The Joy and Justice of the Gospel

In my last essay, I began exploring a way of making “evangelism” more approachable, in terms of both language and practice. Today I want to lay some groundwork for continuing that exploration. 

Years ago, as I was preparing for my ordination exams as a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I ran across the phrase “the joy and justice of the gospel.” It struck a chord with me that has been vibrating ever since. I’ll reflect on it shortly, but first this anecdote. I cannot remember the text where I first came across the phrase. I googled “joy and justice of the gospel” once and realized that I had to put the phrase in quotes or else the search engine breaks it apart.  When I did, the first three links that came up were links to my writings! So, I leave open the possibility that I didn’t read it somewhere and made it up myself, but I am almost certain that it originated elsewhere. 

The phrase, “the joy and justice of the gospel,” overcomes what I think is one of the most unmerited divisions in the way we think about the Christian church. We seem to imagine that, on one side, there are churches that focus on the joyof the gospel – under the banner of “evangelism” or “evangelical” – and with a primary emphasis on personal salvation. Then, on the other hand, we think there are churches that focus on the justiceof the gospel – under the banner of “social justice” or something like that – with a primary emphasis on the communal nature of salvation. It would seem that we have to choose between the joy orjustice of the gospel, if not absolutely then at least in terms of whether the personal or the communal is of primary importance. 

The phrase “joy and justice of the gospel” resonates with me because I think it offers a way to overcome this either/or approach of the personal and the communal, evangelism and social justice. But, it’s not a simple matter of having it both ways by replacing the ‘or’ with an ‘and.’ It challenges us to rethink the way we speak about differences. To use the language of some philosophical circles, we tend to assume that ‘difference’ means ‘opposition.’ To use the language of numerous areas of public discourse today, we tend to treat differences as ‘binary.’ To use language suggested once by Richard R. Niebuhr – hang with me on this one – we could use the language of “co-inhering polarities.” What that means is that we can recognize difference, even extreme difference, but also recognize how concepts that are different rely on one another. With regard to the individual and the communal, a necessary part of individual identity is to know who one is by virtue of who one’s people are. That is why many communities put so much emphasis on genealogy. And, with regard to the communal, a necessary part of a community identity is for the individuals within it to embrace, embody, or reflect what the community is all about. That is why a genealogy is a list of the names of individuals. So, while we can name the difference between the individual and the communal, we also need to name their mutual relianceon one another, in order for either of them to have meaning. 

That’s the direction I want to take as we continue to explore the meaning and practice of “evangelism.”