This is part two of my look at Brephos’ response to my friends on the Building Jerusalem podcast.
In fact, I’m going to limit my response here to one segment of the podcast. The full episode is over 1 hour long, despite saying that they won’t use this podcast to defend themselves again in relation to the Keswick Convention they in fact spend the first twenty minutes doing just that. The next fifteen minutes is about defending their tactics against the charge that they are extra-Biblical. Then they move on to discussion the church’s approach to social justice throughout history.
It’s that second segment that I want to look at here. This can be summed up as “Social justice is not absent from the Bible, therefore it is something that the church should be doing.” It’s important therefore to be clear on what the exact question under discussion is. You see, it is worth noting the following.
First, there are clues in the name of Steve’s blog and podcast “building Jerusalem.” It’s a reference to the anthem “Jerusalem”, in fact the title adds the tag line “.. among these dark Satanic mills.” Then a look at Steve’s biography tells us a little more. Steve identifies very openly as a socialist. That kind of gives the game away, Steve isn’t one of those people happy to leave the status quo as it is. He believes in and has actively worked for social change. When he’s not writing about church stuff, he tends to be talking about politics.
This all suggests that the question being raised by Steve on his podcast is not about whether Christians should care about and engage in social justice, it’s about what the church should do. In fact, when we remember that there are two main approaches to mission in vogue right now, the narrow view associated with Gilbert and de Young and the broader view advocated by the likes of Christopher Wright, we might note that Keswick over the last few decades at least has leaned to the broader view of God’s mission. So the broader disagreement is not about whether or not social justice matters for the church but again, what should the church be doing. It’s tactics!
Having said that, I do think that the distinction between what believers’ should care about/get involved in and what the church must do is important. I agree with the position that the church’s mission is primarily about making disciples, so that the local church should focus its energy on things that do that, evangelism, preaching, teaching, discipleship, Biblical counselling. That doesn’t mean that I think these are the only things that churches can do but it is important to distinguish between what we can do and what we must do. That’s exactly why the question about what the Bible says is crucial because what we cannot do is bind consciences or demand things where Scripture does not.
Interestingly, the podcast touches on climate change. There is a good example. Should Christians care about the environment? Well, yes, we should because we were given the task of stewarding, tending and guarding God’s creation. If we are making disciples, should we then be teaching about creation care? Yes, I think we should and it would be impossible to preach through the first few chapters of Genesis without engaging on this. Might churches, if they agree as members together on this priority choose to support charities that campaign or do work on green issues. I see no reason why not. Indeed, it may be helpful at times for them to do this. Can Christians join in campaigns? Yes. Can church congregations together organise to join in? I think they can. Must churches prioritise climate change/environment care in their giving, in their activities. No because those are not things that God’s word commands us to do.
So first of all, we need to make sure that we have scoped the question correctly. We also need to be careful if we claim to be building a biblical basis for our approach to ensure that we have handled Scripture well and understood it rightly So, in this part of my analysis I want to look and see how Brephos handles Scripture.
It is worth noting two things here. First, throughout the podcast, they interchange between arguing for social justice as a priority of the church and campaigning against abortion, specifically campaigning against abortion, following their methods. However (and this really should not need to be said), those three things are not interchangeable and if you attempt it, then you are going to come badly unstuck in your exegesis and your ethics.
I guess that this is the problem though. They want the Bible to prove that it supports their specific campaign strategy but of course it does not. So, instead, they seek to make a claim for broader social justice which is at least more of a possibility. However, this leaves open the question, that if Scripture does teach social justice and makes that a primary responsibility of believers and the church, then why are Brephos focusing on one aspect of this to the exclusion of others.
Secondly, Brephos’ exegesis and application assumes a specific hermeneutic. This again is of course not going to be news to most of my readers. In this case, their hermeneutic can be seen to be shaped by a specific eschatology, post-millennialism and a specific outlook on public theology, namely a form of theo-nomism. I recognise most of the rhetoric because I’ve heard it directly and more overtly from those who espouse it. In fact I’ve heard it put more persuasively, although I was still not persuaded. The problem here is that Beth and Tim are not up front about their hermeneutic and don’t acknowledge the areas where it is disputed.
This leads us into the exegesis and resulting Biblical Theology itself. They start in a fascinating place by going to the law of Moses and arguing that the reason why the people were commanded not to make idols or images of God was because humans are themselves already God’s image bearers and so able and required to reflect and represent God here. It’s an interesting argument and I’m not completely adverse to it. You see, they are righ tot make the connection between image-bearing and the idols of the nations around Israel. However, the command not to make images is not simply because we are the image berarers. In fact, the law does not put the focus there. Here are the first couple of commandments.
6 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
7 “You shall have no other gods before[b] me.
8 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Notice that the concern is with not worshipping things other than God, he is to be without rival. Secondly, you will observe that we are mean to worship the creator, not the creation. Thirdly, the focus in the reasoning is not on human nature. God at no point says, “don’t make images because you are my image.” That’s just modern humanism. Instead, he points them to his character, the just, jealous, loving God. We don’t make idols or images because we cannot fully or accurately represent God’s Godness. God cannot be contained in an image or idol. This is important because even as redeemed image-bearers we cannot bear the weight of giving full representation to who God is.
The danger here, which I think is a big problem with post-millenial Theonomism and this idea that we are to achieve dominion now is that you end up with an over realised eschatology which puts the focus on what the church can accomplish now. We need to be reminded of two things. First, that the new Adam, the true and better image bearer is Christ himself. He is the one who fulfils Psalm 8. So, we need to be reminded of work that he has already accomplished. Secondly, this kind of heaven on earth now approach misses the point that it is when Christ returns for his bride that we will see the final and complete fulfilment of those promises
Beth goes on to talk about the prophets and their concern for justice, she points us to those passages where God says that he requires justice and mercy, not just sacrifices, indeed, God detests the sacrifices of those who lack justice and mercy. Yet again though, there seems to be the quick leap from the text talking about justice and mercy to the insistence that this must mean alignment with Beth and Tim’s version of it.
Not only that but they fail to engage two crucial questions here. The first is “who are the prophets speaking to? The answer of course is that it is God’s covenant people. This is vital because they talk about things like the gleaning laws but those laws relate specifically to the way in which God’s people are to look after one another in the land that God has given them. You see, the law’s flowed out of the covenant with the people, through Moses. This means that we cannot read straight across from the torah commands and the prophet’s judgements on Israel to wider national life in the UK or the US.
The second question is “why is it that God demands that his people love justice and mercy and that he prioritises these things over sacrifice. Why are the sacrifices of the unjust detestable? The answer is surely that the unjust, unmerciful person shows a lack of heart love. The sacrifices cannot work because they are unrepentant. This too is Jesus’ point. Believers should not think that they can get away with the externals of religion, whether that’s ritual, doctrine or even, yes even ethical campaigning if their hearts remain cold and unloving. The prophet’s words should challenge and convict each of us.
In the podcast, Beth does seek to build an argument for wider social justice campaigning beyond discipleship within the church based on Jospeh, Jonah, Daniel and Esther. Yet’ Jonah’s message to Ninevah is a call to repentance, to turn to YHWH. He doesn’t turn up and launch a campaign against this or that social justice issue. So, first of all, Jonah’s message equates more to the mission and message of the Gospel, the work of missionary and evangelist than it does to social justice campaigner. Secondly, Jonah is presented firmly and clearly in the NT as a type of Christ, pointing forward to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Thirdly, the book was primarily intended to be ready by God’s people. The message to Ninevah was in fact intended to hold up a mirror to God’s people in Israel and Judah.
Daniel serves the Babylonian and then the Persian emperors having been taking into exile. He is not really given a choice in the matter but we see that it is God who has placed him in high office, just as Joseph was in order that his purposes, his good might be fulfilled. Daniel does not choose to pray inn order to preserve religious freedom for his people. That’s to anachronistically read 21st century human rights agendas onto the Old Testament. Rather, Dsniel continues doing what he has always done, praying to his Lord and God. This is, I think pertinent to a specific example raised in the podcast. What should Christians do about laws banning them from silently praying outside abortion clinics. I’ve written about this specific example previously. I think it is fairly obvious that the aim of the law here is not to stop prayer but to stop protest, particularly when it is rightly or wrongly perceived as intended to intimidate. Now, we may have views about the wisdom and rightness of attempting to bn protest. I think it is wrong because it stifles freedom of speech. We may also differ on whether or not Christians should engage in civil disobedience, going against those anti-protest laws. My view is that there isn’t a need for us to specifically set out to break those laws as there are other ways of protesting and exercising democratic pressure. However, I think that it should be clear that Daniel does not offer us a model of using prayer as a cover and vehicle for political protest.
Esther acts tto protect her people and should be seen as one of a group of people including Haggai, Ezra and Nehemiah acting in the post exilic period and demonstrating God’s concern for provision and protection In other words, whether in the Jerusalem that exiles return to or still n exile in Persia, God’s people are not beyond the reach of his covenant blessings.
So attempting to read contemporary social justice issues onto the Old Testament is here founded on shaky hermeneutics, exegesis and eschatology.
Central to Steve and Stephen’s podcast though was the question “what do we see the New Testament church doing? Their answer is, rightly in my opinion, is that they focus on making disciples of Jesus Christ. It is as those disciples are made and as they are taught to obey everything Christ taught that we see the church growing as an alternative, counter cultural community. It’s the church which becomes the place where God’s people enjoy God’s covenant provision and protection. The blessings of this new covenant are outlined in Ephesians 1. This means it is within this community that we see God’s people looking after one another including the poor and vulnerable, even going so far as to share their goods and money in common. It is the church who are rebuked when they fail to show that love and care for one another whether falling into factionalism, pursuing greed, tolerating horrific sin or allowing ethnic boundaries to exist.
It is of course within the community of God’s people, rather than through political campaigning that we see the foundations of slavery kicked away as slaves are welcomed as brothers. In fact, when the post NT church rescued abandoned babies, I suggest it is in continuing of that approach, safety, justice and mercy is offered within the new covenant community.
Beth and Tim don’t really engage with the primary point of the Building Jerusalem podcast beyond acknowledging that the very campaigning practices that they have made central and of first importance are simply not present in the New Testament. And so, they fail to build a case..
Once again, remember that the question is not whether or not God cares about social justice, it’s not about whether Christians should. It’s not even whether or not Christians should be taking an active stand against abortion. It’s specifically about whether or not the Church must embrace the specific tactics and approach of Brephos.
The Brephos podcast fails to engage and address the challenge raised by Building Jerusalme. There again, I am yet to see CBR UK/Brephos properly respond to and engage with those challenging them.
+
Faithroots 