Response to Thaddeus Williams

How's it going? My name is Jeff Clewer. I am one of many evangelical free church pastors who are desiring to see a woke -free church.

Not woke -free church, but woke -free church. That means a church that's free of wokeness.

And I think we're seeing progress. I want to review a video that was put out at this year's

National Theology Conference by Thaddeus Williams. I would like to show some clips from that and say that I think we're almost halfway there.

In 2018, when the Theology Conference addressed race and racism and social justice and all those things, the

EFCA invited Jarvis Williams to bring kind of that keynote address on the subject.

And Jarvis, his whole point was that we shouldn't be colorblind. We shouldn't be impartial and not look at the color of someone's skin to make assessments thereby, but to look at people by the content of their character.

Jarvis's point was that you absolutely have to look at color and take that into consideration.

Colossians 3, verse 11 says, here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, scythian, slave and free, but Christ is all and in all.

So the scripture clearly teaches colorblindness and in 1 Timothy 5, it talks about impartiality.

We're charged to make these determinations without prejudging, without looking at the color of someone's skin and making any kind of distinction thereby.

So the scripture teaches colorblindness, but Jarvis Williams was brought in to rail against colorblindness.

And then Dr. Williams said that we need to elevate black voices and then quickly stopped himself and said, but wait, not just any black voice because not all black people are woke.

So someone like Votie Bauckham is actually teaching white ideas as if an idea could be white, black, or any color.

An idea of course is not a color, but Dr. Williams taught that not all black people are woke, so we shouldn't elevate all black people's voices.

So this was, it was a train wreck, 2018, a train wreck. I would say that this year's theology conference, just four years later, we're halfway there.

So I'm going to review Thaddeus Williams and say, look, a lot of what he said is exactly what we've been saying for years, okay?

His quote unquote social justice B and what he does in tearing that down and exposing the folly of it.

Listen, I love that the EFCA is into apologetics. I love that you're bringing in somebody like Thaddeus Williams to destroy the deceitful ideology of social justice

B. But I say halfway there because I don't think it's a good idea to keep calling this thing that you support social justice, even if you say social justice

A. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to play a clip of Thaddeus Williams from this year's theology conference and say, look, a lot of what he says,

I agree with. This is what we've been saying. So he's regurgitating what has been said against social justice, only he wants to retain the moniker social justice

A to describe good things. And he'll give examples of, for example, the expositi back in first, second century

Rome, when Christians were the ones to stand against the exposing of infants to the elements where children were thrown like trash outside the city gate.

Well, the Christians came in and saved and rescued those and put an end to that practice, just like Christians put an end to slavery and stood up against Hitler.

All of these things are great. But here we're going to hear Thaddeus Williams say that we ought to call this kind of work social justice.

So let's share my screen and listen to Dr. Williams. And so as we approach the controversial questions of social justice,

I want to start and frame the conversation with a basic distinction. It's going to run through the rest of our time together.

On the one hand, we have what we might call social justice A, basic definition of social justice

A, think A for awesome. This is the good kind. This is what happens when we keep all those biblical commands that I just read.

It's Christians living by the book and doing justice. I'll give a few examples of that in a moment. Social justice

B, maybe think B for bad, if it helps you remember. This is a lot of the stuff right now that is trending, that bears the moniker of social justice.

But there's an awful lot of it that's deeply out of sync with or incompatible with a biblical view of reality.

And so we need to be able to draw some clear distinctions between social justice

A and social justice B so that we can navigate these times with biblical faithfulness.

Okay, so I'll say here, terrible idea, terrible idea. You don't need to hold on to a worldly construct of social justice.

Even if you want to redefine it and make it your own, to keep using that title, you don't need to do that.

In fact, it's a terrible idea to do that. You're leading in the wrong direction. And hey, look, if you want to do that, you will suffer your own consequences for that because people understand what social justice is.

And to try to create this weird social justice awesome versus social justice bad construct is a bad idea.

Let's listen to Dr. Votie Bauckham give a contrary perspective. And Church, I would love if the

Free Church would platform and listen to Dr. Votie Bauckham rather than Thaddeus Williams at this particular point.

You have a choice who to listen to. I'm just saying Dr. Bauckham has it right. As has been said, my assignment is to define this idea of social justice.

If you'll give me a moment here. And I think it's very important for us to do this.

But before we do this, let me just quote a Nobel laureate,

Frederick Hayek, because I think his words sort of sum up my approach and my attitude as it relates to this subject.

Hayek writes, I've come to feel strongly that the greatest service

I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term social justice.

I think that is a worthy goal to make speakers and writers everywhere ashamed to ever again use the term social justice.

And why? Why would I want to do that? Well, let me quote someone else who's not a

Nobel laureate, but insightful nonetheless, Inigo Montoya.

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The biggest problem with the concept of social justice, with the word social justice, with the terminology of social justice is that it doesn't mean what we think it means.

And oftentimes when we address the issue of social justice, those who have decided to go ahead and use the terminology want first for the terminology to be understood based on their intentions and not based on the broader understanding.

And that is simply, number one, not fair. And secondly, quite naive. So I want to look at three things.

Number one, I want to look at the meaning of social justice. And as we do this, here's what

I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing that we need to reduce this to a question of semantics and then move on.

That would be inappropriate. If what we're talking about here is semantics, that would be inappropriate.

That's not my argument. But we do need to look at the term. Secondly, I want to look at the movement.

And thirdly, the mission, the meaning of social justice, the movement of social justice.

There is a social justice movement and it has a mission. Let's look first at the meaning of social justice.

Kevin Young, in a very insightful article. Is social justice a gospel issue?

Writes this social justice is a nebulous term, unassailable to some and arousing suspicion in others.

The young goes on in his article to say that if this is what you mean by social justice, then no, it's not a gospel issue.

But if this is what you mean, then, yes, we can agree that it's a gospel issue. The only problem is that social justice actually does mean.

What the young posits in his first argument and not that which he agrees with.

In the end, William Young writes, while often an amorphous term, social justice has evolved generally to mean state redistribution of advantages and resources to disadvantaged groups to satisfy their rights to social and economic equality.

I'll say more about that as we go along, but let me just sort of unpack that for a moment. Social justice has evolved to generally mean state redistribution of advantages and resources to disadvantaged groups.

Advantages, resources, groups. Those are incredibly important words to satisfy their right to social and economic equality, their right to social equality and their right to economic equality.

Here's why this becomes problematic, demands justice.

Amen. God demands justice. Justice is not optional for the believer.

Injustice is sin. Therefore, if social justice is truly justice, then disagreement cannot be allowed.

Now, think about any social justice issue that comes to mind and you already understand why this is problematic.

Because in any social justice issue that just came to your mind, there are people on one side arguing for social justice that say the answer is a the injustice is a and there are people on the other side arguing for social justice and they're saying that the injustice is b, they can't both be right.

Except in the social justice world, because the social justice world is not about justice.

We must be about justice. Micah, chapter six, verses one through eight, hear what the

Lord says, arise, plead your case before the mountains and let the hills hear your voice, hear you mountains.

All right. It's very important. To listen to what Dr. Boakum has to say on this.

In fact, he said it in 2019. I was there. It was at G3 in Atlanta. And now this has been up since, yeah,

June, January 30th, 2019. This is now three years later, half a million views.

So no excuse for not having interacted with this point. And the point is simply this social justice is a term with a meaning that's understood in culture and to employ it is to mislead people.

Even if you try to add another adjective, awesome, to the end of it, you're very unhelpful in the fight against a demonic ideology if you keep using their term for what you do.

So let's go on to the next point that Dr.

Thaddeus Williams brings this year. And before I go on, I want to say I like Dr. Thaddeus Williams.

I think he's a great guy. I'm actually Facebook friends with him. He's got a great family.

He generally is with us evangelically in everything that we do as he's an

Orthodox Christian. So I don't have any personal problem with Dr. Thaddeus Williams.

It's this idea. The idea that we should use the term social justice

A for the kind of justice work that all people are to do, all

Christians are to do, like trying to put an end to abortion. That would be justice to see that done.

That we should call this our social justice initiative would be unwise, according to Vodibachan, because people understand what social justice is and it has this element of collectivism, redistribution.

It's problematic. Don't do it. So here again is Thaddeus Williams. I don't dislike him. I just disagree with the direction he's trying to lead us.

I say if you follow that direction instead of what Dr. Vodibachan is saying and go and listen to defining social justice, the whole talk that he gave at G3.

If you side with Thaddeus Williams at this particular point, you'll reap what you sow in regard to that because you will confuse people and you'll create dissension and division in your church because that's what social justice does.

It's divisive, fundamentally divisive. So here again, clip number two. Point is that there are beautiful chapters in church history that we can carry that legacy forward in our day of doing social justice

A. Now, let's take our time machine. Let's take that DeLorean back to the present tense.

Here we are. There was a study done by a secular research group called

PRRI in the city of Philadelphia. They took a dozen faith communities and they were trying to gauge.

They used a 54 point metric to gauge what kind of economic benefits do these congregations bring to their neighborhoods and communities?

And what they found was that in a single year, a 12 month cycle, just 12 faith communities generated 50 and a half million dollars in economic benefit for their surrounding communities and neighborhoods.

That's pretty darn inspiring. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at with social justice A. There was a

Barna study that came out two years. OK, this is significant.

He brings up a study that was done by, what did he say, PRRI in Philadelphia of 12 churches and the economic benefit that the presence of these churches in the community has for the community.

And it was estimated at over 50 million dollars. Now, here is the significance of it with how it references me, and that is

I was there. Our church, Cornerstone Community Church, was one of the 12 churches that PRRI studied.

I remember when Bill Curry, who was the lead pastor at that church in Philadelphia, brought to the attention of Joe Darrow, Andy Schultz, myself,

John Eric Santiago, all of us, this idea that we could participate in this study. And we batted around, saw no reason not to, and so did.

And the study generated this information that there's such economic benefit for us being there.

So listen to us. OK, listen to us. We do not call that work social justice.

Terrible idea to do it because justice would require something.

It would imply a right, a demand. And the work that the church is doing there cannot be demanded.

It's a work of compassion. It's a work of mercy. It's a work of love. And so the reason that I moved, left the suburbs and went into the darkest city in the world, and probably the toughest neighborhood of Philadelphia, the

Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia, and lived there, we were in the inner city doing this work with this church.

The reason that we did it was not because it could be demanded. See, the gospel is not a demand that we have.

It's God's gracious gift. And Christians go and sacrifice for the sake of the gospel, not because it's justice, but because it's compassion.

Well, this was the whole controversy around the book Generous Justice by Tim Keller. And he argued that it actually is a demand.

It is a justice issue. No, it's not. And we need to get down and drill into that to study the theological difference there and where he goes wrong in applying so many of the

Old Testament texts that he references and the prodigal son and so many other passages that he references in that book.

We'd have to look at each one of those things. The Good Samaritan, excuse me, so many passages.

We'd have to flesh that out and see what the scripture actually says. But to call it social justice, like Vodie Bachum has explained, is unhelpful.

And beyond that, it's damaging to the message of the gospel. The kind of work that we were doing and that many of those missionaries continue to do in the city, as studied by P .R

.R .I., that kind of work is not social justice. Stop saying that.

It's unhelpful. All right. Next, we go to the last clip

I have, then we'll be done. Now, social justice B, I'm going to define this with a little help from my friends and mentor, the great living legend of the civil rights movement,

John Perkins. Anybody out there heard of John Perkins before? He's a big inspiration for me.

He wrote the foreword to the book. We talk often. There's a bit of a generation gap.

He just celebrated his 92nd birthday. And so part of that generation gap comes down to technology.

So he'll FaceTime me and I'll be talking to his neck scruff for like an hour.

Like, John, just lift up the phone. But he's become a very dear friend.

And for those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Perkins' backstory, so he's raised in Mississippi.

All right. So John Perkins then becomes the architect of the construct that Thaddeus Williams uses to attack so -called social justice

B, bad. And the work that that Thaddeus Williams does from this point on in the talk is generally what we've been saying.

It's generally really good work. The problem is you don't need to stand on the shoulders of the author of the foreword to woke church.

So John Perkins wrote the foreword to woke church. Now, if you want to say, don't call us woke. We're not woke.

Then don't keep citing the literal guy who wrote the foreword to woke church.

That's just a really important thing. Of course, John Perkins is the one that taught relocation, reconciliation, redistribution.

The three R's of John Perkins, social justice, activism. And they're a set of bad ideas, set of bad ideas.

You should encourage people not to move into the cities.

Now, a missionary can do that, as I myself did, for the sake of the gospel.

But those who are caught up in a very depraved culture should be encouraged to flee that culture and raise their families apart from not to pitch your tent towards Sodom, but to try to get out of a situation like that.

And constantly calling for relocation to the city as, you know, Tim Keller and Harvey Kahn and that whole movement toward the city.

It's very unhelpful. It's not the right direction. Reconciliation. Listen, in Christ, we are already reconciled.

Christ has torn down the dividing wall of hostility. So in Christ, we stand as one.

And Christ is all and he's in all. And therefore, the work has been done by him. So in our church here at Cornerstone, we don't look at the color of somebody's skin and make any distinction thereby.

People are just Christians and brothers and sisters. We're not doing work of reconciliation because guess what?

Christ did it. And the concept of redistribution from John Perkins, another terrible concept.

Redistribution, rather, what ought to be taught is the value of hard work, independence, individualism, responsibility, not redistribution.

Redistribution presupposes some collectivizing of assets and distributing them, redistributing them to make things more equitable.

But equity is not a gospel imperative. What rather we should be doing is teaching people how to earn a living with their own hands, as Paul says in 1

Thessalonians 2 and throughout the book of 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

So this is what we ought to be teaching and a work ethic, a Protestant work ethic that's quite different than the concept of redistribution.

So from here, I guess we'll just we'll close it out. I'd say Thaddeus Williams. Now, if you were to watch the rest of that, listen,

I commend so much of what he says. Very good. Very helpful. Even in pointing out how the neuroses of victim mentality is just exasperated when when you do the social justice pandering, you're just making people neurotic about victimization and race being the center of everything.

He's right on it. It's what we've been saying for years. And I say that's right.

But listen, he doesn't go far enough. He's halfway there. He's still trying to teach the church. To use the term social justice, and that's the big point of his book,

Social Justice A versus Social Justice B. No, there's no social justice. Awesome. There's only social justice.

Terrible. Throw it out. It's bad. And don't try to keep it. You're you're hurting yourself by trying to do that.