Denying Baptist Denials

“We Deny that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church. Though believers can and should utilize all lawful means that God has providentially established to have some effect on the laws of a society, we deny that these activities are either evidence of saving faith or constitute a central part of the church’s mission given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. We deny that laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts.”

The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel

1.) Many of the hands crafting this document were Baptists (Voddie Baucham, James White, John MacArthur, etc.) and the whole document as a Baptist feel about it, including this denial. Baptists are forever talking about soul freedom and the separation of Church and State and that mindset that Separates Church and State is seen in this denial. Any flavor of Christianity that separates Church and State is going to, at the same time, fault the Church as Institution having any role in speaking to the State or even the civil-social sphere. Baptists (and lately R2K Baptisterians) are all about saying, “We just need to get people saved and to hell with the social order.” (Well, they don’t say that explicitly but that is what I hear.)

2.) Note the oily way the first sentence is crafted. Political or social activism is written off from the Church’s bailiwick because political and social activism are not, strictly speaking, Gospel issues. The Gospel is the good news proclamation of what God in Christ has accomplished for and in the place (stead) of sinners. The Gospel, narrowly defined, requires nothing and gives all and as such the only activism that is speaks of is the activism of Jesus Christ for sinners.

However, could we agree with that first sentence in the denial above if it said, “We Deny that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of Biblical Christianity or of any concern with reference to the mission of the church.” I hope we would not agree with such a sentence and yet the way these Baptists have crafted the first sentence we are forced to concede that the Church as Institution is inert when it comes to political and social activism.

And what is political and social activism? Is preaching a sermon on the threat that Marxism presents to Christian civilization to be considered political and social activism? Does forming a men’s militia in the Church with the purpose of preventing the Church from being burned down by anarchistic protesters to be considered a political and social activism?

Allow me to posit that it is precisely the visible Church’s reluctance to embrace a Christianity that politically and socially active that has led to the de-Christianization of Western civilization. Is it really that difficult to preach up Christ in His role as our great High Priest while being involved in activities that preach up Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

I would contend that this denial is the result of a Gnostic other-worldly pietism. Now, to be sure, the Church of Christ can be lopsided and fall into the social Gospel but something I’ve never seen or heard of is for the Church of Christ to fall into a Biblical Christianity that seeks to build up and protect political and social realities that were born of a Christian tradition. Maybe we should try?

3.) Protesting at the steps of the Supreme court about the scourge that abortion is, isn’t an evidence of saving faith? Working to keep marriage defined as only existing between a man and a woman isn’t evidence of saving faith? Petitioning Seminaries change their bylaws so as to rid themselves of all R2K professors isn’t evidence of saving faith? Joining a militia to protect my neighbor’s business in the context of a riot, and uphold the law, isn’t evidence of saving faith? Who writes this dreck?

4.) Who has ever said that “laws or regulations possess any inherent power to change sinful hearts?” Who are these Baptists aiming at with that statement? Of course laws or regulations do not have any inherent power to change sinful hearts. However, laws and regulations have inherent power to keep a society under a Christian moral tutelage until such a time when the Spirit of God changes hearts.

What these Baptists are doing here is pitting the pedagogical use of the law (reveal sin and drive men to Christ) against the political use of the law (frame a people’s laws so that they can live Civilizationally as Christians). Would these Baptists have the Muslims (Sharia) or the Jews (Noahic laws) shape our laws even though the having of laws based on Christian revelation cannot in and of themselves, by themselves (apart from the Spirit of Christ) change sinful hearts? And if we are to have Christian laws then why shouldn’t the Church as an Institution have a voice in what those laws might look like as the Church instructs and teaches those who will one day be Judges, Lawyers, and Politicians? Why shouldn’t the Church as Institution catechize God’s people in what Biblical law for civilizations look like?

I am not a Baptist and I want no part of this Baptist denial of muscular and biblical Christianity.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him. View all posts by jetbrane