In the book Removing the Stain of Racism from the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Jarvis J. Williams contributes a chapter entitled “Biblical Steps Toward Removing the Stain of Racism from the Southern Baptist Convention.”[1]
That he is a scholar is evident in his chapter. I did find myself in agreement with some things he said and parts of his “fifteen concluding exhortations related to removing the stain of racism from the SBC.”[2] Although I will address his perspective on racism at another time, I do appreciate his acknowledgment that some progress has been made regarding race relations in the SBC.[3]
Here, however, I am addressing his attempt to tie racial reconciliation too closely to the gospel of salvation. He conflates the message of the preached gospel by which people believe unto salvation with the gospel’s accomplishments, effects, and consequences, many of which relate to becoming a new creation in Christ through regeneration and living out our faith (John 3:3–8; 2 Cor 5:17).[4]
Some who desire to exalt the gospel attempt to expand it so that the totality of God’s redemptive plan becomes the gospel; everything becomes a gospel issue. But since it is impossible to include every salvific truth in the gospel definitionally, they usually focus on things such as social needs, justice, social justice, or in Dr. Williams’s case, racial reconciliation. This unwarranted expansion transfers biblical concepts associated with the Christian life, such as loving our neighbor (Matt 22:39), the Holy Spirit-filled life (Gal 5:22–26), or imitating God (Eph 5:1), into the definition of the gospel.
It confuses what happens and what should happen in the saved person’s life with the gospel we preach when we proclaim the good news of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, who is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). This attachment of the fruit of the gospel with the gospel message of God’s sacrifice for us that we preach (John 3:16) unnecessarily complicates the gospel that leads to salvation by making results of the gospel requirements of the gospel. Results of the gospel such as receiving spiritual gifts, having and expressing desires and actions of a Christian, loving each other, belonging to a local church, racial reconciliation, or any of countless other features designated in the New Testament as Christian responsibilities and blessing follow the reception of the gospel; therefore, they are not the gospel.
We see this same complication when people see the biblical gospel as too simple or when they desire to include elements of beliefs they deem important. Some in the church of Galatia were adding aspects of Judaism to the gospel (Gal 1:4–8). In more modern times, and out of the desire of many Christians to right society’s wrongs, various additions have also been made. For example, the Social Gospel movement flourished between 1870 and 1920. “The advocates of the movement interpreted the kingdom of God as requiring social as well as individual salvation.”[5] Similarly, today we have the “justice gospel” or the “social justice gospel,” which rightfully laments the injustices of society but does so wrongly by incorporating non-salvific issues (some of which are actually components of cultural Marxism) into the simple gospel.
For Williams, it is a matter of racial reconciliation. He insists that we need to “advance the gospel of reconciliation and to erase the stain of racism from our denomination.”[6] In Galatians, Judaizers corrupted the gospel by adding commandments and traditions from the Old Testament. Today, it is the addition of correcting various social ills by adding justice or, in Williams’s case, “the gospel of reconciliation” through ideas such as the gospel of justice. While some who promote these gospel add-ons may have dastardly motives, I assume most do not. As Christ-followers, they only desire to make society a more just society as all Christians should, but it is unscriptural to bind their message too closely to the gospel of Christ.
It is a perilous mistake to make the outcomes and blessings of the gospel identical to the gospel that we share, which leads to salvation if one believes (1 Cor 15:1–4). If everything in Scripture, or said in Scripture to and for Christians, is the gospel, then what are we to make of progressive sanctification, discipleship, maturing, equipping, and the fruits of the Spirit? And what about the commands directed only to Christians and the instructions given only to Christians that are not necessary to do or even know about to be saved? All of the epistles and the book of Revelation were written to or for local churches, which are to be composed of people who have accepted the gospel and are now dedicated to learning and living the Scripture out to its fullest, something no unsaved person can do.
One passage Williams relies on to argue for the “gospel of reconciliation” is Ephesians 1:2–13. I have studied this passage many times and read numerous commentaries on it by both Calvinists and Extensivists (non-Calvinists). I see each perspective’s particular emphasis explicitly in the very words of the passage; therefore, I understand why each side argues their viewpoint. Williams is the first I have read that suggests, based on the passage, that the gospel is incomplete without racial reconciliation.
It is true that God’s total work of salvation and “the summing up of all things in Christ” (1:10) includes the elimination of every barrier (theological, racial, economic, and cultural, to name a few). But I challenge Williams’s insistence that racial reconciliation is a part of the gospel we proclaim because it is included in “the summing up of all things in Christ.” He inextricably connects salvation and racial reconciliation as essential components of the gospel by what he calls “entry language” and “maintenance language.”[7]
Williams uses the Old Testament (LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and pagan literature’s usage of the terms euaggelion and euaggelizo (noun and verb forms of gospel) to support his contention. He also relies heavily on the reality that the gospel means good news and the fact that the term is used etymologically (etymology explains the origin and development of a word) to refer to various types of good news as being supportive of his attaching reconciliation to the gospel (Joel 2:18–3:2; Nah 1:8–14; 2:1–3:19; Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1).
Williams says, “As I stated above, evangelicals in general and Southern Baptists in particular often narrowly (and wrongly!) define gospel only in terms of entry language (i.e., how one becomes a Christian). But the gospel is broader than some are willing to admit. It includes both entry language (how one becomes a Christian) and maintenance language (how one lives in Spirit-empowered obedience).”[8] When he makes the gospel we preach include entry and maintenance language (the latter supposedly justifying making racial reconciliation a part of the gospel), he conflates the effects of the gospel with the evangelistic message, the gospel definitionally, which must be believed to be saved. Which raises the question, why this one aspect of racial reconciliation and not other countless results of the gospel? Why not such things as being pro-life or stamping out poverty?
Paul says of the gospel he preached, “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:1–4). Issues such as marital problems, actual social injustices, and the need for truth can be elements of illustrating our sinfulness before God by contextualizing the need for the gospel, but they are not, thereby, the gospel.
Williams also employs passages saying, “Euaggelion appears numerous times in Galatians to refer to the announcement about Jesus” (Gal 6:7, 11; 2:2, 5, 7, 14).[9] For the record, the gospel is intrinsically about Jesus’s person and work to procure salvation and freely give to all who believe. Jesus and his work are why there is a gospel and what the gospel is about, which includes our need for the gospel because we are hopelessly sinful on our own. Thus, I do not know how this supports moving racial reconciliation from a fruit of the gospel to an integral component of the gospel, like preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
Williams argues against the gospel being limited to justification by faith. He says, “The noun “gospel” (euaggelion) and the verb “to announce the gospel/good news” (euaggelizo) should not be defined exclusively in terms of justification by faith.”[10] My response is if we are referring to what the gospel broadly accomplishes, then yes, he is correct. But when used as a climactic encapsulation of what the gospel is and does, which is the way it is commonly used, it is a wonderful explanation. The gospel is the incomparably good news that accomplishes a myriad of things that fall within the truth that by faith, the ungodly can be accepted by the holy God and declared to be eternally justified and, therefore, without guilt. All of this is based on receiving the benefit of the atonement of Christ through faith; to wit, we are justified by faith.
Williams does admit, in reference to Galatians, that “Paul indicates that the gospel and the announcement of the good news in Galatia includes justification by faith . . . The gospel in Galatians should not be defined only as justification by faith—though Galatians teaches justification is part (an important part) of Paul’s gospel.”[11] Therefore, we see it as “an important part” but not a central message. Williams did not answer whether it was more, less, or of the same importance as racial reconciliation.
After the first quote cited above, he goes into the etymology of the word, demonstrating how it meant various ideas of good news conveyed by the term in pagan literature and the LXX.[12] Which, as far as I can tell, does nothing to demonstrate that the gospel definitionally includes racial reconciliation in the message to believe unto salvation, nor that we should not find the apex of the gospel in “justification by faith.” Donald K. Campbell says the purpose of Galatians was to address “the Judaizers in Galatia [who] both discredited Paul and proclaimed a false gospel. . . Paul contended for the true doctrine of grace, that is, for justification by faith alone.”[13]
Williams spends considerable time arguing for an expanded understanding of the term gospel in order to defend his position on racial reconciliation. He draws on the usage of the verb and noun forms of gospel not only from pagan sources but also from the book of Isaiah. Regarding the book of Galatians, Williams says, “As they heard this letter read in a worship context, I do not believe they thought Paul was referencing only a turn from justification by faith to a false gospel. Their understanding . . . would have included justification by faith as well as . . . the other gospel/salvation themes occurring in the letter that parallels Isaiah 40—66 and Genesis 12—50. Paul likely proclaimed these themes to them during his visit with them (Acts 13:13–14:23; Gal 5:20–21).”[14]
Although Paul had been with the Galatians previously, being pagans with little or no knowledge of the Old Testament, they would probably not have linked the things Paul was condemning and correcting with Isaiah. Rarely will you find a congregation today that can link them, even if they have been taught the Old Testament and even grew up in a Christian home. At best, I think it is highly speculative to use that possibility in an attempt to justify his premise that racial reconciliation is a part of the gospel presentation. Williams’s understanding of the gospel we are to preach is so complicated and encumbered by conflating results of the gospel with the essentials of the gospel that he makes it difficult to define the gospel succinctly and clearly. This difficulty is particularly true when we consider scores of other accomplishments and blessings flowing from the gospel that we could add to his.
What about people who think the gospel should include some other consequence or matter of justice instead of racial reconciliation? Each person mixing their particular emphasis leaves the church with an unclear universal gospel. What must I include in the gospel beyond belief in Christ who died, was buried, and rose again to pay for the sins of the world (John 1:29) so that anyone and everyone can be forgiven of their sins so that God is just in declaring them justified (John 3:16–18; Rom 3:24, 26). Nothing, if we leave the gospel as found in Scripture. To add anything to that gospel is a corruption of consequence!
Justification, wherein God declares the ungodly who trust Christ as Savior to be justified in his sight, is the apex of salvation. James Leo Garrett Jr. states, “The condition of justification is faith in Christ (Gal 2:16a; 3:8a, 24; Rom 3:26, 28). The blessings issuing from justification include ‘peace with God,’ ‘access’ to God’s ‘grace,’ joy and hope (Rom 5:1–2).”[15] By trusting` the message of the gospel, God declares believers to be justified before him. And blessings flow from that declaration.
Lewis Sperry Chafer explains justification like this, “No present position in which the believer is placed is more exalted and consummating than that of being justified by God. By justification, the saved one is lifted . . . to the estate of one whom God has declared justified forever, which estate the holy justice of God is as much committed to defend as ever that holy justice was before committed to condemn.”[16] To think that is accomplished by the pure and simple gospel is immeasurably glorious, recognizes Christ’s sacrifice, and properly exalts him before the earth and angels. It is evident that to be in such a state would entail every other blessing from the gospel (including racial reconciliation) without them having to be a definitional component of the gospel believed.
Chafer further clarifies justification, saying, “The believer is constituted righteous by virtue of his position in Christ, but he is justified by a declaratory decree of God. Righteousness imputed is the abiding fact, and justification is the divine recognition of that fact.”[17] Paul says, “Even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction” (Rom 3:22). By faith in Christ, we become righteous, and the Father confirms that by declaring us justified. Our faith results in the ungodly being declared righteous by God, who justifies us (Rom 4:5. See also Rom 3:24, 26; 5:18). Because we are justified by faith in Christ, we have peace with God. Paul says, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1). Williams’s contention that the gospel is only complete if it includes racial reconciliation as an essential component corrupts the gospel.
Williams does not indicate that he is arguing for racial reconciliation being a part of the gospel, broadly speaking, like spiritual gifts or the Holy Spirit-filled life, because that seems indisputable. Instead, he seems to be arguing for it as a part of the requirement of the gospel. For example, in arguing against racial reconciliation being merely a “social issue” or an implication of the gospel, he rejects ideas that make racial reconciliation something that is “not part of the gospel’s demand”[18] (italics added). The demand of the gospel is not something that is included or results from believing the gospel, but rather, it gives every indication of being a demand, like the demand of the gospel to believe in Christ for the saving of a person’s soul.
I agree with Williams’s contention that racial reconciliation is not merely a social issue for Christians because it is also a moral problem. That being said, I do not believe it is a part of the gospel’s “demand,” as when Christ said, “Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved” (Luke 8:12. See also John 3:18; Rom 10:9–11). The word taken away, which is the gospel, means that the opportunity of salvation is gone. This belief is a very specific belief in Christ, regardless if a person has ever heard of racial reconciliation. As Peter made clear in his Pentecost message, “And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21). Again, Williams confuses results and blessings of the gospel with the explicit message and requirement—demand—of the gospel; the essence of what must be preached and believed for someone to be saved is the gospel. But Williams makes racial reconciliation a part of the gospel we proclaim if we are to preach the gospel of Christ as Christ did.
For example, Williams uses Matthew 15:21–28 to demonstrate that Christ preached racial reconciliation as a part of the gospel. He says, “In essence, Jesus preached racial reconciliation as part of his gospel message.”[19] I believe if a person is just examining the text, he will find matters such as God’s timing was Israel first, and the Gentiles would be included later. It was not time for him to bless the Gentiles. The narrative forthrightly depicts the Canaanite woman seeing herself not as one of the family (deserving of his help, food), but as a dog, thereby demonstrating her great humility and faith. Then, even though he was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24), and salvation is to the Jew first (Rom 1:16), Christ responds to her faith.
She demonstrated the very humility and faith that he sought to find in the house of Israel. His response showed that the time was near for whoever exercised such faith to be his people, which is the hope of the Gentiles who did not have the law (John 3:16). She exercised the faith and humility he desired to see among the Jewish leaders who had the law but rejected him. Such hope for the Gentiles to be saved by faith is obscured or diminished when someone imposes racial reconciliation or other opinions about social justice as an inherent part of the gospel Jesus preached.
Christ was not emphasizing racial reconciliation but illustrating a time was coming in which Jew and Gentile would come to him by faith alone. The racial reconciliation that would occur is because of the power of the gospel to save so that all who believe are justified; all stand on equal footing before the cross. If we leave racial reconciliation where countless other blessings are, it is not diminished any more than the rest of the results that come from the transforming power of the gospel, one of which is that Christians are one (Gal 3:26–29). It should be noted that the passage does mention the things I mentioned, but it does not mention racial reconciliation. Further, when the results of the gospel are inextricably integrated into the demand of the gospel we preach, whereby the ungodly are justified by faith, we complicate and distort the saving gospel.
Williams, as do others, confuses the definition of the gospel with the applicatory consequences of the gospel. After concluding that Jesus’s preaching included racial reconciliation as a “part of his gospel,”[20] he says at the bottom of that page, “Southern Baptists need to develop a biblical theology of the gospel . . . they must be committed to the whole gospel”[21](italics added). That can only mean Southern Baptists have been preaching a partial, incomplete gospel because we did not make racial reconciliation an essential part of the saving gospel.
He continues saying, “The gospel includes both entry language (repentance and faith, justification by faith and reconciliation with God [Rom 3:21—5:11; 1 Cor 15:1–8], etc.) and maintenance language (walking in the Spirit [Gal 5:16–26], reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles [Eph 2:11—3:8], and loving one another in the power of the Spirit [Gal 5:13–14; 6:1–2]).”[22] First, these categories provide his framework for making racial reconciliation a definitional part of the gospel message like repentance and faith.
Second, it should be obvious that such an inclusion strongly indicates that he does not view racial reconciliation in a resultant manner but instead as an integral part of the presented gospel because no one is arguing it is not a result of believing the gospel. To wit, it is both a blessing and a challenge to all Christians. Third, at a minimum, his position raises the serious question of how it is to be presented in the sharing of the gospel. Must it be accepted along with faith in Christ (remember he said he rejects positions where it is “not part of the gospel’s demand”), and what if it is not included? Maybe the last point is clarified by his statement that “Southern Baptists . . . must be committed to the whole gospel.”
This statement, along with his certainty that Jesus “preached racial reconciliation as a part of his gospel message,” leads to the fundamental question of whether Southern Baptists have been committed to the whole gospel or not. If we have, then he stands with many before him who sought to add something that does not belong to the gospel “demand.” At least he is making the simple gospel unnecessarily more complex and, therefore, more complicated, which warps the gospel.
Fourth, why pick racial reconciliation as the only social justice requirement of the gospel we preach unto salvation? Why not prison reform, eradicating homelessness, or the redistribution of wealth and power? As adamantly opposed as I am to the barbaric practice of killing babies prenatally and postnatally (abortion and infanticide), stopping the killing of babies is not a part of the gospel unto salvation, a demand of the gospel. And neither is racial reconciliation.
The gospel is the message we preach to the lost, whereby they may be saved if they believe the gospel and damned if they do not. The lost are not commanded to walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:16–26) because only those who have received the gospel and been born again can do so. To walk in the Spirit requires that the Holy Spirit is living in the person, and the Holy Spirit is not given to people unless they accept the gospel. The Holy Spirit takes up residence in the believer, and one becomes a believer after accepting the gospel. Many things, like racial reconciliation in Christ, are dependent on having received the Holy Spirit, which only happens after the gospel is received.
We must always be clear. The gospel unto salvation that we preach results in countless blessings, but they are not required to be mentioned or understood, much less believed and experienced by the lost, to be saved. The gospel does not include the “demand” to include or accept anything about racial reconciliation, social justice, or even living the Spirit-filled life. The passages that speak of experiencing the blessings, results (1 Cor 1:5–7; Eph 1:3), and commands of the Christian life are spoken to Christians about the Christian life (Eph 4:1; 5:1–2).
What Williams calls maintenance language is really language reflective of what the lost receive when they accept the gospel and become Christians. It is the language of living out the new life, practical sanctification, maturing in the faith, faithfulness, and the Spirit-filled life. The new life is obtained by faith in the truth of the gospel that proclaims the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, who paid for our sins (John 1:29; Heb 2:9; 10:10, 14). That salvation is available to all who believe in Christ and his finished work.
The effects, blessings, promises, and commands to Christians are not essential parts of the gospel that must be believed or preached, for that matter. They are not definitionally the gospel. Racial reconciliation between believers was achieved on the cross and is applied when we are saved. We just have to recognize that fact and walk in it as we do other blessings of salvation (Eph 2:10–22). One has to notice that selecting any one of many results of the gospel and transforming them into requirements of the gospel not only confuses results with demands of the gospel but is entirely subjective. As I have maintained, why racial reconciliation and not one of the countless other blessings of the gospel?
Chafer lists thirty-three of what he rightly calls “riches of grace.” He says these “together comprise the salvation of a soul. . . They are wrought of God; they are wrought instantaneously; they are wrought simultaneously; they are grounded on the merit of Christ; and being grounded on the merit of Christ, are eternal. It follows that each person of the human family at a given moment is either perfectly saved, being the recipient of every spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus, or perfectly lost, being without one of these spiritual blessings.”[23]
While many, but not all, of the great truths referred to by Chafer are a part of the gospel presentation of reconciliation to God (forgiveness of trespasses and justification), everything that is included in “every spiritual blessing” is not (Eph 1:3). That would include every present blessing and future blessing in the rapture, millennial kingdom, and eternity. Notice Chafer says the lost do not have “one of these spiritual blessings,” and the saved have “every spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus.” They come to those in Christ, and being in Christ is our position after we believe the gospel unto salvation.
One of these blessings is our reconciliation to God (Rom 5:10; Rom 5:18) and other people (Eph 2:10–22). And the only path to true reconciliation of people to each other, including racial reconciliation, is the gospel of salvation, which does not include racial reconciliation definitionally or as a “demand,” but rather as a consequence of salvation (Gal 5:18–26)—being able to love our neighbor as our self is dependent on first loving God (Matt 22:37–39). If we preach the gospel so that people are reconciled to God, we will have the power of God for racial reconciliation that Christ achieved on the cross (Eph 2:14–15). But racial reconciliation is neither a demand of the gospel to be accepted for salvation, nor is it a definitional part of the gospel except resultantly.
One should always keep in mind that the barrier between Jew and Gentile is not merely about racial reconciliation or racism as thought of today, in which one’s relationship with God is not even a factor. Instead, the chief factor was how one could have a relationship with God (far more than skin pigmentation or geographical location) that divided Jews and Gentiles. First, God chose to create the Jewish nation and covenant with them (Gen 12:1–3), and therefore, the Gentile, regardless of the color of his skin, was outside of that relationship and came to God by becoming a proselyte (Eph 2:11–12).[24]
After the cross, the problem between Jews and Gentiles was still not about race and reconciling them—ethnicity per se—as we think about it contemporarily or as Williams writes. The problem was not even whether Gentiles could be saved because that was no mystery (something that was hidden in the past Gal 3:29; Eph 2:12–16; 3:3–6). Instead, it has always been that the cross means that Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way, by faith in Christ (Rom 3:22; 4:11, 16; 10:4). That is the issue of Galatians. That is what the Judaizers so diligently fought against. Therefore, again, we see the purity of the complete gospel is not about racial reconciliation but doctrinal reconciliation so that Jews and Gentiles stand on equal footing at the cross, and every person becomes a Christian the same way—by trusting the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is a dangerously unbiblical decision to make racial reconciliation essential so that without it as a part of the gospel presentation, we fail to preach the “whole gospel,” as Williams puts it. Plainly, he is not arguing for racial reconciliation to be a part of the gospel in a resultant or applicatory manner because that is clear, and I think most Biblicists gladly recognize that it is. If he were trying to make that point, he sought to do so in the most beclouded, circuitous, obfuscatory manner I have seen. But he is not so inept; he is a scholar and seeks to present a scholarly defense of the “gospel of racial reconciliation,” as he puts it.[25]
The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel provides a concise clarification of the gospel in the context of rejecting the addition of such things as social justice or racial reconciliation. It says,
WE AFFIRM that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ—especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection—revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.
WE DENY that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.[26]
I agree with this statement. Therefore, though racial reconciliation is vital as a result of the gospel, and accordingly to be modeled and promulgated by Christians, it is not a “definitional component of the gospel.” Moreover, it is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that results in true and lasting racial reconciliation by leading individuals first to be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:18–21).
Williams cites Eph 1:9–10, saying, “The Bible’s categories of race and racial reconciliation intersect with its categories of salvation and gospel. Especially in Ephesians, the mystery of the gospel is defined as the unification of all things in Christ (Eph 1:9–10), which includes the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles into ‘one new humanity’ (Eph 2:11—3:8 NIV).”[27] Well, of course, it “intersects” and is “included” in Christ since racial reconciliation is one of the “things in the heavens and on earth” (Eph 1:10; Col 1:16, 20), but that does not make it a definitional part of the gospel message. It does not make it anymore what is “demanded” than the galaxy of other accomplishments of the gospel “in the heavens and on earth” that are a part of the “summing up of all things in Christ” (Eph 1:10).
Louis A. Barbieri, Jr. defines mysteries as, “New Testament ‘Mysteries’ (previously unknown, but now-revealed truths).”[28] Paul said the mystery in Ephesians 1 is the summing up of all things in Christ (vs.10), and in Ephesians 3:6, the mystery is that Gentiles become fellow heirs with Jews in the same way as Jews become heirs, and that is by believing the gospel. The mystery hidden was not that Gentiles could and would be saved, but they would be saved in the same way as Jews. They would not have to become a Jew, keep the law, or adopt any of Judaism’s practices, but both Jews and Gentiles would be saved the same way, by faith alone (John 3:1–14; Rom 1:16–17). Gentiles become equal heirs. There are no second-class heirs.
Similarly, as with Ephesians 1:9–10, Williams includes Romans 1:16–17 as a passage about racial reconciliation, saying the verses “demonstrate that the Bible’s categories of race and racial reconciliation intersect with its categories of salvation and gospel.”[29] If he means by intersecting that they interrelate, then I agree, as I have said before, but that does not seem to be what he means.
The passage is not about racial reconciliation, even though racial reconciliation occurs when the true gospel is preached and received. It is rather about the true gospel, which is received by faith and is the same for everyone. The efficacy of the gospel is in the “power of God,” which was sequentially given first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. God covenanted with the Jews in the Old Testament. They experienced a privileged position with God and received the law (Rom 3:1–2).
Now, there is no advantage for the Jew. All hear the gospel and are saved by faith in Christ and his sacrificial death for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The gospel is not about racial justice (or any other form of social justice), but is about God incarnate, who died, was buried, and rose from the dead so that all people, races, can be justified and forgiven (Rom 4:25). The gospel is sufficient for all, and when we are saved, we are reconciled to God and man.
John A. Witmer, speaking of Paul’s view of the gospel in this passage, said, “He identified it as the infinite resources (dynamis, ‘spiritual ability’) of God applied toward the goal of salvationin the life of everyone who believes regardless of racial background.”[30]Thus, race intersects with the power of the gospel, but the power of the gospel is not about nor seen in racial reconciliation, reconciling man to man. But the power of the gospel is seen in its ability to reconcile anyone and everyone to God by faith alone, regardless of their sins, history, or race. The Jewish privilege was over (Rom 2:26).
Witmer further says regarding Paul,
He recognized, however, a priority for the Jew expressed in the word first, which has sufficient textual support here and is unquestioned in 2:9–10. Because the Jews were God’s Chosen People (11:1), the custodians of God’s revelation (3:2), and the people through whom Christ came (9:5), they have a preference of privilege expressed historically in a chronological priority. As the Lord Jesus said, ‘Salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22). In Paul’s ministry he sought out the Jews first in every new city (Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:2, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8). Three times he responded to their rejection of his message by turning to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:25–28; cf. comments on Eph. 1:12). Today evangelism of the world must include the Jews, but the priority of the Jews has been fulfilled.[31]
Consequently, I agree that racial reconciliation is a part of the gospel in what it accomplishes or entails broadly speaking (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:10–22; 3:6; 4:3–6). That is to say, in salvation, all barriers between Jews and Gentiles, those having the law and those not having the law, are broken down, and we are one body of believers. Therefore, reconciliation has been achieved for all the redeemed. We must recognize it and walk in it, but we do not have to achieve it, and it does intersect with the gospel in that it is a result of what Christ has accomplished for us. Williams errs grievously by tethering racial reconciliation too closely to the gospel of salvation’s presentation and requirements. If that is not his intent, he could have easily said so.
Williams references several LXX verses that contain the word gospel (in the noun euaggelion and the verb form euaggelizo) and says, “In summary, in each of the above examples, euaggelizo is connected with the announcement of the Lord’s mercy or salvation, and the Lord himself is present in the announcement. This means the heralds of the announcement . . . also proclaim the Lord himself. When the gospel of the Lord is announced, the Lord himself is present in the announcement in order to effect both the salvation and the judgment the announcement proclaims. Thus, the verb euaggelizo refers to the act of announcing the message of salvation and judgment in the LXX. The noun euaggelion refers to the content of the announcement.”[32]
I do not see how this bolsters his case for including racial reconciliation as a definitional component of the gospel. Because, of course, Christ is there with us, presenting the gospel (Matt 28:18-20). The gospel is all about Christ in such a way that if he were not alive and present, there would be no gospel (John 3:18). But specifically, the gospel is a proclamation of his atonement for sin and how one is saved, which necessarily presupposes we have sinned and are sinners.
To not make racial reconciliation inherent in the gospel message, what is said or must be accepted for salvation, makes it no less a part of the salvation plan of God than any of the other effects and blessings of the gospel. It merely changes the sequential order in which it occurs. Instead of being a part of the gospel definitionally (as Williams seems to demand), it is a part of the gospel’s accomplishment. Accordingly, justice is not part of the definition or proclamation of the gospel unto salvation (to be believed), but it is a part of the Christian life’s demand.
Williams repeatedly uses verses that do not explicitly talk about racial reconciliation, particularly in the way it is used in his chapter. But these verses do explicitly mention other aspects of the gospel (Rom 1:16–17, Gal 2:13). For example, Galatians 2:11–14 is not about race per se as the term is currently used in society, in Williams’s chapter, or the book where it is about racial reconciliation as an end in and of itself—with or without doctrine. It was not dealing with the Jews rejecting Gentiles or vice versa merely because of race or skin color; it was most importantly about their beliefs.
Regarding Peter’s failure to walk in the true gospel that resulted in the rebuke from Paul, Williams says, “Peter failed to walk in the truth of the gospel when he withdrew from table fellowship with Gentile Christians, for fear of the Jews . . . Peter believed all the right things about justification by faith for Jews, but he departed from the gospel by imposing Jewish legal demands on Gentile Scripture. His error stemmed from an incorrect view of the gospel’s horizontal component.”[33]
While I understand that Peter was mistaken when he imposed Torah requirements on Gentiles, I believe Williams is wrong to make this merely a horizontal—racial—issue. The problem is that according to the gospel, it is a perversion to impose Jewish tradition (or racial reconciliation) on anyone because both Jews and Gentiles are saved by faith alone; that is the message of Galatians. Consequently, this was not an error regarding “the gospel’s horizontal component.” It was an error cutting to the very core of the gospel itself, and, therefore, promoting a false gospel.[34] Paul spoke of a specific situation that had arisen, but keep in mind that the wrong gospel for the Gentiles is the wrong gospel for the Jews since there is only one gospel.
Williams seems to be trying to show that the problem was merely a horizontal issue to justify requiring racial reconciliation as a part of the gospel. Peter clearly was adding to justification by faith alone, but that is not the same as being lost. One can err and still be saved. It is, in fact, the message of justification by faith that Judaizers were corrupting by imposing legalism on Christian liberty. Peter’s actions were not just horizontal or between races but vertical in that his actions obscured or denied the essence of the gospel, which is justification by faith for everyone.
Any recognition of Jews keeping the law was a corruption of the gospel, and imposing such on Gentiles was a corruption as well. It was not merely a horizontal issue. It was not a failure to understand the racial problems needing racial reconciliation or social justice. Peter needed to get back to the true and only gospel, which is salvation by faith alone for everyone. Any understanding of the gospel is a vertical issue of the utmost importance, including Peter’s misrepresentation that adds anything to it or modifies it for any particular group because it creates a false gospel.
Williams says, “Of course, for an exhaustive definition of the gospel, one must look at the whole Bible . . . But may what I have put forth above put to rest once and for all one-sided, incomplete, and misleading definitions of the gospel.”[35] Again, he conflates what the gospel results in, God’s salvation plan from Gen 3:15 to eternity, with the gospel we present unto salvation through faith, which does not include everything, nor even many or most things, entailed in what the gospel accomplishes; nor can it. Everything in Scripture is not the gospel. Every story in Scripture is not the gospel. They may all point to, prepare for, or result from the gospel, but not everything in Scripture is the gospel, nor can it be. Teaching about people like Noah, Abraham, and Sarah, as well as topics such as marriage, family, giving, and work ethics, is not the gospel. To preach the gospel and to believe the gospel unto salvation does not mean a person has to believe in racial reconciliation (or even know whether there is such a feature) or a host of other items to be faithful in proclaiming the whole gospel or to be saved.
The confrontation was about Peter corrupting the “truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14) by seeking to mix the law and grace. In Antioch, Peter ate and fellowshipped with Gentiles, which was in keeping with the gospel and the vision he had (Acts 10:10–16). This behavior was a testimony to the truth of the gospel, that Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way by faith alone; there is one body. As a result of this truth, Gentiles did not need to add the law to the gospel, and neither did the Judaizers, much less require it of others. Both were corruptions of the gospel because the law is not a part of salvation for either Jews or Gentiles.
The Judaizers were wrong to add the law and were wrong to demand the Gentiles do so. Notice the passage is not about racial reconciliation but the nature of the gospel, which is the same for all. To make Peter’s corruption analogous to promoting racial reconciliation seems to necessitate that either blacks or whites (or some other race) are teaching that some are saved differently than by faith alone. Then, it would be analogous in that it requires a doctrinal reconciliation as the means of promoting the true gospel.
Peter’s actions, like the Judaizers, were, in effect, saying there are two bodies of Christ and that the Judaizers were correct in adding to the gospel and requiring the same of the Gentiles. This changed the gospel so that they could not be saved apart from adopting some of the law, dietary restrictions, and circumcision like the Judaizers. Peter had defended the gospel and the preaching of it to the Gentiles before the Jerusalem leaders (Acts 11:18) but was now creating a division in the gospel out of fear (Gal 2:12). Consequently, while racial reconciliation was a part, the breach was a corruption of not merely race relations, but of the gospel itself so that it became another gospel. Not that Peter was necessarily changing his theology, but he was at least acting as though he was because of fear.
The effect of the Judaizers, which Peter was giving into, is that they were corrupting the gospel, not according to discordant racial relations as we think today, but by adding works of the law such as requiring circumcision. Campbell notes, “Further, the defectors were not acting according to the truth of the gospel, that is, they were denying by their actions the truth that on the basis of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, Jews and Gentiles who believe are accepted equally by God.”[36]
Therefore, the issue was not primarily racial reconciliation but doctrinal reconciliation. The Judaizers needed to fully embrace salvation by faith in Christ and his atoning work for Jews and Gentiles—the world—but they proclaimed another gospel. Correcting the doctrine of salvation, the gospel, would lead to racial reconciliation, but racial reconciliation would not necessarily lead to the correct doctrine of salvation, the gospel. Williams puts the cart before the horse.
Here are some thoughts on why we need the gospel and how that why makes the gospel the good news; it clarifies what must be included in the gospel for it to be the good news from God we need to hear and believe.
The Need for the Gospel
Each person is headed for hell because he is a sinner.
- “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).
- “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt 3:12).
- “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).
- “As it is written, ‘There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God’” (Rom 3:10–11).
- “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev 20:15).
Judgment Is Personal
God judges each person for his sin and no one else’s.
- “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die” (Ezek 18:20–21).
- “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
The Basis for the Gospel
It is not because of what is in man but because of what is in God. It is because of God’s grace, mercy, and love of his creation.
- “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live” (Ezek 18:32).
- “For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:56).
- “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost” (Matt 18:11).
Forgiveness Is for All
God salvationally loves every person.
- “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’” (John 1:29)
- “You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).
- “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Titus 2:11).
The Gospel
What we say and what the lost must believe to be saved.
- “And that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).
- “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12).
- “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
- “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).
- “But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).
- “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).
- “And after he brought them out, he said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household”’ (Acts 16:30–31).
- “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30–31).
- “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith” (Rom 1:16–17).
- “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:1–4).
- “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:18–21).
- “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).
- For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Titus 2:11).
- “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).
- “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him” (1 John 4:9).
The message of the gospel answers the question of the evangelist, “What message do I share with people so that they may be reconciled to God, have their sins forgiven, and have eternal life?” The gospel answers the question of the lost whom we evangelize, “What must I do to be saved?” (1 Cor 15:1–4). Williams’s attempts to incorporate racial reconciliation (social justice) with that simple gospel message and, therefore, corrupts the gospel.
The gospel unto salvation does not include any components of the law, such as circumcision or dietary restrictions, opinions about social justice, acts of social justice, or racial reconciliation; all such additions corrupt the gospel into another gospel, which is really not another gospel. Thus, it is a corruption of consequence. The gospel unto salvation is about the person and work of Christ paying for our sins and freely offering sinners the way to be justified by faith because of his finished work of salvation (Rom 10:8–13).
Although every person who accepts the gospel receives all that is accomplished by Christ and his salvific work, such as the sanctified life, spiritual gifts, answered prayer, results emanating from regenerated lives upon society, understanding of true justice, and the ability to apply God’s justice to society and all other relationships, these are not the gospel. One does not need to understand, do, or even know that such will happen to be saved. These are the accomplishments and blessings of the gospel.
Williams and others tragically blur these lines by conflating the results of the gospel with the gospel, thereby corrupting the pure and simple gospel. Any addition is unnecessary, corruptive, and subjective. One may easily see the subjectivity of such additions by considering the myriad of options one could choose from their particular interest or past (like in Galatians). Or one could choose from among issues he finds very important, as Williams does with racial reconciliation and social justice (social justice as used today is not the same as biblical justice, and, therefore, is not even a result of the gospel).[37]
Williams says, “One should see that Paul and Isaiah offer many components of the gospel.”[38] But as I have argued, these components are not essential to the message of the gospel that answers, “What must I do to be saved?” He simply and repeatedly confuses attendant blessings, components, and consequences of the gospel as entailed in the whole plan of salvation, justification, sanctification, and glorification, now and forever, with the gospel proper.
Of course, the Old Testament is the fountainhead of the New Testament, including the gospel and justification, but hearing or understanding the Old Testament is not essential to be saved and, therefore, justified.[39]Although the redemptive work of Christ includes many matters prophesied about and portrayed in the Old Testament (such as types and prophecies), it is not essential to understand all of them to be saved, least of all any kind of racial reconciliation.
Norman Geisler reminds us that “The heart cry of the Reformation was ‘justification by faith alone!’”[40] Campbell notes, “Galatians . . . played such a key role in the Reformation that it was called ‘the cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation.’ This was because its emphasis on salvation by grace through faith alone was the major theme of the preaching of the Reformers. Luther was especially attached to Galatians and referred to it as his wife. He lectured on the book extensively, and his commentary on Galatians was widely read by the common people.”[41]
Campbell reminds us of its influence even today. He says, “The profound influence of this small epistle continues. It is indeed the ‘Magna Carta of Christian Liberty,’ proclaiming to modern generations that salvation from the penalty and power of sin comes not by works but by grace through faith in God’s provision.”[42] Galatians’ emphasis on salvation by faith positions it as second only to Romans, with Romans being more thorough. Although I do not doubt Williams’s character, sincerity, or love for the gospel, I believe his attempt to bind racial reconciliation to the gospel of salvation by faith in the manner he does it is unwarranted and corruptive to the gospel. It is a corruption of consequence.
[1] This article is from my book, A Corruption of Consequence: Adding Social Justice to the Gospel.
[2] Jarvis J. Williams and Kevin M. Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism from the Southern Baptist Convention (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2017), 45–51.
[3] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 44.
[4] All Scriptures used by me come from the NASV.
[5] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Social Gospel,” October 10, 2019, accessed May 1, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/Social-Gospel.
[6] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 46.
[7] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 30–31, 42.
[8] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 42. This is the distinction he makes in his defense of making racial reconciliation’s relationship to the gospel more than a result of the gospel. One might be inclined to understand his term “maintenance language” to be referring to what the gospel accomplishes, the life to be lived after receiving the gospel—Spirit-filled life, Christian marriage, serving Christ, or acting justly and righteously. But if that were the case, the chapter would be pointless since it seems that all would agree with that. I think the only conclusion he leaves us is that he seeks to tie racial reconciliation to the gospel definitionally, what must be believed or what must be a part of the gospel we preach unto salvation. If that is not his point, he has been painfully unclear. The lack of clarity would lie solely with him since a clarifier or two would resolve the ambiguity. For example, he could say, I do not mean that racial reconciliation is in any way a part of the gospel definitionally, what must be preached or believed unto salvation, or what is demanded in the gospel. Alas, he does not, but he does categorize it as a “demand” of the gospel.
[9] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 32.
[10] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 31.
[11] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 36.
[12] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 31, 32–33 respectively.
[13] Campbell outlines Galatians thusly, “It was necessary that Paul vindicate his apostleship and message, a task he undertook in the first two chapters. In this autobiographical section Paul demonstrated convincingly that his apostleship and his message came by revelation from the risen Christ. In chapters 3 and 4 Paul contended for the true doctrine of grace, that is, for justification by faith alone. Finally, to show that Christian liberty does not mean license the apostle, in chapters 5 and 6, taught that a Christian should live by the power of the Holy Spirit and that when he does he manifests in his life not the works of the flesh but the fruit of the Spirit. Galatians was written to remedy a desperate situation, to call early Christians back from the Mosaic Law to grace, from legalism to faith. It is an emphatic statement of salvation by faith apart from works and is as relevant today as when it was originally penned.” Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2:588. Logos electronic edition.
[14] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 36–37.
[15] James Leo Garrett Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, vol 2 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1990), 290.
[16] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol 3 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 245–46.
[17] Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol 3, 246.
[18] Williams is arguing against Randy White and other Christians who make it either merely a social issue or “an implication of the gospel.” Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 29.
[19] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 30.
[20] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 30.
[21] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 30.
[22] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 31.
[23] Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol 3, 234. See the list of thirty-three on pages 234–65.
[24] Also known as a God-fearing Gentile (Acts 13:43; 17:4).
[25] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 46.
[26] The statement references the following Scriptures: Gen 3:15; Prov 29:18; Isa 25:7; 60:2, 3; Rom 1:16–17, 10:14, 15, 17; 1 Cor 15:1–11; Gal 1:6-9; Rev 13:8, The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel, accessed May 2, 2020, href=”https://statementonsocialjustice.com/”>https://statementonsocialjustice.com/.
[27] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 29.
[28] Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2:48. Logos electronic edition.
[29] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 29.
[30] John A. Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2:441. Logos electronic edition.
[31] Witmer, “Romans,” 2:441. Logos electronic edition.
[32] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 34.
[33] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 37.
[34] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 37.
[35] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 39.
[36] Campbell, “Galatians,” 2:595. Logos electronic edition.
[37] Dr. Larry Toothaker provides an easy way to understand the problem. He says, “We could line up 100 Christians, each of whom could add their requirement to be added to the gospel. Person one says it is to be pro-life, person two says it is to include racial reconciliation; person three says it is to feed the poor. And then we would have 100 gospels, not just one. But the last man asks, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ Which of the 100 do we tell him?” He made this comment to me and is a member of my church.
[38] Williams and Jones, Removing the Stain of Racism, 35.
[39] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2004), 235.
[40] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 235.
[41] Campbell, “Galatians,” 2:587. Logos electronic edition.
[42] Campbell, “Galatians,” 2:587. Logos electronic edition.
