The Gospel Coalition - A Mess of Confusion

All right, so last night I recorded part three of the Russell Moore response, and I was intending it to be a little bit more aggressive than normal, so I may or may not post it. I might have to redo it, because some of the sections, I got a couple of crazy eyes in the middle of my responses.

So we'll see. I'll decide today. But I wanted to take a break from that. This morning I saw this tweet, Twitter, what are these things called, Twitter threads from Gospel Coalition that was posted two days ago, and I saw a couple of my friends responding to it.

I thought I should respond to it as well, because it's very interesting, and I think it could be helpful to learn about what the scripture requires of its people in regards to charity, in regards to caring for the poor.

Because lots of people say, well, Christ is obviously concerned for the poor, and God is obviously concerned for the sojourner and the widow, and these are things that nobody debates. Obviously that's true.

That's in the Bible consistently, over and over and over again. Russell Moore in his podcast pretends like people are debating whether or not God cares about the poor, and that's just not the case at all.

But God cared about the poor in the Old Testament too, and the New Testament, and he tells us what to do for the poor, and he tells us what not to do for the poor. And so that's the biggest problem with this social justice movement.

They're very good on general principles, but very bad at specifics. So let's look at this tweet thread here and kind of examine it a little bit. It starts off like this. It says, God created both soul and body, and the resurrection of Jesus shows that he is going to redeem both the spiritual and the material.

The Resurrection and the Redemption of Body and Soul

Now let's stop there for a second. I agree with that. I think that's very important. I think it's very important for us to realize that in the eternal state, we're not going to be these disembodied souls that are just floating around in a bunch of clouds with harps and stuff like that.

No, we're going to be real physical bodies, and we're going to be in a real physical new earth, and God is redeeming those things. We won't be sick anymore, but we'll still eat. You know what I mean? Like things like that.

We'll still be having fun. We'll still be playing games. We'll still be worshiping God, and it's going to be real, like as real as everything you see here, and that's an amazing truth. But let's continue what they say.

They say, therefore, God is concerned not only for the salvation of souls, but also for the relief of poverty, hunger, and injustice. Now I'm going to probably surprise some people to say that in general, I agree with that.

I think that we have a very good warrant to believe that in the new earth, not only is God saving our souls from the sin that we are rebelling against God and things like that, saving us from eternal condemnation for our sins.

Not only is he doing that, but yeah, I think in the eternal state, we're going to have an abundance. We're going to have all of the covenant blessings that was promised in the old covenant. We won't be hungry anymore.

There won't be injustice anymore. I think all of that is true, but the problem is, and so again, the gospel coalition is good at the general principles. The social justice people are good at the general principles.

I think that there's nothing to really disagree with here. What we do disagree with though is when they get specific. So here's how they continue. It says the gospel opens our eyes to the fact that all our wealth, even wealth for which we worked hard, is ultimately an unmerited gift from God.

Therefore, the person who does not generously give away his or her wealth to others is not merely lacking in compassion, but is unjust. And this is where things get off the rails because the language of justice is the language of law.

There is no question about that. Now I'm not one that is scared of the law of God. I think the law of God should be taken very seriously with Christians. And I know there's a lot of people out there that aren't, they don't think the law of God should be taken very seriously.

But the reality is though that making charity and compassion and giving to the poor a matter of law for the New Testament believer, I think is a form of legalism. Because here's the reality. We are required to give to the poor.

We are required to be generous with our money. There's no question about that. But it's not a matter of justice. In other words, it's not a matter of bringing the law against someone who isn't. And it's never been that way.

It's never been that way. It's always been a matter of charity. Even in the Old Testament. And a lot of people think that every sin in the Old Testament was a crime as well. So you could be punished for breaking any law of God.

And that's just not the case at all. The Bible is very clear about which sins are crimes and which sins aren't. Which sins are a matter of justice and which are not. Because here's the thing. If you say that giving your money to the poor is a matter of justice, then what you're saying is that the poor has a claim to your money.

A rightful claim to your wealth. And so if you don't give it to them, then you're breaking one of the laws of God. In other words, you're breaking the law against stealing or fraud or something like that.

Or covetousness or something like that. And I don't think you can make that case according to the scripture. Oh my goodness, what is going on with this? Enough of the comments. All right, so let me just continue and then I'm going to give you a few examples.

It says, Christ wins our salvation through losing, achieves power through weakness and service and comes to wealth through giving all away. Those who receive his salvation are not the strong and the accomplished, but those who admit they are weak and they are lost.

The categories here are just so confused because whoever's writing this is correct. From a spiritual perspective, those who admit that they are weak and unable to save themselves, those who admit that they're lost and unable to find their way, those are the ones who come to Christ and say, Lord, I have nothing.

You have everything. I need your mercy. I need your grace. But the reality is though that we're talking about money and wealth here. And so there's a confusion in categories. They're trying to make it seem like the strong and the accomplished are not going to receive salvation.

And that's just not the case at all. Rich people come to the Lord, accomplished people come to the Lord, strong people come to the Lord, but they all recognize their spiritual state is weak, poor and lost.

But the problem is there's a confusion here. These are just tweets, obviously, so we can read them charitably and I have no problem with that. I can read this charitably and kind of understand what they're saying.

But the reality is that if you're going to be talking about these issues regarding wealth and power and money and things like that, you need to be more specific than this. I can understand how this sows confusion, complete confusion, and that's on you for the way you're communicating.

Let's continue. He says, we cannot look to the poor and oppressed and callously call them to pull themselves up out of their own difficulty. Jesus did not treat us that way. The gospel replaces superiority towards the poor with mercy and compassion.

This is true, but again, it's a confusion of categories. Yes, it is mercy and it is compassion. It is not justice. It is not justice. And if you're going to talk this, talk about this in terms of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we have to understand and recognize that the gospel of Jesus Christ was completely unmerited.

It was mercy. It was compassionate on Christ's part to save sinners, but it was not justice in the sense that we got what we deserved. Christ got what we deserved. If it was justice, pure and simple, if it was a justice issue, as they just said in their very second tweet here regarding giving away to the poor, then we would have been cast into hell.

We would have been judged for our rebellion, but instead God had compassion and mercy on us. And so they're connecting all of this to the gospel. And if they're doing that, how can they say not generously giving away your wealth is not merely lacking compassion, but is unjust.

Because if you're going to say that, then it would be unjust for Christ to have not saved us. Right? You see, this is, this is the confusion here. The gospel coalition is absolutely confused on this. Let's continue.

He says, he says, Christian churches must work for justice and peace in their neighborhoods through service, even as they call individuals to conversion and the new birth. I don't really have a problem with this.

I think it depends on what you mean. And I think we have a lot of reason for concern on what you mean based on other articles. You know what I mean? But this in isolation, I don't really have a problem with it continues.

We must work for the eternal and common good and show our neighbors that we love them sacrificially whenever, whether they believe as we do or not indifference to the poor and disadvantage means that there has not been a true grasp of our salvation by sheer grace.

Again, grace, not justice, grace, not justice. That's the confusion. That's really what the offense is with this tweet stream. They continue the ministry we have outlined is relatively rare. There are many congregations with strong concern for doctrinal rigor and purity and who work very hard to keep themselves separate from the world.

There are many churches with a radical commitment to the poor and the marginalized. I disagree with this. I don't, I don't think that this combination is very rare. And in fact, I've been at many churches in my lifetime, not many, three or four, all of them had a very strong concern for doctrinal rigor and purity, and all of them had a commitment, a radical commitment to the poor and the marginalized.

I don't think that that's very unusual. I think that's very common, but that's not the, that's not the, uh, that's not going to be the, uh, the narrative that gospel coalition wants you to, to believe continue.

We do not, however, see enough individual churches that embody the full integrative gospel balance. We have outlined here, whatever. I'm not going to argue that point because this is just anecdotal anyway.

Uh, we believe such a balance will produce churches with winsome and theologically substantial preaching dynamic evangelism and apologetics, a church growth and church planting. They will emphasize repentance, personal renewal and holiness of life.

Well, I believe that too, but we have to understand that this is only if God grants the growth, you can be the most amazing preacher. You can care for as many poor people as you can. You could have dynamic evangelism and apologetics, but if God is judging a land, you're not going to reap a huge harvest.

It's just that simple. Now let's pray for a good harvest, but that's in God's hands. We're Calvinists, right? At the same time in the same congregations, there will be an engagement with the social structures of ordinary people and cultural engagement with art and business, scholarship and government.

I agree with this. I think, you know, as God saves people, he's going to save people that are in government and that's going to, and Christ and his law is going to have an impact on what they do in government.

He's going to save people in the Academy and that's going to have an impact on how they study and how they, how they do their work. He's going to, he's going to save business people and that's going to have an impact on how they do business.

He's going to save artists and that's going to have an impact on how they do art. All of that is very true. So I have no problem with that. Continue. There will be calls for radical Christian community in which all members share wealth and resources and make room for the poor and the marginalized.

These priorities will all be combined and will mutually strengthen one another in the local church. Again, I think this happens already. I mean, in my little church, all of us, you know, for the most part have good jobs.

Um, we're all, we're all at different levels from an economic status perspective. There's no question about that. But when somebody needs assistance or like childcare or I mean maybe even money, for example, there would be absolutely no hesitation on anyone's part to help people out.

There should be no, there would be no hesitation, but I'll show you that there should be in certain circumstances. We'll talk about that in a minute. They continue, what could lead to a growing movement of gospel centered churches?

The ultimate answer is that God must for his own glorious and revival in response to the fervent extra extra ordinary prevailing prayer of his people. Anyway, so that's the thread. Uh, I guess it comes from their founding documents.

I don't really care about that, but here's what I want to talk about, right? Because all of this to say, we, they're saying this is a justice issue and you know, again, that's the language of law. Let's look at what the law of God says.

The word of God says about giving to the poor, because again, I've said this many times, giving to the poor is not optional, but we can't just do whatever we want. We can't go and Robin Hood people, you know what I mean?

Robin Hood wanted to give to the poor, so he stole from the rich. That is unacceptable according to the law of God because God said you shall not steal. So let's look at this. This is second Thessalonians, a passage that is very much ignored in the social justice community.

This is Paul talking to, uh, the Thessalonians. He says, we command you brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you receive from us.

So he's talking about a brother, a brother in the Lord, someone in the church who is walking in idleness, who's not working, who's lazy and continues for you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it.

But in toil and labor, we work day and night that we might not be a burden to you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate for where we were with you.

When we were with you, we would give you this command. If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. This is a very clear command. Not every poor person gets your charity.

In fact, if you give charity to certain people, that actually could be breaking the command of God because here's the thing, every kind of charity that God sets up, every kind of charity that God commands is a responsible kind.

It's something that would want to drive someone to responsibility. The Gospel Coalition said, we can't look at the poor and oppressed and callously call them to pull themselves up out of their own difficulty.

That is strictly true, but we also must require that they work. Whatever that work looks like, we must require that they work before we give them charity. If they're unwilling to do that, then they don't get charity.

Now, this will require that your charity be very localized so you understand what people are doing. You don't know if someone across the world is working or not. You don't know what they're doing, so you give your charity locally.

That's what you do because you know what they're up to. You know if they're sleeping in until noon just because they were playing video games all last night. You know what I mean? Localized charity is emphasized in the New Testament.

This is not a new thing. Paul didn't make this up. This principle of working for charity, this is all throughout the Old Testament. Look at Leviticus 23. This is the gleaning law. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap the field right up to its edge nor shall you gather the gleanings after you harvest.

You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner. I am the Lord your God. This is, again, these people that are poor, these sojourners, they're working for this. This is not easy stuff. This is not easy money.

This is not easy food. You reap the harvest and then the people have to go into your field, the people that want to, the people that are hungry. They go into your field and gather from the ground, gather from the stuff that you left over.

It's not easy work. In fact, it's just as hard work as the regular harvesting. So they're actually working just as hard as the harvesters. Do you see what I'm saying? And so the purpose of this is that they're not going to be in poverty forever.

That's the purpose of this. The point is that they're in your field. This is God. God is genius with his welfare programs, right? They're in your field. They're already there. They're picking, they're doing the same work as your harvesters to get to eat.

Eventually, you're going to be like, well, why don't you just work for me? Why don't you just, why don't I just pay you and you'll go harvest the field for me? That's what it's set up for you. They're already there.

They're already working there. And so why not just, they're getting the skills to harvest, they're learning about it. Why not just hire them? You see what I'm saying? And that's the same with Thessalonians, right?

Because if somebody's poor and they don't have enough money to eat, they're going to be doing some kind of work for you. And then you're going to give them food to eat. And you're going to provide for their needs.

And then you're going to be like, well, you're already working here. Why don't I just pay you to work and you can get your own food and you're going to be lifted out of poverty. That's not to say that they should do it themselves.

Oh, just lift yourself up out of poverty. No, no one's saying that. But they're saying, yes, provide for their needs, but also teach them how to get out of poverty. This is part of the discipleship. When you come to Christ, you're saved from your sin, but you're also learning the teach ins of God, how to work for yourself, how to be responsible with your money, how not to be idle.

So that's why Paul says, if they're just idle and they just don't want to work, well, good luck with that because you're going to starve. And that's the reality because God's not interested in having lazy people.

It's just not. He's very clear about that. Laziness is not a virtue. He wants to sanctify you out of laziness. I'm not saying that anyone who's a believer is not lazy. There's all kinds of people that still struggle against sins that are believers.

But God doesn't want that. He doesn't want that kind of a person. He wants to teach you how not to be that kind of person. Same thing with Ruth. Ruth, we all know the book of Ruth, right? You know, she's gleaning.

And the interesting part about Ruth is that we see here, this is interesting, Ruth is gleaning in the land and Boaz talks to one of his servants and the servant says, Ruth requested permission to glean.

She says, please let me glean and gather among the sheaves after the reapers. And so this kind of tells us that basically you had the right to say no to someone who was gleaning in your field. And I think that probably the standard was if you found someone that was just kind of a lazy, just sort of living off other people, kind of like Paul was talking about someone who's not really willing to do anything of any value, you could say, you know what?

You're not going to glean in my land. You still have, it was still your land. You see what I'm saying? Like you didn't like the poor people had no claim to your land. And the other thing is, if you look at the Old Testament law, if you didn't do this, if you didn't leave the land for people to glean off of, nothing happened to you.

The state couldn't then come and take your land or you wouldn't go to jail or you wouldn't be executed for that. Nothing happened to you. You still own the land. So again, it's not a matter of justice.

Do you see what I'm saying? The gospel coalition thread makes it seem like the poor have a right to your wealth, have a claim to your wealth. And if you don't give it to them, you're stealing from them.

That's not how the law of God works. The gleaning law proves that you had the right over your land. You had the right to decide who comes into your land. Now you had to do that according to God's standards.

You couldn't show partiality. You couldn't close your hand to the poor just because you wanted to. But there were standards. As Paul says, if you don't work, you don't eat. If you're lazy, if you're idle, you don't eat.

Like for example, if somebody was like, hey, I'd like to hire you to work in my field. And you're like, nah. And then a couple hours later, you got hungry and you decide, oh, I'm gonna go glean that person's field.

That person would be like, nope, I tried to hire you. You're not gleaning in my field. I think that would be a godly thing to do. Anyway, last but not least, this is Leviticus 25 talking about how to deal with the poor.

This is what kindness to poor brothers looks like. If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a soldier, and he shall live with you.

Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money and interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the land of Canaan, and to be your God.

You see what I'm saying? So like, this is what you do with the poor. You lend them some money, except you just don't charge them interest. You don't try to make money off poor people. That's how you take care of the poor.

You lend them some cash. If somebody asks you, hey, can I borrow? I don't have enough for rent this month. Someone in your church, I don't have enough for rent this month because my car broke down and man, we're in a tight spot.

Give him the cash, man. And look, if you need it back, that's fine. Ask for it back, you know, eventually, but you don't charge him extra. You don't charge him interest. That's how you love your poor brother.

That's how you do it. Here's the thing. The Gospel Coalition thread did not say this, but I think that all of this is aimed towards political posturing. As if voting for socialist welfare-type programs is a requirement for a Christian, and it is just not.

In fact, it is a requirement for a Christian for you not to vote for that. Do you understand what I'm saying? Because that breaks the law of God. That is stealing. You have to be generous with your own money, like the Good Samaritan, not with other people's money.

Do you understand what I'm saying? You're not doing your Christian duty of being generous to the poor by voting for a socialist. That's just not the reality. You're not doing your Christian duty by voting for programs that increase minimum wages and stuff like that.

In fact, you're breaking the law of God. And so this Gospel Coalition thread, it's a mess of confusion of categories. It's just an absolutely vague and completely, I think, irresponsible thread. There's a lot to agree with here, and I can read it very charitably and assume that there's things I can agree with, but the reality is we've seen this fleshed out before, and it's fleshed out in an ungodly, unscriptural, and unbiblical way.

Ungodly, unbiblical, unscriptural, whatever. Anyway, I hope this was helpful. God bless.