Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 43.5 - 27 Mar 2009

This Debate Is Important

The institutional church and social justice

by David Salverda

On Monday, March 9th, I had the delightful opportunity to hear a lengthy and respectful impromptu debate between Prof. John Bolt and the CRC Office of Social Justice representative Peter VanderMeulen.

The debate emerged after a formal lunchtime conversation between CTS students and two representatives from the CRC Office of Social Justice and Hunger Action. This conversation was just one out of many conversations sponsored by "The Organic Church" lunch series this year.

What was particularly delightful about this impromptu debate was that I was able to listen to two people, both older and wiser than myself, discuss a topic that I find myself, less coherently, debating in my own mind on a regular basis. And more than this, I felt like I was the conversation. It was representative of the two different (but related) ideologies that have significantly shaped my character over the years.

On the one hand, there is the perspective of Peter VanderMeulen and others that had and continues to have great influence on my thinking. Not too long ago I was an overly curious college sophomore riding in the back of pick-up trucks through the hill country of Central America, a tattered copy of Nicholas Wolterstorff’s Until Justice and Peace Embrace in my hand. Needless to say, the arguments in that book at that particular time were cogent. I instantly became a convert to his understanding of the Bible, of Shalom and of the holistic mission of the church. VanderMeulen believes, like Wolterstorff, that working for justice should not be wholly separated from the mission of the church. In fact, in certain cases such as in Sierra Leone during the early 90s, working for justice proves to be integrally connected with the mission of the church. According to VanderMeulen, it is because of instances like the devastation that occurred in Sierra Leone that the Office of Social Justice exists. VanderMeulen presents his perspective exceptionally well. In fact, one can tell that he is regularly forced to defend his job.

But on the other hand, there is the perspective of Prof. John Bolt and others who are currently shaping and exerting influence over my thinking. Prof. Bolt believes (at least from what I can tell) that the church should exercise great caution with regard to political pronouncements about policy. In fact, the church—as institution—should probably steer clear of the political arena almost entirely. The institutional church has enough on its plate holding Christ out to the world via the Word and sacraments; it does not need to make lofty political pronouncements. In fact, such policy pushing often gets in the way of and confuses the church’s God-given function in the world. This of course does not mean that Christians should stay away from the political arena. They, of course, can and should get appropriately involved. This position exhibits some existential cogency in my life as well. I have plenty of friends who have slowly come to see that Jesus is not essential for justice and as a result they have thrown out Jesus. They realized that one can care about systemic issues without a Christ-shaped worldview. In addition to this, I know of churches that care way too much about social justice and way too little about reconciliation with God the Father through Jesus the Son upon being regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit.

From what I can tell, the process of resolution of this debate—both the one in my mind and the one that actually happened at Calvin Seminary—includes work that needs to be done in a couple of different areas. First of all, this debate revolves around ecclesiological and missiological issues. The way one understands the church and the church’s function in the world is going to change the conclusions one will draw on this issue. Secondly, there are some practical issues involved in this debate (issues that stem from the theoretical issues). I got the feeling, when listening to Peter VanderMeulen and Prof. Bolt debate, that their disagreement had a lot to do with priorities and resources. VanderMeulen believes that his office is an integral component of the church’s mission in the world and should therefore receive a seat around the "missions" table and should also receive the resources to exercise its function. Professor Bolt, on the other hand, would like to see a much more restricted role for social justice in the mission of the church; and hence, social justice advocates should receive little priority and resources from the church—if any at all.

The debate between these two men, from what I could tell, revolved around the issues presented above. More issues, of course, were discussed, but from what I discerned, the debate centered upon ecclesiological-missiological and priority-resource disagreements.

In my opinion, this debate is currently an important one for us to have—and not just for my own mental sanity. The Christian Reformed Church, for better or worse is moving in a decidedly Wolterstorffian direction without debate. Furthermore, I think that this debate will probably have some influence on the Belhar Confession conversation that is and will continue to be an issue in the CRC. Finally, how one answers these questions might very well influence the way the CRC deals with the financial crunch—how we determine what is central and should stay, and what is non-essential and can be let go. Perhaps the debate that occurred on Monday between VanderMeulen and Bolt needs to be continued in a more public setting. Perhaps people can use Kerux as a forum to express their opinion and engage in debate.

My own opinion, if I have one yet, is that social justice and the Office of Social Justice should continue to play a role in the life of the church. This being said, I think that it should take on a supportive role. It should be an office that works to support the central mission of the church in ways that only it can. With regard to what the central mission of the church is, I personally appreciate Prof. Tuit’s distinction between the heart of the gospel (the reconciliation of sinners to God) and the scope of the gospel (the reconciliation of all things to God). In my mind, the church should focus its attention on the heart of the gospel. But sometimes, however, I think that periphery issues (justice issues) will affect the church’s ability to carry out its central mission.