Should We Respond to Racism by Just Preaching the Gospel?
It’s been almost three months since the death of George Floyd, which sparked a national, multicultural activist movement that felt unprecedented in recent generations. While the protests may have decreased, that doesn’t mean the conversation has ended. Rather, the topic of race and social justice continue to loom over social media, entertainment, and the upcoming elections.
This topic also looms over churches. While some Christians believe the church must help pursue racial justice and even participate in public demonstrations, other Christians are more critical. As one writer articulated, when you talk about racism in some evangelical contexts, these tend to be the kind of responses you encounter:
“Why are you focusing so much on political issues?”
“Systems don’t sin; people do”
“If you want to destroy the sin of racism, just preach the gospel”
Personally, it’s this last response that I tend to hear the most: if you want to fight against racial injustice, you just need to preach the gospel. It’s tricky because to disagree with this almost makes it seem like you don’t believe in the power and sufficiency of the gospel.
But I thought it’d be helpful to understand what some Christians mean when they say this and why other Christians may not necessarily agree with this sentiment. Let me explain.
Why We Should Just Preach the Gospel
Even though there are some Christians who believe churches should speak directly about racial injustice, why do others insist that churches should just focus on preaching the gospel? Here are a couple of reasons
1) The Primacy of the Gospel
Perhaps the main reason behind the sentiment is due to the primacy of the gospel in the Scriptures. After all, the gospel is described as being of “first importance” (1 Cor 15:3). That’s because the gospel is the power for salvation (Rom 1:16) and the power for transformation (2 Cor 3:18). While Jews demand a sign and Greeks desire wisdom, the church must “preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23).
What does this have to do with racism? Well, the problem of race is not due primarily to broken systems but sinful hearts (Rom 3:23). Therefore, the solution is not social reform but a renewed heart (Ezek 36:26), which can only come through the power of the gospel. So if churches would focus on preaching the gospel, transformation in a society will inevitably follow.
2) The Fear of Losing the Gospel
The mission of the church is to “go and make disciples” (Mt 28:19). Therefore, churches are supposed to proclaim the gospel and focus primarily on evangelism. So when Christians tackle issues like racial injustice, they seem to be losing sight of the gospel and the church’s mission - and this isn’t without historical precedence.
In the early 20th century, the Social Gospel began as a movement when a young pastor named Walter Rauschenbusch argued that churches needed to not only win souls but fight against systemic injustices. This stirred many evangelicals to become more engaged in politics and social reform. But while the Social Gospel promoted good things like love and service, it left them susceptible to liberal ideologies.
As author Al Mohler reflects, “This altered the church’s mission from conversion and evangelism to social progress and political agendas…it denied the gospel of Jesus Christ and replaced it with a political and social mission for the church.” Therefore, the fear is that when churches focus on social issues like racism rather than just preaching the gospel, they may end up losing the gospel altogether.
3) The Solution Through Individual Conversions
A final reason why I hear why churches should just preach the gospel is because we often envision gospel transformation through a white, western framework. As a result, we tend to view salvation and transformation through individualistic terms. For example, salvation is often defined as having “a personal relationship with Jesus.” Similarly, transformation is seen through individual conversions - and this only happens through the gospel.
While individual conversions are important in the transformation of a society, I think it’s a bit shortsighted. Imagine if you were a missionary in a remote tribe in Africa where it was custom to practice FGM (female genital mutilation). After you preach the gospel and some individuals are converted, imagine if FGM was still ingrained in that tribe’s social system. If you were living amongst this tribe, would you just preach the gospel? Or would you also address this sinful practice?
Yet this is how I think some Christians are approaching the problem of racial injustice. As author Tim Keller observes, “Many Christians resist the idea that social systems need to be dealt with directly. They prefer the idea that ‘society is changed one heart at a time,’ and so they concentrate on only evangelism and individual social work. This is naive.” But unless you think sin exists in social structures, then it’ll be difficult to realize this.
Racial Injustice and Just Preaching the Gospel
Once again, I don’t deny the power and sufficiency of the gospel. However, I wonder if responding to issues like race with phrases like “just preach the gospel” is as simple as people think. Here are some reasons why.
1) The Bible Doesn’t Just Preach the Gospel
While the mission of the church is to make disciples, it is also to teach followers to observe all that Jesus commanded (Mt 28:20). This is why most of the New Testament letters don’t only share the gospel but also address specific problems taking place. For example, Paul addresses specific divisions in Corinth (1 Cor 1:10-17) and ethnic pride in Galatia (Gal 2:11-21) while James addresses favoritism to the churches in the Dispersion (Jas 2:1-7).
In other words, it’s not just about preaching the gospel but ensuring that we are walking “in step with the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14). As pastor Thabiti Anyabwile writes, “Without question the gospel is of first importance…However, if we take this to mean that only the gospel should be preached, [then] we reduce our vision to the sun’s central place in our solar system but neglects its effects on the remaining planets an stars that orbit it.”
Yes, we must faithfully preach the indicatives of the gospel, but the imperatives of the gospel and “weightier matters of the law [like] justice and mercy” (Mt 23:23) must also be preached.
2) We Should Beware of Repeating History
One thing I feel like some Christians aren’t aware of is how this rhetoric of “just preach the gospel” has been used throughout American history - especially when it comes to racial issues. In his fantastic work The Color of Compromise, Jemar Tisby recounts how American evangelicals constantly employed this phrase to maintain the racial social structures of the country.
For example, in the late 1800s, while some evangelicals empathized with the abolition of slavery, many refused to take a definitive stance against race-based chattel slavery. Why so? According to Tisby, Christians at the time “believed that social change came about through evangelization…once a person believed Christ as Savior and Lord, he or she would naturally work toward justice and change.”
In the 1960s when the Civil Rights Movement called for equality, many evangelical leaders criticized the movement for focusing on “social issues,” not spiritual ones. Even when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was not met with universal support from evangelicals. Why so? It wasn’t that evangelicals denied the black community was discriminated against. Rather, “Christian moderates insisted on obeying the law, working through the courts, and patiently awaiting for transformation.”
And today, when issues like sex-trafficking and abortion arises, Christians won’t say, “We just need to preach the gospel and change will be inevitable.” Instead, we fight against these social injustices. But when race issues comes up, the primacy of the gospel seems to reappear. In other words, while there is historical precedence for churches losing the gospel, I think there is also historical precedence for churches not walking in step with the truth of the gospel.
3) The Need for Compassion
Recently I went to see a biblical counselor to receive healing from some painful past experiences. When I met the counselor, he asked me what was wrong and I shared with him a brief overview of my story. It wasn’t easy sharing, but I tried my best to be open and vulnerable. However, after he heard me share, he paused for a bit and replied, “You know, what you went through was tough, but it sounds like what you really need is to believe in the gospel more.”
What’s strange is that I actually agree with everything he said. I do need to believe in the gospel more. It’s in the gospel that I find strength and healing for things that have happened in my past. He was right. And yet, it felt so wrong. I wish before he reminded me of the solution that I could feel he understood my story. I wish he first empathized with my pain. I wish he’d grieve a bit for my suffering. But instead, what it felt like he told me was, “You just need the gospel.”
I think this is how Christians can come off when we keep telling people who experience injustice that what’s most important is we just preach the gospel. I mean it’s true: the solution to humanity’s problem is ultimately found in our hope in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And yet to jump straight to the solution without really acknowledging the problem sounds like dismissing the pain of the suffering.
Conclusion
Once again, I write all of this as someone who fully believes in the power and centrality of the gospel. I’m aware that the only type of justice we can possibly achieve in this world is a proximate justice and that our ultimate hope is in the new heavens and earth.
But as I continue reflecting on issues on race and justice, I don’t wish to bring division within God’s church. Rather, I hope Christians would think thoroughly about these matters and realize that the relationship between the church and social justice has always been complex. Therefore, I hope simplistic solutions and pithy sayings would not dominate the conversation but rather lead to more humble dialogue between disagreeing parties.