Can an overemphasis on Social Justice Issues Rob us Of Gospel-Centered Preaching?

Can an overemphasis on Social Justice Issues Rob us Of 

Gospel-Centered Biblical Preaching?

(Or is it possible that this is just another either/or fallacy).

I would suggest in the bigger picture of Christianity, local churches, denominations, and mission boards have both formed and divided over these issues.  I simple look at church history proves this point.  To deny denominations have split of slavery or the ordination of women would a denial of American history.  For evidence, compare the Southern Baptist Convention to the Northern Baptist Convention.  Or compare the Southern Baptist Convention to the Cooperative Baptist Convention.  All Baptists, have dramatically different views in regard to social justice issues (and I would suggest even in the content of the gospel).  This latter part is of greater (and eternal) concern.  

It would be rather naive to claim there is a simple answer to this dilemma.  It would be equally improper to claim we have a more robust and mature Christianity simply because our own particular church(s) claim(s) to be "balanced" on this issue.  No doubt, the balanced position finds a way to paint everyone else as an extreme.  Anyway on to our Biblical text.

For this idea (and certainly not the only location), I'll turn to Luke 10:38-42.  I came across this text yet again in my M'Cheyne Bible reading plan (which hits this verse twice each calendar year and which I highly recommend):

"38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. 40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. 41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

This may be a huge "misapplication" but many study notes say otherwise.  Is it possible to get so caught up in serving and focusing on social justice issues that the gospel gets second place?  Is it possible to think you are doing all sorts of things with the motive of "love" that gospel preaching and evangelism never actually happens?  Do we get so caught up in "doing" that we start redefining key doctrinal terms such as: mercy, grace, or justification?

Is it possible to make this error in a food pantry?  A soup kitchen? Homeless shelter?  These ideas may be good in an of themselves but if the gospel is never preached, then what?  Well fed, well rested unbelievers.  Is there more that local churches could do to reach out to a dying world around them?  Yes, of course (its not the governments job).  

What then is evangelism?  What is an actual gospel presentation?  Is it possible that the above mentioned social justice issues can be defended more with Biblical pragmatism when mixed with the gospel?  Foreign mission?  Build me a well and I listen to your story.  Give me food and I'll believe in your God.  I don't say these as straw men.  This is real-world modern day mission board philosophy.  Put simply: if it works, then it must be okay if allows for a gospel presentation.  As to when in church history this means of evangelism has become acceptable is another question you must answer. 

The study notes go straight to the point, "Martha's problem was not that she was serving: it was that she was distracted by 'much serving' (v. 40).  It is not only bad things that keep us from true communion with Christ; it is often an excessive preoccupation, anxiety, and distraction with good things" (The Reformation Heritage Study Bible, p. 1476).

On the other hand, is possible that Martha was not focused on worship but too fixated on the details, "Martha was evidently fussing about with details that were unnecessarily elaborate" (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1502).


Ryrie as well seems to catch this misplaced emphasis, "One simple dish for the meal is all that is necessary, rather than the elaborate preparations Martha had made" (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1644).


We could add plenty more but as you can see we can get so preoccupied with service (perhaps even in the name of being self-less or hospitable), that we can completely miss the bigger picture.  Here I would suggest we can miss correct worship practices or even worse completely skew a right presentation of the gospel message.  So is this an either/or fallacy?  They certainly are not diametrically opposed to each other.  But it seems clear we can get caught up in service (or doing things in the name of "ministry") that the gospel message never actually happens.


Thoughts of course.  Comments encouraged (as always).

Evangelical Study Bibles and a Literal Six-Day Creation Narrative

Study Bibles and a Literal Six-Day Creation Narrative 
(Part One)

If you are an avid Bible reader then you know doubt have purchased or seen personally something called a Study Bible.  They come multiple fonts, sizes, English translations, and theological viewpoints.  It is this last comment that is our focus of attention for this article.

We should not be naive in believing that Study Bible are unbiased in their note presentations.  Don't forget the notes are not scripture they are simply notes to help the reader better understand the meaning of the text (or at least to make sure the reader understands it the way the note writer wants them to).

Some study Bible dig deep and others are rather shallow.  Some provide actual exegetical comments from syntax and grammar for actually defending a literal six-day creation week.  On the other hand, others go to great length to defend nearly every other possible interpretation of the text.

I am including a sampling of the notes from some well-known study Bibles so you the reader can see first hand the position taught and encouraged by each.  Please make careful note as to what each study Bible teaches (positively) and teaches against (negatively).  The danger enters when they simply start espousing other (acceptable positions) held by other new evangelical pastors and teachers.

Our first stop will be the The MacArthur Study Bible, authored and general editor being John MacArthur. His study notes on Gen 1:1-2:3 are as follows:
     "This description of God creating heaven and earth is understood to be: 1) recent, i.e.,    thousands not millions of years ago; 2) ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing; and 3) special, i.e., in 6 consecutive 24 hour periods called "days" and further distinguished as such by this phrase, "the evening and the morning."  Scripture does not support a creation date earlier than about 10,000 years ago."'

Obviously The MacArthur Study Bible is a strong advocate for a young earth creationist position.  He clearly is not endorsing any possible form of day age, theistic evolution, or a gap theory.  And certainly not a multi-million year old earth.

Our next stop will be the Zondervan King James Study Bible, general editing done by Kenneth Barker.  Associate editors were Burdick, Stek, Wessel, and Youngblood.  Concerning 1:1 they write, "The opening verse is a summary statement introducing the six days of creation."  Later in the notes for 1:5 they include, "Some say that the creation days were literal 24-hour days, others that they were indefinite periods.  Several factors, however, support the first interpretation." 

It is only academically honest to say the do fill nearly three inches worth of note space for providing a defense for literal 24-hour days.  These notes do include pointing out problems with other understandings of the text.

Thirdly, we shall visit a newly published The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, general editor Joel Beeke.  Other editors were Barrett, Bilkes and Smalley.  Concerning 1:1 they write, "The beginning of time, space, and matter.  All cam from Him and is under His control."  Later on 1:2 they state, "What the original creation was at the beginning, not what it became.  The gap theory tries to argue original creation became corrupt, but the expression means empty and uninhabited."

So clearly they do not believe in any form of theistic evolution and take creation as six-literal days.  They also directly disagree with and refute a gap theory position.  Directly after Genesis one they include a full page article on creation which was adapted from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Later in an appendix they include a full length rendering of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly stands on a literal six day, 24-hour creation week.

Fourth, we shall visit the time-tested Ryrie Study Bible, General Editor Charles Ryrie.  His introductory notes include a roughly 6500 years old timeline.  He writes against the gap theory, "Some understand a "gap" of an indeterminate period of time between verses 1 and 2, and translate "became' rather than "was."  He includes a lengthy paragraph showing the problems with this gap period position.  Later arguing against those seeing large period of time he writes, "Evening and morning cannot be construed to mean an age, but only a day; everywhere in the Pentateuch the word day, when used (as here) with a numerical adjective, means a solar day (now calibrated as 24 hours)."

Our next post shall include comments from the following Study Bibles:

The ESV Study Bible General Editor Wayne Grudem
The Reformation Study Bible, General Editor R. C. Sproul
The Apologetics Study Bible, Numerous Authors
The Archaeological Study Bible, General Editor Walter Kaiser Jr.

Hope this helps some.  Comments Encouraged.