you are holy and you will be made holy. We’re very good at applying this to personal godliness and so, like me, you can probably count off hundreds of sermons that you’ve heard about personal praying, reading your bible and displaying the fruit of the Spirit. Be patient, be joyful, be kind etc. etc. The only time spirituality seems to become other person centered is when the sermon is on evangelism. I’m often left wondering if there isn’t anything more to the picture. Does being gospel-centered equate doing evangelism and personal godliness? Or is it more than that?

What if we were to explore our future expectation and discover that God has more in store than simply making us completely righteous in his sight and whisking us off to heaven? What if God’s plan rather was to institute an entire new creation that exists in complete submission to his lordship? What if this new creation was made certain by the cross? What if Colossians 1:20 really means what it says and that God is in the business of more than just redeeming individual souls? What if we’re leaving out large parts of the gospel?

Residence in the new creation is secured for those who trust in Christ (how that will eventually work out I have no idea), surely that must change how we deal with social justice, mercy ministry, racial reconcilliation, transformation, upliftment, work, enviromental issues and a whole lot of other issues relating to this current world and its inhabitants now. My guess is that as we do this there will be plenty, if not more, opportunities for evangelism and the public proclamation of the gospel which is the only thing by which men are saved as far I’m concerned. But we must do it if we are to live in light of our secured future expectation. We shine the brass in the current creation because we are secured residents of the coming new creation – and so shine we must.

What do you think? Is this a fair analogy?

Posted on April 19, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

Why Being a Follower of Jesus is not Enough

I’m fascinated by the amount of posts I read by people calling themselves followers of Jesus. As I scan through various blogs from all corners of the Christian tradition I’m increasingly finding people wanting to attribute such a title to themselves. It has a nice ring to it – ‘Follower of Jesus’ in fact I described myself the exact same way when I filled in the ‘religion’ category on my Facebook profile. Are you a Christian? No, I’m a follower of Jesus – it sounds awfully ecumenical, tolerant and free from so many tags and labels that so many of us as younger evangelicals wish to be rid of. Yet in many circles it seems to be taking on a life of its own – a life that may, in reality, be pointing away from the Jesus it claims allegiance too.

When I probe behind the phrase on so many blogs (yes I know I’m being mystical about which specific blogs and posts I’m referring to but I’d rather keep it that way because it has been a general impression of a number of blogs rather than one aimed at a specific post or blog) I discover something that is rather disturbing. It is disturbing by its omissions rather than by what it affirms. Usually these posts speak about Christ’s calls to uplift the poor, look after the marginalized, love one’s enemies, turn the other cheek etc. etc. And at this point I’m loving it and rejoicing in the supreme moral vision of our Lord Jesus that extends to so many of our current issues in this broken world. It’s affirmation and cheering on all the way from my point of view and one finishes such a post feeling convicted to go out into the world and tackle contemporary issues as a follower of Jesus. But step back and take a closer look – what’s missing? When I step back what I don’t often see is a cross, I don’t see nail pierced hands, I don’t see a thorn scraped brow. Ultimately I don’t see the glorious substitution of Christ in my place whereby I can truly call myself a follower of Jesus – because he has purchased me with his very own blood. Rather I see an ethical Jesus, a Jesus who knows right from wrong but has no way to deal with a problem that stretches so much deeper than right or wrong behaviour. I see a moral first century Rabbi inspiring people to be more moral – and it’s deeply disturbing.

A Jesus without a cross is a Jesus that will not transform or cause anyone to benefit from his amazing moral vision. My deepest fear is that people who pursue this type of Jesus will be found one day to not be a follower of Jesus at all – and that would be tragic.

Posted on March 11, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

Bock on the Difference Between McLaren and Me

“Is Jesus a social, economic, and political revolutionary? Is the mission of the church primarily to confront society’s structures so they can be transformed? Or is its primary goal to confront individuals within these structures and pursue change in individuals that impact the structures they serve?” – Darrell Bock commenting on Jesus’ sermon in Luke 4 (Baker’s Exegetical Commentary on Luke 1:1-9:50, p.400)

Ok so the heading is a little misleading, but after reading this quote I couldn’t but help think that it does a good job of summarizing the difference between Brian McLaren’s view of the church’s purpose and my own personal view. As far as I can see McLaren and I want the same thing – we’ve just got radically different suggestions on how to get there.

Posted on February 1, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

Looking for Justice?

Jeremy Carr points out what looks to be a valuable resource for Christians wanting to know how to apply the biblical call for justice in a practical manner. Maybe you’ve heard sermons or talks about ‘doing justice’ but not sure what that looks like in everyday life then perhaps this is a resource you should check out. As Jeremy says,

“Above all, may we be sure that we truly seek justice and do not stand to the side with our hands in our pockets as we ramble off multi-syllable theological words.  After all, “No statement, theological or otherwise, should be made that would not be credible in the presence of burning children” (Irving Greenberg, writer on the Holocaust, quoted in David P. Gushee, The Righteous Gentile of the Holocaust).”

For more on justice and fighting injustice check out the International Justice Mission.

Posted on January 22, 2008 - by Stephen Murray

Tim Chester on the Kingdom of God

As always Tim Chester is extremely helpful on something I’ve been trying to get my head around. In chapter 5 of ‘Good News to the Poor‘, Chester discusses the relationship between social involvement and the kingdom of God. One of the fundamental questions he tackles is whether or not the kingdom of God is to be identified with social advances within history. Chester argues that no, it shouldn’t be. And so he says:

“…if we are to be true to the bible, we must maintain that salvation does not exist in history beyond the church and that in the New Testament the kingdom of God comes only as Christ is acknowledged as king.” (p.74)

Much of social advancement today is being tagged as God at work growing his kingdom. Like Chester I’m not convinced this is the most helpful way to categorize it – nor do I think it is consistent with the New Testament. If the kingdom is to be manifest then Christ is to be installed as King – without the King there is no kingdom. I would argue, as Chester alludes to later, that social advancement in this world that takes place apart from Christ being acknowledged as King is rather a case of the common grace of God being manifest.

Now this thinking might run contrary to lot of thinking in ‘missional’ circles – even in evangelical missional circles (that’s why in one sense I’m glad Tim Chester, a recognized missional voice, said it first). However at the moment I remain unconvinced by the text of accepting a wider view of the kingdom that embraces social advancement that takes place apart from the acknowledgment of Christ as King. I would maybe suggest that the ethics and ideals of the kingdom of God can be spread into areas that may not necessarily have entered into the kingdom. This will happen as kingdom members – Christians – live out the kingdom within close proximity of those who are outside of the kingdom. I think this spread is unavoidable, in a theoretical sense, since all Christians are called to live by kingdom ideals and ethics.

Chester concludes the chapter with the following words:

“Some Christians see advances in social justice in history as the coming of God’s kingdom, but in the New Testament the kingdom comes through the gospel as people submit to God’s word. God’s kingdom will be supreme over all things when Christ returns, but in the meantime it comes secretly and graciously through God’s word. The social dimension of salvation is anticipated in history in the life of the Christian community.” (p.81)

Posted on December 13, 2007 - by Stephen Murray

An Atheist is Probably Right

Kevin Parry, the author of the blog, Memoirs of an Ex-Christian makes an interesting observation about the amount of Christians responding to Gareth Cliff’s recent statements. He says:

It’s amazing how many different denominations join forces and mobilise with such efficiency when something like this happens. Church groups join together to draw up petitions, preachers call on their congregations to boycott the media, churches march in protest, etc, etc. I often wonder how effective the Christian church would be if they put as much energy and zeal into fighting more pressing problems. I know some churches do good work in in improving society, but imagine if the same kind of mass mobilisation from different denominations was used to fight issues such as crime, unemployment or poverty. Imagine the difference it would make!

Posted on December 9, 2007 - by Stephen Murray

Brian is that REALLY fair?

Brian McLaren on Christianity in the west:

“We have been arguing about the origin of species while an unprecedented extinction of species occurs on our watch; we’ve been fighting endlessly (and unproductively) about unborn children while achieving precious little for the already-born children in Darfur or Congo or Malawi or downtown Cincinnati. These stale expressions of bad faith have left many of us gasping for the fresh air of good faith.”

Hmmm…I better tell all those wonderful missionaries and Christian aids workers in Congo, Malawi and Darfur, that I regularly meet, to give up because they’re wasting their time – no one notices. I suppose I should tell that lovely couple, those friends of mine, not to bother with their ministry to children at risk on the Cape Flats because they should be picketing against abortion. Maybe I should suggest to my girlfriend that she give up working for a homeless organisation because us Christians don’t do that sort of thing, we debate evolution! Am I being facetious? Yes Iam, but come on Brian is that comment REALLY fair? Or is that the comment of someone who came from the most conservative twig on the most conservative branch of the most conservative tree?