Souls or Bodies?

Evangelism, Social Justice, and the Reformed Tradition.

Ryan Burge posted some statistics on X yesterday that caught my attention:

In these six charts, Ryan helpfully put some numbers behind a reality that many of us know to be true: White evangelicals struggle to integrate evangelism and social justice, a concern for souls and bodies. When asked to choose between the two, White evangelicals will generally prioritize care for personal matters of the soul rather than physical needs for the body. They will argue that evangelism has little connection to social justice and that the former should be prioritized over the latter. Many would say that it is not the job of the church to instruct or be involved in matters of social justice.

Would Jesus agree? Disagree? Or would he reject the question of priorities altogether?

I have been around White evangelicalism enough to see this logic play out over and over again. It often looks something like this – see if you can spot where the error occurs:

1)     To enter God's Kingdom and be reconciled to him, people must be regenerated (“born again,” “saved,” through personal faith in Jesus).

2)    Therefore, a concern for people’s souls is more important than a concern for their bodies.

3)    Addressing social realities, “social justice,” has little to do with the gospel.

4)    Christians and churches should prioritize evangelism over works of mercy or justice in their communities.

5)    It is not the job of churches to be involved in social justice.

6)    Social justice distracts from the gospel and leads to theological liberalism.

The logic in this argument breaks down in the leap from points 1 to 2. White evangelicals wield a sound theological teaching from Scripture (see John 3:1-8, Romans 3:21-31, Ephesians 2:1-10) in a way that Jesus never intended. At no point does Jesus or the New Testament writers entertain a question about the priority of souls or bodies, evangelism or justice. The question fails on account of a false premise that we can draw lines where God has drawn none.

I suspect that the White evangelical dismissal of the body arises from one or more underlying issues, including:

First, while evangelicalism originated as an ecumenical and global movement, White evangelicalism in the United States has trended toward a rejection of Church tradition. As one of my seminary professors put it, too many churches give the impression that Christianity was invented yesterday. In their rejection of tradition, White evangelicalism misses out on robust theological formation and imagination that has happened by the leading of the Spirit across time and place.

Second, White evangelicals are doers. Following Bebbington’s historic definition of evangelicalism, one of the movement's four major tenets is activism, with a particular emphasis on evangelism. While this motive in and of itself is not wrong, it tends to be used to make our efforts feel manageable and quantifiable. Conversions and baptisms are metrics we can measure to feel effective. Untangling and addressing complex social realities are not.

Third, and resulting from the preceding two points, White evangelicals remain captive to Western capitalism and individualism. Without a robust tradition that swims against the dominant currents of our day, too many White evangelicals embrace a Christianity that conforms to, rather than confronts, Western idols and ideologies.^[1] A concern only for inner-personal realities fits right into the dominant capitalist and individualist framework.

Against the backdrop of White evangelicalism, the Reformed tradition emerges with a very different sense of what it means to proclaim a gospel of both soul and body, of personal as well as social realities. While White evangelicals separate soul from body, the Reformed tradition presents salvation as the renewal and re-creation of all things.

Consider the following passages from Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) that are worth quoting at length, beginning with Kuyper:

Is the Christ only the Expiator of guilt? With respect to many otherwise warm Christians, we should almost say yes, but certainly not with respect to the Holy Scripture. The notion that the Christ had no other significance than that he died for our sin as the Lamb of God cannot be sustained when we consult Scripture. Let us be understood clearly… Shall we say that Christ is given only for our justification and sanctification, or shall we continue to confess with the apostle in 1 Corinthians 1:30 that Christ is given to us from God also for wisdom and perfect redemption? Shall we say that we have in him only atonement for our sin, or shall we continue to acknowledge that it is he who will one day transform our lowly bodies to be like his glorified body “by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself” [Phil 3:21]?... To put it succinctly, shall we imagine that the Redeemer of our soul is enough for us, or shall we continue to confess a Christ of God as the Savior of both soul and body and as re-creator, not only of the things that are invisible but also of the things that are visible and apparent to our eyes? Does Christ have significance only for the spiritual, or also for the natural and visible?

For that reason people go too far and fall into a wrong one-sidedness if… when they think of Christ, they think exclusively of the sprinkling with the blood of atonement and refuse to take into account the significance of Christ also for the body, and for visible things, and for the outcome of world history.^[2]

Similarly, Bavinck articulated a view of redemption that makes my heart sing:

Christianity does not introduce a single substantial foreign element into the creation. It creates no new cosmos but rather makes the cosmos new. It restores what was corrupted by sin. It atones the guilty and cures what is sick; the wounded it heals. Jesus was anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit to bring good tidings to the afflicted, to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captive and the opening of prison to those who are bound, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and to comfort those who mourn (Isa. 61:1, 2). He makes the blind to see, the lame to walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised, and the gospel is preached to the poor (Matt. 11:5). Jesus was not a new lawgiver; he was not a statesman, poet, or philosopher. He was Jesus—that is, Savior. But he was that totally and perfectly, not in the narrow Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Anabaptist sense but in the full, deep, and broad Reformed sense of the word. Christ did not come just to restore the religio-ethical life of man and to leave all the rest of life undisturbed, as if the rest of life had not been corrupted by sin and had no need of restoration. No, the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Spirit extend even as far as sin has corrupted. Everything that is sinful, guilty, unclean, and full of woe is, as such and for that very reason, the object of the evangel of grace that is to be preached to every creature.

Therefore Christ has also a message for home and society, for art and science. Liberalism chose to limit its power and message to the heart and inner chamber, declaring that its kingdom was not of this world. But if the kingdom is not of, it is certainly in this world, and is intended for it. The word of God which comes to us in Christ is a word of liberation and restoration for the whole man, for his understanding and his will, for his body and his soul… The gospel is not a law but good news! It came not to judge but to save. It is supernatural, because it has welled up from God's free, generous, and rich love. It does not kill but makes alive. It does not wound but heals. It is pure grace. And this grace does not cancel nature but establishes and restores it.^[3]

Both Kuyper and Bavinck rejected a distinction between body and soul, evangelism and justice, and instead embraced a gospel that saw the goal of redemption as the re-creation of all things. In so doing. Kuyper and Bavinck were only following their Reformed ancestor John Calvin whose theology and ethics testified to the comprehensive nature of redemption. As the Calvin scholar W. Fred Graham wrote,

In the face of Calvin's insistence in sermon and Scripture commentary on the solidarity of mankind, his concern to make the law of love the Christian's social and economic ethic, and his acceptance of the right of the state to interfere in business practices to keep human life human… Th[is] author would insist that Calvin's social and economic teachings were clearly just as important to Calvin himself, and might just as well be used as the yardstick of Calvinist orthodoxy.^[4]

In summary, the Reformed expression of the gospel, as well as our understanding of Christ’s salvific work, brings unity rather than separation to our redemption. Does Jesus care about souls or bodies?

YES. Stop asking the question.

It is worth noting that those who call themselves Reformed are not impervious to the same temptations as the broader movement of White evangelicalism. In fact, the Reformed have often been guilty of twisting their own doctrines to commit great injustice. But as the South African Reformed theologian Allan Boesak once argued,

Manipulation of the word of God to suit culture, prejudices, or ideology is alien to the Reformed tradition. But the way in which Reformed Christians in this country have used the Bible to justify black oppression and white privilege, the way in which the gospel has been bypassed in establishing racially divided churches, the way in which scripture has been used to produce a nationalistic racist ideology, is the very denial of the Reformed belief in the supremacy of Scripture.^[5]

So firm was Boesak’s belief in Reformed theology for the work of social justice that he could conclude: “It is not the perpetrators of injustice, but those who resist it, who are the true representatives of the Reformed tradition.”^[6] Boesak’s conclusions were built on the Reformed ancestors like Bavinck, Kuyper, and Calvin who preceded him.

What does this mean for those who follow the Reformed tradition today? To begin with, we will often find ourselves out of step with the dominant White evangelical culture on these matters. Not in a hostile but significant way, we may find it difficult to strategize and cooperate with those who start with very different commitments from our own.

Reformed churches should be able to articulate commitments to both souls and bodies, evangelism and justice, without fear of compromise or doctrinal drift. Our ministry philosophies should produce structures that allow both ministries of evangelism and justice to grow side by side in mutually supportive ways.

Should we find ourselves in a position where evangelism has outpaced justice, we need not see this as a failure or absence of our tradition. Instead, we can and should return to the resources within our own tradition that provide the theological and ethical motivation to bring unity to what we have separated.

James Eglinton said of Bavinck’s ministry philosophy:

Bavinck insisted that the Reformed should evangelize in a distinctively Reformed way. The gospel was not simply good news for one's soul, an experience that passed in a moment, or a private decision that only aimed to affect quiet religious practices... the gospel was good news for body and soul, for art, science, and society.^[7]

In returning to the riches of our Reformed heritage, we could rediscover the resources to articulate a bold vision that honors Christ’s heart for soul and body, evangelism and justice, in his salvific work to re-create all things.

---

^[1] See David T. Koyzis, Political Visions & Illusions

^[2] Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace I: 267-269.

^[3] Herman Bavinck, “Common Grace,” translated by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, 61-62.

^[4] W. Fred Graham, The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin & His Socio-Economic Impact, 76.

^[5] Allan Boesak, Black and Reformed, 87.

^[6] Boesak, 94.

^[7] James Eglington, Bavinck: A Critical Biography, 272.