Most systematic theologies begin with the doctrine of scripture. They often do so because the author decides we must think about how we know God before we move to actual statements about God. In other words, epistemology precedes theology in most systems.
There’s a good argument to be made about that approach, and we’ll come back to it later, Lord willing. But for now, let’s note that not every systematic statement begins that way. Some attempt to begin with God himself. That’s the case with the BLM Creed.
The authors focus us on three statements about God:
1.1 We believe in God Our Creator and the Father, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, the Source and Fountain of Love (1st John 4: 8) who loves all people from every tribe and nation and who is the same God who appoints seasons of justice and peacemaking (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).
1.2 We believe in Jesus of Nazareth—conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary—to be the risen Son of God who ministered and healed the sick, liberated the oppressed and suffered under the occupation of the Roman Empire where he was persecuted, brutalized, and executed on Calvary. We celebrate the power of God bringing life into that which we thought was dead, represented by the resurrection of Jesus, giving us victory over sin and death (Colossians 2:14-15).
1.3 We believe in the Holy Spirit, Our Comforter and Guide throughout every dispensation who continues to prepare the World for the Good News that the Church Universal is called to proclaim and embody. The Spirit blows where God wills (John 3:9), breathing life in every generation (Ecclesiastes 7:10), making a better tomorrow possible until Christ’s return.
The creed aims to be Trinitarian. That’s good because without the Trinity we are not speaking of the Christian view of God. And in this Trinitarian formulation, the authors wish to single out those aspects of God’s being that are relevant to issues of justice. So the Father “appoints seasons of justice and peacemaking,” the Son “ministered and healed the sick, liberated the oppressed and suffered under the occupation of the Roman Empire where he was persecuted, brutalized, and executed on Calvary,” and the Holy Spirit “prepares the world for the Good News” and “makes a better tomorrow possible until Christ’s return.” Here we have a God actively involved in the world, concerned about the marginalized and mistreated. And the creed gives us an optimistic or hopeful view of God. The Triune God acts to create and recreate such that things are “better” and victories are accomplished. This optimism is a strength and consistent with biblical faith. “Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25)
Truthfully, many professing Bible-believing Christians cannot manage such a full-throated optimism about God’s work in the world against injustice. There’s a hitch in the throat, a hesitation to express such positivity. Many Christians handle problems of God’s righteousness in the face of injustice or suffering (theodicy) by pushing such concerns off the table or relegating them to that final state in glory where such things no longer exist. And for some Christians, optimism about God addressing injustice in this world seems unwarranted or unwise. There’s the fear of an over-realized eschatology and the fear of assigning to the Church, if not to God, an errant agenda or mission. As a consequence, these Christians risk being unconcerned about justice themselves. They are, after all, making themselves in the image of the “god” they imagine to be unconcerned with justice.
Bible-believing Christians can do better than that.
While we shouldn’t take the BLM Creed’s statements as robust articulations of the doctrine of God (in fairness, the statement is only two pages long), we might do well to see some important weaknesses.
For example, while using language fairly typical of Black and Liberal Theology to describe the earthly life of our Lord (see 1.2), the document then fails to give us an adequate statement of the central event in the Christian faith—the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. We’re left to wonder why, on the one hand, liberal approaches can so gladly affirm the humanity and social location of Jesus of Nazareth but deny or obscure penal substitution, while, on the other hand, conservative approaches so warmly propound penal substitution while denying or obscuring the real life marginalization and humanity of our Lord. Why can’t we fully affirm the Lord’s humanity—and all that His Jewishness under Roman occupation entails for our understanding of His ministry and Person—while also fully affirming the Lord’s real, voluntary, propitiating sacrifice to redeem us from sin, death and Hell?
Affirming both things is what it means for Bible-believing Christians to do better.
It seems to me that the weakness of Black Theology as a guiding framework for justice movements is that it’s too earthly-minded. It raises necessary and pressing questions about justice, power, oppression and resistance. But it fails miserably at evaluating those questions in light of the priorities Jesus himself taught. For example, did not our Lord ask His disciples, “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world (one might view that as the most complete liberation imaginable) and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” In asking these questions, what does the Lord teach us about the value of the soul versus the value of liberation? What does the Lord teach us about the value of this world versus the world to come? What does he mean to suggest is the greater danger to the soul—oppression in its various forms or sin and a holy God’s judgment?
We don’t have to guess. The Lord tells us: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). It would seem that Jesus thinks God’s punishment in hell is far worse than man’s oppression on earth. That’s not to minimize the importance of resisting oppression and refusing those who kill the body. It is to say, however, that our greatest enemy is not man but a holy God who stands ready to sentence sinners to hell. In a real sense, Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners from God, just as much as He has come into the world to save sinners for God.
Real sin, real death and a real hell trump earthly oppression every time. Now, it does not eliminate or minimize earthly oppression. Rather, it puts us creatures in the correct frame of mind. In all of our resistance and in all of our dependence upon a just God to break the shackles of our oppression, we must not think that is all God is concerned with or useful for. We must not neglect the weightier matter of our souls. For God does not only require justice between men; God requires justice with Him. That we be made right with God comes before and after being made right with men. And there’s hardly any chance of being right with men unless we get right with the God who made men. For that, we need Jesus. We need His righteousness, which satisfies God’s Law (Rom. 10:4; Phil. 3:9). We need His sacrifice on the cross, which pays the penalty of our sin (Is. 53:12; 1 Pet. 2:24). We need His actual bodily resurrection, which justifies us with God (Rom. 4:25).
To get these things in proper context and priority, we must not begin with our own thoughts about God. We must begin with God’s thoughts about himself, which are expressed most fully and sufficiently in the Scripture. It would have been better to start with the Bible so we could more accurately give the theological help needed in these troublesome times.