August 23, 2005
-
Church and Social Justice
June and I are thinking about the church decision, and I’m wondering about this:
Is it possible for a church to be strongly focused on both local Social
Justice issues (homelessness, crime, income disparity, affordable
housing and healthcare) as well as global issues (missions, world
poverty, starvation, sex trafficking, political and church persecution,
disaster relief)?Because I’m thinking that a church which is really focused on the
former, such as the Lion of Judah in Dorchester, can’t keep a strong
focus on the other. Not to say they won’t have programs in both,
but most people inside the congregration (and outside of it) will see
it as “an urban ministry church.” The converse holds true for a
suburban church like CBCGB, which has a wall full of supported
missionaries in Asia.Also, there are factors that weigh against it. In an urban
church, most of the people will have friends and relatives affected by
urban issues. And they may be less wealthy, and have less means
and inclination for world travel. The needs they see are the
local needs — these form their calling.Suburban churches tend to be more conservative, with more emphasis on
personal salvation and less on economic justice. Geographically
removed from the immediate poor, they turn their outward ministries
overseas, toward unreached (unevangelized) people groups.But maybe it’s like finding a spouse. You think that you can
never find the perfect combination of A and B (brains and beauty,
confidence and sensitivity, success and humility, etc…), but then you
meet the right one, and it all becomes a moot point.
Comments (18)
This is a great topic, my small grp has been talking about this sort of issue/tradeoff all summer because several of our groups studied “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger”. Someone brought up that maybe since our church has a primary focus towards overseas missions, we aren’t well equipped about handling social justice and therefore it’s a better use of our money to support churches (like CCFC) that are specialized at this versus trying to manage our own social programs. In a very tangential way, this is similar to the observation that people tend to donate to a lot of causes because it makes them feel like they’re doing more, but it’s far more efficient to donate the total sum to just one cause.
I used to believe that all churches should do everything equally well, but I now know better. One other example is in my college fellowship CBF versus Campus Crusade for Christ — we met once for joint fellowship and our struggles were the exact opposite: CBF wanted to do more outreach and felt too holy huddle-ish; CCC was great at outreach but had no intimacy.
From the standpoint of efficiency, then, one could propose that every church should specialize in what it’s best equipped/situated to do. But from a personal spiritual growth standpoint, there is strong argument that people should break comfort zones and try out ministries that they’re unfamiliar with. That can give a broader or more complete picture of God’s vision for the world versus just focusing on one particular facet. CBCGB for example is really kicking up the gears in terms of social concerns. Bug folks like iganpo for their thoughts since they’re at the forefront of it. For us young adults, even though our church is in the suburbs, most of us live in the city so we’re still surrounded by poverty, and missions work also makes us more aware of global social justice and economic inequality, so we’re not as practically removed from it as, say, folks who actually live in the suburbs and attend a suburban church.
In conclusion, I really have no idea where this balance lies, and how to weigh stuff like efficiency versus personal growth. But it’s a great thing to struggle through together.
ooh! also been thinking a lot about this tension, not only in terms of churches, but also within individual christians. this is where i think the church being the body of Christ comes in – each part has its own strengths and focus, but there’s confidence that it all contributes to the purpose of the whole. so if a church has one focus/strength, then it is important to maintain relationships with churches that focus on other things; neither should reject the mission of the other.
also, i think that overseas missions, especially to asia and by chinese churches, have too often been focused on the elites of the countries. some may argue for “top-down” change (influence the leaders, who will then influence the masses), but i think that’s often a cop-out from dealing with hard issues of global poverty. (much easier to go “teach english” to grad students at top universities than to live among the urban poor. that’s why i’m a huge fan of iv’s global urban trek.) and God calls us to seek the least of these, which often are urban and rural poor around the world.
perhaps it has to do with the size of the church. large churches can do everything, small churches need more focus.
or perhaps it has to do with like-minded people clumping together. for instance, people interested in mercy ministry go find an urban church rather than go to a suburban church and bus themselves in.
am i the only one who thinks the term ‘social justice’ is never used correctly? in ‘social justice’, have we just renamed ‘mercy ministry’? i classify everything diffferently. for instance, homeless shelters are mercy ministry, being pro-life is social justice. affordable housing is mercy ministry, striking down unfair housing laws is social justice. mercy ministry leans toward grace and unmitigated favor; social justice leans toward truth and how things ought to be. the term ‘social justice’ actually makes me upset – i feel like it puts down mercy ministry and confuses what justice actually is. am i nuts?
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT~!
Faith_love: Rhetorical, right?
i don’t think we can expect a church to cover all areas well. “focus” is, by definition, a point of concentration or directed attention. that said, focus on multiple points by an entire church is not possible without dividing up the church into distinct ministries, each with its own particular focus. anyhow, i’m just blabbering. fwiw, i like what f_l_i wrote.
I would say each church should focus on a few issues, where it can really change something because of its core compentence. But, in connection with other churches one church could particpate in projects for other, different issues.
great discussion- and great comments. FTL- that is a very helpful distinction.
I appreciate the comments of one well-known pastor, who’s suggested that a heart for the nations in global missions is not, in fact, at odds with a focus on local outreach and mercy ministry. He says so because he believes that, rightly grounded in the heart and mind of God revealed in Scripture, both spring from the same impulse. You can’t be zealous for the lost of the nations in a Spirit-led way without being at least warmed with a sense of compassion for the needy right around us, and vice versa.
This is not to say that one person (or church) will be equally involved in meeting every need; practically speaking, limited resources and time require individuals to focus their energies, and likewise the church. But surely if our motives are rooted deeply in God’s word, and not simply in the trends of our times (whether it’s being “born again,” or racial reconciliation, or even urban mercy ministries), then it’s far more likely that we’ll be more balanced in our emphases and activities in the long run.
On specialization vs. comfort zones: I wonder if that’s why I get bored with specific projects and ministries after a year or two — is it a sign that God is calling me out of my comfort zone into a new challenge for growth? Might it even be more efficient for me to land in a new ministry and bring renewed energy and a different perspective (cross-pollenizing)?
About top-down vs bottom-up: I think God can use and calls us to both. In Jesus’ own ministry, he preached both to the poor and to the temple elite. In general, he was more well-received by the former, who had nothing to lose by following a radical life of faith.
Justice vs. Mercy: I’ve never really warmed to the idea of distinguishing between the church definitions of grace (getting what you don’t deserve) and mercy (not getting what you do deserve). To me they are inseparable and go hand-in-hand. Example: you see a victim being assaulted by an aggressor. You chase off the aggressor and help the victim. I guess the chasing off is justice, while the helping is mercy? I don’t know if you can do one without the other, both in motivation and in action. Another example: you want to provide affordable housing by striking down unfair housing laws. Is there a term that covers both? Merciful Justice? Just Mercy? Reminds me of Ron Sider’s latest book, Just Generosity.
On church focus: Eric’s comment reminds me of the age when I was newly-converted, very spirit-driven, optimistic, and not wise to the ways of the world and myself.
I remember having both a strong heart for missions as well as a heart for the poor locally. But I also remember burning out. So I wonder what a sustainable balance looks like in the long run.
While Jesus was going about his ministry of teaching, he’d get interrupted along the way by people with various physical ailments. Without hesitation he’d stop whatever he was doing or heading to and heal the person. I guess you could say Jesus was just as passionate for local needs as global issues.
It may be harder for a suburban church to see some of the more pressing social issues that are more evident in urban areas, but that need not cause them to lose focus on local social issues. Grace Chapel, for example, is located in suburban Lexington, MA, and, recognizing the large number of immigrants struggling to integrate into our society, has developed a large ESL program and naturalization classes.
I think the distinction between social justice and mercy is that social justice seeks to make a structural change (on a societal level) whereas mercy, as it’s being used here, is remediation.
[irrelevant]
“Give a hobbit a fish, he eats fish for a day. Give a hobbit a ring, he eats fish for an age.”
[/irrelevant]
i need to make distinctions so that i can understand and process the world.
it doesn’t help me to be told to “love”, but it helps me to be told to “be patient”, “be kind”, “keep no record of wrongs”, “rejoice in the truth”, “protect”, “trust”, “hope” and “persevere”. if i wasn’t told what it looked like, i would have no idea what “love” was.
that’s what happens to me when ‘social justice’ gets thrown around; i have no idea what it is and it just confuses me. but talk about “justice” and talk about “mercy” and i understand. the cool thing about language is that it provides us with a tool to communicate distinctions.
does the Lord makes a distinction here? zech 7:9-10, matt 23:23
i guess there are two things.
i think it’s kinda sad that the term “social justice” excites people, where “mercy ministry” does not.
and i think the term “social justice” sort of shapes people’s thinking such that they think their issues are actually about ‘right and wrong’ rather than ‘OK and better’. i think it moves our hearts the wrong way.
FTI: I think it’s perhaps a symptom of our culture and our age if “social justice” excites us but “mercy” does not — the former affirms the sense of victimization and empowers us to right wrongs, which as 21st century Americans, it’s easy to rally around. Of course, it has biblical warrant too, because God clearly reveals himself in the OT as one who hates injustice — e.g., the rich exploiting the poor. So I think it’s not entirely appropriate to think in terms of right and wrong. Yet I think “mercy ministry” should, as you say, thrill us deeply as well — because we’re no less expressing the heart of our King when we show mercy than when we seek to correct injustices.
changed: I’ve been a Christian longer than you have, and seen more to get me cynical and jaded than you have as well, haven’t I? (Not that it’s a competition).
But I’m as much in the hunt for the right balance of outputs as you for the long haul. If burnout is an issue, though, isn’t the question perhaps also one of making sure our inputs are sufficient and real enough to support our output?
ew gag, that last line is sooo sappy, you really are in love
I think much of what motivates our social justice ministries is really a sense of mercy, of seeing people hurt by homelessness, persecution, etc… That’s why it’s so difficult for me to separate the two.
Does the “justice” side appeal too much to our modern-day senses of victimization and heroism? I dunno. It sounds like you’re saying we ought to love the oppressed at least as much as hating the oppressors. I’d agree with that.
Yeah, I’m in the search for the right inputs as much as the right outputs.
it depends on the church. all are good and necessary. and there may be diff seasons of emphasis.
there’s one i know in cambridge that primarily focuses on growth/evangelizing (reaching the unchurched in the cambridge area)
*while* doing ministry to homeless/less-privileged and thinking about missions.
missions, social justice, mercy ministries are all available ministries but don’t consume the whole agenda of the church.
the drive of the sermons is mostly presenting practical, applicable truths of who God is so that the congregation knows that He is alive in everything and can invite Him in.
yes, output is only possible w/ receiving the love of God well.
Let us know the name of this super church — a light on a hill cannot be hidden!