Social Justice: Modern Roots and Promoters

Print

(Volume 25, Issue 1, February 2019/March 2019)

As we attempt to evaluate the social justice movement,[1] especially in light of the debates within evangelicalism surrounding the publication of The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, it would be helpful to trace its roots.  The emphasis on social justice that is now all but omnipresent within Christianity did not appear out of thin air; there are predecessors and forerunners who have paved the way for comingling of the biblical gospel with a social agenda producing a hybrid gospel and mission for the church.  In two earlier TOTT papers, “The Social Gospel” Parts 1&2,[2] the development of the 19th century Social Gospel movement which led to theological liberalism was detailed. In those articles, it was documented that German rationalism, higher criticism, Enlightenment and Romanticist thought were interlaced and embraced by first European and later American Protestantism. When the dust had settled, the authority of Scripture had been undermined, all cardinal doctrines had been diluted, and the gospel itself had been lost in the majority of formerly evangelical churches, denominations, seminaries and organizations. In the wake of these theological compromises emerged a “liberal” church which no longer held to the traditional faith of the Scriptures.  In its place was a religion wrapped around improving life on the planet by attempting to reduce poverty, aiding the weak and marginalized, and seeking social justice for all people.  It was not that the conservative church had not been concerned about these things and had not done much to enhance lives all over the globe through benevolent acts.  But the Protestant church to that point had not confused its message or its mission. Its message was one of reconciliation to God through the preaching of the gospel and the discipling of those who had been redeemed by faith in Jesus Christ.  Its mission was to focus attention and resources on doing the one thing that the church can do, as no other organization can: taking the biblical gospel of reconciliation to the world.  However, the Social Gospel first elevated social needs to equality with the biblical gospel and ultimately replaced it with the social agenda altogether.  This has been the pattern throughout church history when social interests begin to eclipse the message of redemption. It is the concern of many today that that pattern is being repeated within conservative evangelicalism and is the motivation for The Statement.

Modern Foundations

With the historical backdrop given above, we are now ready to look more closely at the social justice/gospel movement of today.  We will start by examining a few of the crafters and architects of the movement from the 20th century, who have constructed the platform from which the most recent thought has sprung. We will only have space to inspect four such foundational movements and/or individuals, beginning with the most disturbing and moving forward.

Liberation Theology
Liberation theology is a way of understanding Scripture and the Christian life grounded in a Latin American social context.  It discards capitalism, rejects the reliability of Scripture and, when interpreting Scripture, uses a hermeneutic of the kingdom of God as its controlling thought.   Liberation Theology is dedicated to cultural salvation, or the transformation of society, rather than spiritual salvation.  Utopia on earth is the goal and it is achieved often through revolution and violence. Liberation theologians believe Christianity and Marxism have a common goal – the kingdom of God (although Scripture and Marxism define the kingdom of God very differently) – which is why many rightly view it as a Marxist form of Christianity.   The argument of Emilio Nunez C., in his book Liberation Theology, is that Liberation Theology is a new way of doing theology.  Its point of departure and hermeneutical norm is not the written revelation of God, but the social context of Latin America and the revolutionary praxis striving to create there a “new man” and a “new society” within a socialist system as a supposed manifestation of the kingdom of God.[3]  The recognized father of Liberation Theology is Gustavo Gutierrez who wrote his groundbreaking book, A Theology of Liberation, in 1971 (revised in 1988).[4]  Some of Guiterrez’s key ideas are:

  • Liberation Theology is not a call for social and economic development (which is rejected) but a call for revolution,[5] a permanent cultural revolution[6] that may include violence.[7]
  • It is a rejection of capitalism and promotion of socialism.[8] There must be liberation from capitalistic countries, especially the United States, and overthrow of private ownership of property.[9]
  • The meaning of salvation has been expanded. It includes liberation from social oppression, liberation from personal servitude and liberation from sin.[10]  Salvation is more than forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God; it is transformation and fulfillment of the present life,[11] and deliverance of society.[12]  “The church has two missions: evangelization and the inspiration of the temporal sphere.”[13]  “To participate in the process of liberation is already in a sense, a salvific work:”[14] it is a building of a new society.[15]
  • Liberation Theology, while not swallowing Marxism whole, nevertheless incorporates much of Marxism’s philosophy,[16] especially the idea of a classless society and a denunciation of private ownership of property.
  • It makes use of a kingdom of God hermeneutic.[17] That is, the mission of the church is developing the kingdom of God by making the world a better place,[18] a utopia of sorts which will be the work of man, not God,[19] and elimination of poverty.[20] Apparently, as mankind moves towards these achievements it will enable the Lord to return.[21]
  • Understanding the meaning of poverty is at the heart of Liberation Theology.[22] It can mean either spiritual poverty (a good thing) or physical poverty, which is seen as sin and evil and out of the will of God.[23]

In the writings of Gutierrez, we pick up some of the threads being laced together by evangelicals in the 21st century, especially the expanded two-pronged gospel message of spiritual redemption and societal salvation, and the kingdom of God hermeneutic.  It is by tracing the modern social justice movement back to Liberation Theology that Al Mohler can say that much of it is Marxist in nature.[24]

Ronald Sider
Sider has long been a bridge between Liberation Theology and evangelicalism.  While not endorsing the darker sides of Liberation Theology, such as bloody revolutions and overthrowing of governments, he has accepted the socialistic features of the movement and has attempted to integrate them into the evangelical church in the West. His Rich Christian in an Age of Hunger, published in 1988 and revised in 2015, has sold a half million copies and widely influenced many.  Sider’s solution to world poverty follows the socialistic talking points of remission of debt and redistribution of wealth.[25] More importantly, Sider understands preaching the gospel and providing physical relief as equally important and believes Christians should “give approximately as much to support evangelism as you do for social justice activities. (Holistic programs that combine both are ideal).”[26]  What Sider was advocating in the 1980s has become commonplace now, that is, many believe the gospel has both spiritual and social dimensions which are of equal importance.

Lausanne and J.R. W. Stott
In 1974 Billy Graham and J.R.W. Stott formed the Lausanne Movement to address the issue of world evangelism. The First International Congress on World Evangelism met in Lausanne Switzerland, with a second gathering in Manila in 1989 and a third one in Cape Town in 2010. The stated vision of Lausanne is: “The “whole church taking the whole gospel to the whole world.” While this makes for a snappy vision statement, almost every word is fraught with potential danger.  Given the high emphasis on ecumenical unity at all the congresses, it appears that the “whole church” includes virtually all branches and traditions within Christendom including Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well as mainline denominations. The “whole gospel” will be defined by what is meant by the “whole world.”  According to the Lausanne website, the whole world through the means of the whole church will become “empowered by the Holy Spirit to alleviate world suffering brought about by economic injustice, disease, environment and poverty.”[27]  The “whole gospel” ostensibly means not only the good news that Jesus Christ has provided through His blood, the means by which sinners can be made right with God, but also addresses the social injustices found in our world today.  The influence of Lausanne has gone a long way toward modifying the gospel message and the church’s mission as it has clearly combined social action with gospel proclamation as part of the message and mission of the church.  Few hesitate to even challenge this idea today.

Carl Henry
As neo-evangelicalism was formed in the 1940s and 50s there were many important individuals leading the neo-evangelical contention, such as Billy Graham, J.R.W. Stott and Harold Ockenga.  But the most prominent and respected theologian of the movement was Carl R. H. Henry.  Henry wrote many excellent books and articles and defended the authority of Scripture passionately.  But for our purposes, his little book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, plays an out-of-proportion role in the social justice debate. Evangelicals, following the lead of Carl Henry, “Insisted that the church was mandated not only to preach the gospel but also to redeem social order.”[28]   Fundamentalists, he lamented, either separated entirely from the social/political arena to focus on preaching the gospel, or more commonly, while not believing the church as the church should be involved in trying to reform the world, it “was to be compassionate toward those in need, and the individual believer was encouraged to be involved in community needs and reform.”[29] Nevertheless, this did not go far enough for Henry. Of a positive nature, Henry never advocated for the church majoring on social reform apart from the preaching of the gospel of redemption.  He went so far as to write that to do so is nothing more than “a bubble and froth cure.”[30] However, he envisioned the evangelical church taking leadership in social renewal, insisting to have a voice in the rectifying of societal evils.[31] That Western society had already dismissed biblical thinking by 1947, when the book was published, did not seem to deter Henry.  He believed an organized effort of proclaiming the gospel of redemption accompanied by social programs would change society.  Obviously, after 70 years of efforts by evangelicals to implement Henry’s ideas, little improvement of cultural conditions have been effected by evangelical efforts.  Where Henry stumbled was in misunderstanding that in Scripture Jesus and the apostles preached a gospel of redemption to individuals, they did not add a social program to their message.  Historically, if and when enough individuals in a given communicate were regenerated and changed by the power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit, the culture which engulfed that community was also bettered.  It was the power of the gospel that dealt with social sins, not the gospel plus an organized effort to bring about social justice.

Modern Promoters

Those endorsing and propagating the social justice agenda today are legion and varied.  It would be hard to throw a rock at most large Christian gatherings and not hit someone who fails to distinguish the gospel of Scripture from the gospel of social improvement and justice.  While most would not want to trace their views back to some of the foundation layers outlined above, especially Liberation Theology, there is an undeniable similarity in many of the views.  Some, of course, press for social justice and all that accompanies it more extremely than others who advocate a milder brand.  We will begin with the more extreme within the general category of evangelicals and work our way to the more moderate.

Shane Claiborne and His Simple Way
Claiborne is not your typical evangelical, to be sure, but he is seen and followed by some who would place him there.  He is a prominent speaker, activist, and best-selling author.  Claiborne worked with Mother Teresa in Calcutta and founded The Simple Way in Philadelphia.  He heads up Red Letter Christians, a movement of folks who are committed to living “as if Jesus meant the things he said.”[32] As can be inferred by his involvement with Red Letter Christians, Claiborne has little respect for Scripture except for the words of Jesus.  He believes that if we simply focused on Jesus’ words and actions that we could revolutionize the world, as he argues in this popular book, The Irresistible Revolution.  Claiborne believes that Christians can change the social/economic world, and actually “create another world”[33] by bringing in the kingdom of God through social justice activities. As a matter of fact, he writes, “This thing Jesus called the kingdom of God is emerging across the globe in the most unexpected places… Little people with big dreams are reimagining the world.”[34] In the process wealth will be redistributed, poverty will end, and world peace will be realized.[35] Claiborne describes truly converted Christians as those who have “converted homes—fueled by renewable energy—and laundry machines powered by stationary bicycles and toilets flushed with dirty sink water.[36]  Having written a whole book pushing for social action Claiborne toward the end addresses the question of the gospel: “So what’s more important: to love God or our neighbor, feeding bellies or saving souls? Neither.  It is impossible to separate them… And the whole gospel is about loving God and loving people.”[37] Claiborne and what he calls The Simple Way, demonstrates what happens when someone twists the teachings of Christ as found in Scripture and launches out independently.  Of course, he is not wrong to emphasize loving people. He is wrong to see the social gospel and the gospel of redemption as being of equal importance and to believe that by loving people we will usher in the kingdom of God.  He wants to accomplish through human efforts what only Christ can and will accomplish at His return.

NT Wright and His Simply Good News
NT Wright is considered by many to be a leading evangelical theologian, even though he was a bishop in the Church of England (hardly known for its orthodoxy) and a leading proponent of the New Perspective on Paul (which mutilates the teachings of Paul as well as the gospel).[38]  In his book Simply Good News he lays out his case for understanding both the biblical gospel and the social gospel and how they relate.

First, Wright repeatedly, and correctly, states that the gospel is not good advice; it is a good news message about an event that has changed everything.  But Wright’s understanding about this event (which rightly includes the cross and the resurrection) is not what many would assume.  He agrees the message that Jesus died for our sins and took our punishment so that we could be saved and go to heaven is true, but it is a distorted message, which the Western church has simply got wrong.[39]  How so?  First, getting people to heaven and keeping them out of hell was never God’s plan.  God’s plan was about His kingdom in which heaven comes to earth.[40]  The gospel is God reclaiming the earth so that “the world would be healed, transformed, rescued and renewed.”[41] And “what was holding back the kingdom was the dark power, the force of evil itself.  On the cross, that power was defeated.”[42]  At the cross, Wright claims, Christ’s kingdom was re-established on earth and our task now is to help bring the kingdom to its ultimate glory.[43] The gospel is basically the kingdom of God.[44] He states:

The good news is that the living God is indeed establishing his kingdom on earth as in heaven, through the finished work of Jesus, and is inviting people of all sorts to share not only in the benefits of this kingdom but also in the work through which it will come to its ultimate completion.[45]

Again: “It is time for God to become king—here and now,”[46] and it is time for us to “become transformed people who are then transforming the world.”[47]

In Surprised by Hope, which perhaps is the fullest expression of Wright’s thinking, he continues the same theme by claiming that the efforts Christians make now to solve social and ecological issues will be continued into the new universe.  Wright does not deny the work of God, nevertheless, he views Christians as agents of planetary transformation as we together with God advance the kingdom.[48] Believers are to be God’s rescue stewards over creation, accomplishing something which will become due in the new world.[49]  Specifically, what does this kingdom work look like?   Basically, it is working with God for social justice.[50]   This includes debt remission for poor countries, which Wright sees as the most pressing concern of our time.  A close second is ecological responsibility.  Next is beauty, or revitalizing aesthetic awareness and creativity.[51]

Wright does not leave out evangelism but he sees the biblical gospel of reconciliation with God as “lopsided” and even “deceptive.”[52] To Wright the gospel is two-pronged.  The first prong is spiritual and concerns itself with reconciliation with the Lord which takes place through faith plus baptism.[53]  The second prong is social redemption.  Basing his view almost exclusively on Romans 8:18-25 and Revelation 21-22, he sees redemption as a liberation of the cosmos from whatever has enslaved it.[54]  Combining the two prongs gives us the “full-orbed mission of the church,”[55] or the “full gospel.”[56] Wright sees evidence of Christians already accomplishing the second-prong of the gospel in the fall of Soviet Communism and apartheid,[57] never mind that the Christians’ role in either of these two events was minor at best, and the outcome of their collapse has been deeply flawed.

He never seems to pause long enough to look at the broad picture painted within the New Testament of Christ’s commission to the church.  Where in Scripture is Wright’s great emphasis on the church fighting social injustices, remissions of national debts, battling ecological concerns, and developing the arts?  As citizens of this planet, we should be concerned for many of these things.  But, as Christians, our mission is clearly different.  It is to make disciples and train people to live for the glory of God, as outlined in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20).  Wright’s two-pronged gospel is not found in the pages of Scripture.

Timothy Keller
Keller is a well-known pastor (recently retired), theologian and apologist. A co-founder of the Gospel Coalition with D. A. Carson, Keller has published several books, many of which have  value and substance.  His doctrinal positions would be more biblical than any of those mentioned above, but within conservative evangelical circles, he is a major leader in the social justice movement.  The vision statement at his church, Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, provides a clear declaration combining both the spiritual and social gospels.

The Redeemer family of churches and ministries exist to help build a great city for all people through a movement of the gospel that brings personal conversion, community formation, social justice, and cultural renewal to New York City and, through it, the world.[58]

In Generous Justice, How God’s Grace Makes Us Just, Timothy Keller makes a case for social justice as it relates to the corporate church and to individual Christians.  Keller proclaims that he is writing this book for four kinds of people: young believers who respond with joy to the call to care for the needy, those who approach the subject of “doing justice” with suspicion, younger evangelicals who have “expanded their mission” to include social justice along with evangelism, and those who believe that the idea that the Bible is devoted to justice is absurd.[59]  Keller thinks all four types of his audience “fail at some level to see that the Biblical gospel of Jesus necessarily and powerfully leads to a passion for justice in the world.”[60] A Generous Justice is written to correct the views of these four groups and to present a case for the author’s understandings of the subject.[61] Keller writes with balance and graciousness and surely convinces many readers that it is God’s idea, and therefore should be His children’s as well, to prioritize concerns for justice, the poor, and the needy.

An Evaluation

However, the issues are far more complicated than that. Engaging with Keller’s argument, which offers the best balance of those mentioned in this paper, will help us examine the role of social justice in the life of the church and the individual Christian.  First, how involved should the local church, versus the individual Christian, be in social issues?  Keller seems to vacillate on this one.  At times he is clear that the church should focus on what it has been called to do and which only it can do – evangelize and disciple.[62]  The church as the church should not be directly involved in justice issues.  Rather it would be better to start parachurch organizations to handle such matters.  But at other times he promotes the involvement of the church in social agendas, of which Redeemer is a clear example.  This leaves the reader confused at best.

An important question exists: if we are drawing our marching orders from the Bible as we should, is the emphasis in Scripture on social justice throughout the world, among all peoples, or only among believers?  Keller admits that the Old Testament laws on social justice (the author looks primarily to the Old Testament for his support throughout the book) focused on justice and care among the community of Israel, who were called to be the followers of God, and not the broader world.[63] Yet most of the book deals with the injustices found throughout the planet and how the church and Christians should actively be involved in rectifying these problems.  This is an important disconnect.  If the Old Testament is primarily interested in Israel’s welfare, upon what biblical base is the New Testament church and/or the individual believer to make social justice throughout the world at large a mandate on par with evangelism and discipleship?  Keller offers at least three:

  • All humans are made in the image of God.
  • The Lord is the owner of everything and our resources do not belong to us but to the Lord and to the community.
  • Sharing with the poor is the proof of our understanding of God’s grace.[64]

While these motivations seem solid, where in Scripture are believers taught to devote primary time, resources and efforts to the poor and marginalized of the unbelieving world? While believers in both Testaments are to do good to all people, it is the community of believers to which these efforts are consistently directed.  There is scant evidence within the Bible that believers are to attempt to change society, solve social ills, or orchestrate political movements, something Keller admits.  After all, the standard Old Testament texts normally cited to support the social justice movement reference Israel, not the world.  And the usual New Testament passages used, such as Matthew 25:31-46, even when ripped out of context as Keller does, speaks of aiding the brothers and sisters, not the unbeliever.  For these reasons, Keller champions the story of the Good Samaritan as the most important text to inform us of our social duties.[65] It should be mentioned that building an argument on a descriptive narrative, rather than drawing from direct biblical prescription and instruction, is an all too common hermeneutical mistake and ready-made for misunderstanding the teaching of Scripture.  Ultimately Keller turns to Jonathan Edwards for support. Edwards claimed that based on this story we should “go out into the world looking to help absolutely anyone in need.”[66] However, contrary to Edwards, the Samaritan did no such thing.  He was not seeking someone to aid but rather happened upon a wounded man and with compassion helped him.  The Bible does not instruct us to make it our mission to search the world over looking for people to aid physically and socially.  It does tell us to go throughout the world making disciples (Matt 28:19) and it does teach us to help those in need who come across our pathway (e.g. the Good Samaritan).  The teaching of the New Testament is that the church is to have a laser-like focus on the mission the Lord has given us – to make disciples.  Surely, we are to care for the needy unbeliever when the Lord brings them into our lives, but you will be hard pressed to find anything in Scripture about the mission of the church being that of social justice.

At points, Keller admits all this but he cannot resist returning to the idea that it is the church and the people of God who are responsible for solving social problems in the world at large.  When the author draws from philosophers and social scientists he is on shaky ground at best.  When he quotes, without caveat, the father of Liberation Theology, Gustavo Gutierrez,[67] he betrays his lack of discernment.

Keller is on better ground when he confirms, with D. A. Carson, that we cannot redeem culture but we can improve it.[68] We can do so, he teaches, by helping a neighborhood to become self-sufficient through relocation (moving into disadvantaged neighborhoods), redistribution (training local leadership), and racial reconciliation (multiethnic and interracial leadership).[69] Yet buried in footnotes Keller admits how complicated and even destructive some of these steps are.[70]

When Keller turns to Scripture he does not do much better.  He believes the idea that the church needs to stick with preaching the gospel and building disciples while neglecting social justice is naïve and wrong.[71]  Using Acts 6, 2 Corinthians 8:13-14 and Galatians 2:10, as well as 1 Timothy 5:1-10 and Acts 4:34 he tries to make a biblical case.  Yet he ignores the fact that every one of these texts deals directly with how the church should minister within the church not society, something he has admitted several times throughout the book (e.g. p. 145) and in a number of footnotes.  Where he missteps is in his thinking that the gospel is two-pronged. That is, the gospel, in Keller’s thinking, drawing much from Peter Wagner’s concept of the “whole gospel,” is not only about reconciliation with God but also about solving social issues.[72] He does not see the biblical gospel as identical to social justice but believes they are in an asymmetrical, inseparable relationship. Keller thinks that they are connected in two ways. First, the gospel produces a concern for the poor and, secondly, deeds of justice gain credibility for the preaching of the gospel.[73] He writes that “someone must resist and change the legal, political, and social systems,”[74] and that someone must be the church: “You or your church should begin by discovering the needs in your locale. Are there disadvantaged children (abused and neglected, physically or mentally disabled, failing in school) who could use help?[75] In my opinion, this would be a good definition of “mission drift” in which the church adds to its divine mandate of making disciples the direct solving of social problems of our culture.

Make no mistake: that the people of God should be concerned about injustice and social issues that plague our world at large, and they should be model citizens who do good to those around them, is not in question and is not the issue.  On the table is whether it is God’s plan for His people to actively be focusing their attention, efforts, and resources into changing the legal, political and social systems found within secular culture.  Those who believe it is, including all those mentioned in this paper, are adding the Cultural Mandate (Gen 1:26-28) to the Great Commission as the purpose of the church.[76] This is Keller’s argument but he does not make his case biblically.  His cutting and pasting of random Scripture verses, mostly out of context, might give the appearance that he has proved his thesis but the vast teaching of Scripture stands against his view.  I do agree with Keller when he affirms that individual Christians working within parachurch or even secular organizations might devote time to social issues while leaving the church to do what only the church can do.  However, the author is not consistent throughout the book and dangerously confuses the message and the mission of the church.

Keller represents well the confusion which has infiltrated the church in the 21st century. The arguments supporting adding the social justice agenda to the mandate of the church sound good and resonate with the culture, especially younger people, but they do not agree with the teaching of Scripture which presents a far narrower agenda of presentation of the gospel of redemption and the call to make followers of Christ.  Believers are to be salt and light in the world and thereby have an effect on society.  But the social justice movement is a well-meaning distraction from our biblical mandate.


by Gary E. Gilley, Pastor/teacher, Southern View Chapel

[1] See previous article: https://tottministries.org/social-justice/.

[2] https://tottministries.org/the-social-gospel-yesterday-and-today-part-1/ and

https://tottministries.org/the-   social-gospel-yesterday-and-today-part-2-sp-224/.

[3] Emilio A. Núñez C., Liberation Theology, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985).

[4] Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1971, 1988, 2015).

[5] Ibid., pp. 16-17.

[6] Ibid., p. 21.

[7] Ibid., p. 64.

[8] Ibid., pp. 17, 20, 54-55, 65-66, 116, 158-159.

[9] Ibid., p. 150.

[10] Ibid., (p. XXXVIII-XXXIX).

[11] Ibid., pp. 83-85.

[12] Ibid., pp. 143, 217.

[13] Ibid., p. 37.

[14] Ibid., p. 46.

[15] Ibid., p. 141.

[16] Ibid., pp. 8, 16, 19, 56, 125-126, 183.

[17] Ibid., p. 10.

[18] Ibid., pp. 10-11, 29, 66, 74, 91.

[19] Ibid., pp. 135-140.

[20] Ibid., p. 168.

[21] Ibid.,

[22] Ibid., pp. XXXIII-XXXIV, 162-173.

[23] Ibid., p. 165.

[24] https://churchleaders.com/news/334586-al-mohler-sign-statement-on-social-justice.html

[25] Ronald Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2015), pp. 141, 232, 235).

[26] Ibid., p. 191, cf. p. 51.

[27] www.lausanne.org/cape-town-2010/faq-programme.

[28] Jim Owen, The Hidden History of the Historic Fundamentalists, 1933-1948, Reconsidering the Historic Fundamentalists’ Response to the Upheavals, Hardships, and Horrors of the 1930s and 1940s, (Lanham: University Press of America, 2004), p. 118.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1947, 2003), p. 13.

[31] Ibid., pp. 21, 24.

[32] http://www.shaneclaiborne.com/new-page

[33] Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution, Living as an Ordinary Radical, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, 2016), p. 23.

[34] Ibid., p. 24.

[35] Ibid., pp. 153-154; 58, 338-339.

[36] Ibid., p. 140.

[37] Ibid., p. 352.

[38] See our three articles on the New Perspective on Paul at our website: tottministries.org.

[39] NT Wright, Simply Good News, Why the Gospel Is News and What Makes It Good (New York, HarperCollins, 2015), pp. 5, 23, 65.

[40] Ibid., pp. 6, 7, 98, 107, 148.

[41] Ibid., p. 36.

[42] Ibid., p. 46.

[43] Ibid., pp. 54-55.

[44] Ibid., p. 158.

[45] Ibid., p. 164.

[46] Ibid., p. 161.

[47] Ibid. p. 169.

[48] NT Wright, Surprised by Hope, Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York, HarperCollins, 2008), pp.  201-206.

[49] Ibid., pp. 208, 211.

[50] Ibid., pp. 213-222.

[51] Ibid., pp. 222-225.

[52] Ibid., p. 226.

[53] Ibid., pp. 250, 255.

[54] Ibid., pp. pp. 90, 93, 96, 103-105, 224, 275, 279, 294.

[55] Ibid., p. 201.

[56] Ibid., p. 226; cf. pp. 193, 197-200, 204-205, 265-270.

[57] Ibid., (pp. 245-246).

[58] https://www.redeemer.com/learn/about_us.

[59] Timothy Keller, Generous Justice, How God’s Grace Makes Us Just, (New York: Dutton, 2010), pp. x-xiv.

[60] Ibid., p. xiv.

[61] Ibid., pp. xiv.

[62] Ibid., see pp. 144-146, 204, 216.

[63] Ibid., pp. 23, 29-31, 77, 60-61.

[64] Ibid., pp. 82-96.

[65] Ibid., pp. 62-77, 201.

[66] Ibid., p. 205.

[67] Ibid., p. 7, 194.

[68] Ibid., p. 162.

[69] Ibid., pp. 115-121.

[70] Ibid., pp. 210-211.

[71]Ibid., p. 135, 141.

[72] Ibid., pp. 138-144.

[73] Ibid., pp. 139-140.

[74] Ibid., p. 130.

[75] Ibid., p. 133.

[76] Ibid., p. 130.

Print