Should Christians Avoid Using the Term "Social Justice"?

Several people whom I respect argue against Christians embracing the term "social justice." They maintain that:

1. Justice is a term that should need no adjective.
2. In the case that we need to distinguish justice from distorted concepts of justice, the best adjective to use would be "biblical;" we do not need to speak of "social justice," but rather "biblical justice."
3. The use of the term "social justice" to promote the agenda of progressive theologians, liberation theologians, social gospel advocates, etc., so shades the perception of that term that, even if it might have had some value at one time, it is useless now.

As a conservative/classical/confessional Christian, I can appreciate the persuasive force of the above line of reasoning. HOWEVER: I do think that the term "social justice" (or something like it) may indeed be useful in systematically examining the teaching of Scripture. Consider Leviticus 19, for example: there are many instructive statements about justice in that chapter; some of them (like Lev 19:15) deal with justice in the courtroom, while others (like Lev 19:33-34) deal with the principles of justice permeating society at large. I do think that the term "social justice" may still be useful in speaking about this second application of justice.

Aside from seeing a distinction in Scripture concerning realms in which justice is applied, here are two other reasons that I think Christians might want to (discerningly) use the term "social justice":


1. Some clearly orthodox/biblical theologians have used the term "social justice" in a proper, positive manner. I had some older professors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who, in explaining the call of the Old Testament prophets for justice to be exercised throughout society, would use the term "social justice." Those professors would use this category in a biblically justified way (as I explained above) even while they spoke strongly against the Social Gospel Movement or progressive theology. I am concerned that, if part of our reaction against those who would use the term "social justice" while distorting the biblical concept of justice includes making conservative Christians allergic to the term "social justice" altogether, we may make people unnecessarily suspicious of well-meaning Bible teachers who are using "social justice" in a different way than how progressive theologians use the term. On the other hand, if the term "social justice" becomes entirely the property of progressive theologians, then they will seem to be able to find support for their agenda from some professors who would really (upon a closer reading) oppose their ideas.

2. I don't like to let theological deviants have a monopoly ANY terms that should be used for good. Think of the terms "fundamentalist" or "evangelical." "Fundamentalists" should refer to those who hold to the fundamentals of the faith, especially against those who would claim that these fundamentals are unimportant to Christianity; even though some graceless, legalistic groups have used the term "fundamentalist" of themselves so that we might need to distinguish what we mean by the term, I do think that conservative/classical/confessional Christians should not abandon the term altogether. "Evangelical" should refer to those holding to "evangel" (that is, the gospel), especially against those who would distort the gospel or deny certain necessary doctrines; even though some groups have utilized the term "evangelical" while becoming utterly pragmatic or theologically vacuous, so that we may need to distinguish what we mean by the term, I do think that conservative/classical/confessional Christians should not abandon the term altogether.

Similar observations could be made for the terms "orthodox" or "Catholic." For all too many the term "orthodox," rather than signifying "right doctrine," is identified with the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Many Christians within sound, biblical congregations shrink back from reciting the historic creeds of the Church because they hear the term "Catholic...church" in those creeds and think it means "non-Protestant church" rather than "the one Church throughout the world."

I don't want legalistic fundamentalist denominations to have a monopoly on the term "fundamentalism," painting generous, grace-focused Christians as unconcerned for doctrine and holiness; rather, I want all Christians to be fundamentalists in the right sense of the term. I don't want Roman Catholics to have a monopoly on the term "Catholic," painting those zealous for the doctrine of justification and the authority of Scripture as mere schismatics; rather, I want all Christians to understand that they are part of the Catholic church in the right sense of the term. I also don't want progressive theologians to have a monopoly on the term "social justice," painting conservative theologians as unconcerned with in/justice throughout society; rather, I want all Christians to be zealous for social justice in the right sense of the term.

We must pray and strive for justice throughout society, because it is against the backdrop of justice that the good news of God's mercy in Christ can be most clearly proclaimed.

Ethnic Qualifications for Church Officers?

A.D. Robles is a vlogger and former pastor in Vermont, who is known for voicing concerns over the Social Justice Movement. In a video from a couple of months ago (I think), he mentioned the idea of a kind of "affirmative action" in church searches: that a congregation might seek out a person of a particular ethnicity or give preference to a person of a particular ethnicity in choosing a pastor/elder. Robles spoke strongly against this, declaring that such consideration is adding to the biblical qualifications for elder, undermining the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

When I first saw the video, I thought that Robles was making a compelling point. I certainly desire to be fully committed to the sufficiency of Scripture. At a previous church (many years ago), I was on a pastor search committee, and I've seen how God-dishonoring the process of selecting a pastor can be once we stray from the biblical model for choosing leadership.

However, on further consideration, I think that I disagree with Robles. Ethnicity (or cultural considerations that go beyond the bare requirements for church officers as found in Scripture) might sometimes be a factor that a congregation would be wise to consider in choosing someone for a particular church office/role. Scriptural examples that lead to this conclusion may be seen in the Jerusalem church's appointment of the original seven deacons and in Paul's choice (and circumcision) of Timothy versus his later choice (and refusal to circumcise) regarding Titus.

In Acts 6, the Jerusalem church appointed seven men to serve the congregation so that the apostles could remain focused on prayer and ministering the Word. The occasion of choosing these men was that the widows among the Hellenistic Jews [Jews from a Greek cultural background] were being neglected in the distribution of food to the poor. As most commentators note, the names of the seven men who were chosen (listed in Acts 6:5-7) indicate that they themselves were Hellenistic Jews. Given the likely dynamics of the Jerusalem church, it is hard to believe that the ethnic identity of the seven was merely a coincidence. Instead, it seems like the congregation thought it wise, due to the particular circumstances, to choose Hellenistic Jews in particular.

In Acts 16, as Paul was about take Timothy on a missionary journey, he circumcised Timothy. On this missionary trip, Paul was emphasizing Timothy's Jewish background (through Timothy's mother), rather than his Greek background (through Timothy's father). Paul was apparently motivated to do this due to his missionary strategy at the time, in which he was often visiting synagogues (or other Jewish places of worship, as in Acts 16:13). Later, when Paul's ministry was being conducted more among the Gentiles, he had Titus (a Greek man) with him, and Titus was not compelled to be circumcised (see: Galatians 2:2-3).

Now, nobody would say that being a Hellenistic Jew is a qualification for being a deacon. Obviously, a person's Jewish or Greek status (or any other ethnic status) does not in general qualify or disqualify that person from being a missionary. However, it does seem like the New Testament offers examples of wisely taking ethnicity into account in specific ministry contexts. If this is correct then, in a particular situation, a congregation MIGHT decide it wise to take ethnicity into account in choosing a pastor WITHOUT necessarily violating the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.