（译者附加一些小标题）
讲究实用、追赶时尚的福音派一直摆脱不了的罪就是：他们恬不知耻地借助于这不信的世界的热门潮流与热点话题。很明显，今天的福音派不再相信“这世界的智慧，在神看是愚拙。”（林前3:19）只要世俗文化中出现了新鲜的思潮或新奇的理论，福音派随即就采用，然后稍微变通一下，也许用属灵的语言包装起来，再找些似是而非的经文做为依据，就可以把它当做关键的信息推销出去让人们接纳，否则福音派就会被时代完全淘汰掉了。
粉墨登场
这正是20世纪中叶的福音派迷途的原因，这几十年来，他们迷恋于积极思想、自尊自爱、还有“基督教心理学”，然后，又在教会里推行市场促销策略，到21世纪初，更推出了后现代主义（Postmodernism）重新包装并积极兜售为“新兴教会运动”（EmergingChurch movement）。
到如今，种族批评理论、女权运动、交叉理论、同性、双性、变性宣传（LGBT）、逐步移民政策、动物权力、极左政策、等等，都在“社会正义”的旗号之下积极争取福音派的接纳。
谴责迫害
当然，并非每一个倡导“社会正义”的福音派领袖，对以上所有的激进事项全都支持。大多数人（至少暂时）不这样做。然而不约而同地，他们都在积极提倡一种“受害和迫害”（victimhoodand oppression）的论调，正如那些正在竭力推行各种变态生活方式和意识形态的世人一样。任何声称受害身份的人，都可以轻而易举地利用呼吁“社会正义”来博得众人的同情与支持，并且压倒一切反对的声浪。
随着社会公义的言谈在福音派中盛行起来，几乎所有在世上被认为“政治正确”（politicallycorrect）的事儿都在福音派中稳步地增长、渐渐地壮大。因此，假装社会正义运动对福音的信仰不会构成任何威胁是无稽之谈。
模棱两可
福音派很少明确界定他们所谓的“社会正义”到底是什么意思，这可能是因为如果他们准确地定义了这个词的来源，以及它在世俗学院中的意义，就可能失去很多福音派的支持。因为，不计其数的评论家都指出，“社会正义”的修辞可以追溯到葛兰马克思主义（GramscianMarxism）的根源。几十年来，“社会正义”一直被激进的左派当做政治速记（politicalshorthand）用语，用来呼吁财富、利益、特权、利益的平均分配，也包涵了纯粹马克思社会主义（pureMarxist socialism）的意思。
这种论调果然有效，因此今天一般社会正义的维护者都深信，法律之下的平等机会和平等待遇，都还不够公平；我们必须拥有平等的出纳、地位、财富，才算实现了真正的社会正义。所以，我们才听到这么多有关收入比较、种族配额、和其它统计数据的说法。例如，他们说：今天之所以出现少数男性高压管理企业，是因为STEM（科学、技术、工程、数学）领域中寻求职业的女性太缺乏了，这是他们的数据得出的肯定结论。
这种论点（社会公义）被马克思主义者、社会主义者、无政府主义者和其他激进分子，蓄意利用来煽动种族怨恨、挑起阶级斗争、制造性别歧视、和民族与群体之间的矛盾和冲突。因为，为了改造社会架构来符合自己的意识形态，他们必须首先打破现有的社会次序与常态。
息息相关
根据以上事实，可见马克思主义和后现代“社会正义”的论调之间的紧密关联，这无疑是一个很关键的重点。但更重要的是，我们作为基督徒，需要用圣经的亮光，来审视与检验目前借社会正义之名所提倡的思想和理论。
离开神的正义，就无正义可言。
关于正义（justice），圣经中有很多教训。在《圣经》英文标准版（ESV）中，这个词出现了130次之多。除了以西结书18章8节中所说的“真正的正义”（truejustice）外，它之前从来没有任何形容词。偶尔，它与所有格代词搭配使用。两次，神自己在圣经中提到“我的正义”（myjustice）。另两次，在向神的祈祷中，我们读到“你们的正义”（yourjustice）。
为什么如此？因为没有不同品种的义。只有一种真正的义，就是神自己所定义的义。神的正义始终与他自己的性格符合。
的确《圣经》十分强调神正义中慈善的这一方面，就是神对众人所彰显的善意：他同情遇难者，帮助孤寡者，爱护寄居者，关怀贫穷人，特别是供应他们生活上基本的需要（申10:18；诗140:12；结22:29）。
顾此失彼
然而《圣经》中的正义不是一边倒的。神不会为了摆平特权的天平，而偏袒穷人或袒护没有身份的人。恰恰相反，圣经明确谴责这样的心态是不义的（出23:3；利19:15）。
圣经中，正义（justice）往往与公义（righteousness）和公平（equity）相结合。“公平”意味着在法律面前人人平等。“公义”指的则是满足神律法的要求，包括惩罚作恶的（耶5:26-29），顺服掌权的（罗13:1-7），并不偏不倚地执行刑罚，以牙还牙，以命偿命（利24:17-22）。公义也表达一种绝对正直的职业道德原则：即强壮的不可好吃懒做，坐享其成，乃要亲手做工，自食其力（帖前4:11；帖后3:10）。
然而，这些正义的层面，在最近鼓吹“社会正义”的福音派言论当中，却明显地被忽略了。相反，在他们口中，听到的都是谴责的言论和政治的口号，不约而同，他们与世界上社会正义的“维护者”彼此呼应同一个论调。这个事实应该警醒每一个基督徒，要起而效法庇哩亚人（好好地去考查圣经，徒17:11）。
放宽福音
更令人忧心的是，某些福音派思想家竟然声称：若任何人不提倡社会正义，他就在传讲一个删减版的福音。还有人说：凡拒绝他们社会正义论点的人，根本没有福音可传。国王学院（King’sCollege）宗教与神学教授安东尼（AnthonyBradley）最近在网上发布了以下的评论：
“问题在于（而且还是个大难题）：从黑人教会的角度来看，福音派从来就没有过福音。从没！读读这本书《教义和种族》，其中问到了实质性的问题：福音派什么时候才会头一次接受福音呢？”
异曲同工
当评论家将他们的观点与沃尔特（Walter Rauschenbusch）的社会福音（socialgospel）相提并论时，他们通常会跳起来抗议，尽管如此，双方的论点与论调却基本不谋而合。沃尔特是20世纪初期的自由派神学家，他写了本叫做《社会福音神学》的书，教导基督徒不但要为个人犯的罪悔改，也要为“社会的罪恶”忏悔。正如今天大多福音派的社会正义倡导者一样，沃尔特（起初）也坚持：他没有任何否定福音要道的意图，他只不过想要把福音的重点扩大一些，好叫福音的内容不仅涉及个人的罪恶与救赎，更包含社会的邪恶与不义。但不久，沃尔特就说出这样的话：
“历世历代，各处各地，公众的罪恶在人类社会中已经泛滥成灾，以致凡进入人类共同生活的，没有一个不被这些集体的罪恶玷污的。他要不就因着妥协参与而犯罪，要不就因着抗拒抵挡而受罪。其实，耶稣并没有真正担当哪个古代人公元前56年打老婆的罪，也没有真正担当哪个田纳西的登山者在1917年喝醉酒的罪。然而，他却实实在在承担了有组织的社会、公共罪孽的重担，而这些罪孽又与一切私人的罪恶都息息相关、因果相连。”[1]
社会福音
美国几个最大的主流宗派教会都如饥似渴地吸收了沃尔特的思想，因而更迅速地随从了自由主义的大流，直到他们完全放弃了对圣经权威的委身。此时，他们早已经失去了福音。
为什么？因为凡让圣经之外的根据（不论社会文化、政治理论、民众意见）来为他们定义“正义”的人，会很快地发现圣经在抵挡他们。如果他们一意孤行，非要坚持自己扭曲的公义观念，那么他们将不得不反对《圣经》了。
此外，每次试图扩大福音的范围时，都会使福音更加偏离焦点，以致最终失去了实质的信息。
社会正义的信息分散了人们对基督和十字架的注意力。它把我们的心思意念从上面的事转移到地上的事。它模糊了神赦免绝望罪人的应许，因为它告诉人们：他们是别人罪恶的不幸的受害者。
因此，社会正义促进了情欲的事，而不是培育圣灵的果子。
让我们不要彼此惹气，互相嫉妒。
心胸宽广
所有的人当中，基督徒是最不应该被绊倒而义怒填膺、充满仇恨、嫉妒、苦毒的人。因为爱是“不计算人的恶”（林前13:5）。基督徒的标志是让人打你的左脸，爱你的仇敌，为逼迫你的人祷告。基督是我们效法的榜样，我们当跟随他的脚踪：“他被骂不还口；受害不说威吓的话，只将自己交托那按公义审判人的主。”（彼前2:23）
凭果认树
仇恨、苦毒、斗争、嫉妒、恼怒、争执、纷争、结党、敌意、分裂、怨恨、骄傲、自私、刻薄的情感、报复的心理，以及所有类似恼恨的心态，都是肉体自我毁灭的情欲之事；而圣灵所结的美好的果子，却是截然相反的心态：“……就是仁爱、喜乐、和平、忍耐、恩慈、良善、信实、温柔、节制”。新国际版（NIV）是这么翻译（林前13:5）的：“[Love]keeps no record of wrongs.”（爱是不翻旧账的。）
这些品质，坦诚地说，在倡导社会正义者的言论当中，真是少之又少。
“行公义”（伸张圣经的公义，而不是世俗的代替），还有“好怜悯”，并且“存谦卑的心，与你的神同行”。这些都是不可缺少的美德，也是每个信徒实际生活当中，义不容辞、应当尽的、首要的本分（弥6:8）。整天抱怨我们是别人不义的受害者，同时又谴责别人犯了我们甚至都看不到的罪恶，如此而行，恰与基督的灵背道而驰。
身为基督徒，让我们培育圣灵的果子（加5:22-3），培养八福中点出的品格（太5:1-11），还有（彼后1:5-7）举出的美德，更有（林前13）列出的特质。任何道德平等的观念，若忽略或减低了这些公义的品质，就没有任何资格被称为正义了。
------------------------------------------
原文如下：
The Injustice of Social Justice
by John MacArthur
Friday, September 7, 2018
The besetting sin of pragmatic, style-conscious evangelicalshas always been that they shamelessly borrow fads and talking points from theunbelieving world. Today’s evangelicals evidently don’t believe the wisdom ofthis world is foolishness before God (1 Corinthians3:19). Virtually any theory, ideology, or amusement that capturesthe fancy of secular pop culture will be adopted, slightly adapted, perhapscloaked in spiritual-sounding language, propped up with specious proof texts,and peddled as an issue that is vital for evangelicals to embrace if we don’twant to become totally irrelevant.
That’s precisely how evangelicals in the mid-twentiethcentury became obsessed for several decades with positive thinking,self-esteem, and “Christian psychology.” After that, it was marketing savvy andpromotional strategies. By the beginning of the twenty-first century it waspostmodernism, repackaged and aggressively promoting itself as the EmergingChurch movement.
Today, critical race theory, feminism, intersectionaltheory, LGBT advocacy, progressive immigration policies, animal rights, andother left-wing political causes are all actively vying for evangelicalacceptance under the rubric of “social justice.”
Not every evangelical leader currently talking aboutsocial justice supports the full spectrum of radical causes, of course. Most(for the moment, at least) do not. But they are using the same rhetoric andrationale of victimhood and oppression that is relentlessly employed by secularistswho are aggressively advocating for all kinds of deviant lifestyles andideologies. Anyone who claims victim status can easily and effectually harnessthe emotional appeal of a plea for “social justice” both to gain support and tosilence opposition.
Indeed, as social justice rhetoric has gained currencyamong evangelicals, just about every cause that is deemed politically correctin the secular world is steadily gaining momentum among evangelicals. It wouldbe folly to pretend the social justice movement poses no threat whatsoever toevangelical conviction.
Evangelicals seldom explicitly define what they mean by“social justice”—possibly because if they gave an accurate definition of wherethat term came from and what it means in the secular academy, they might lose alot of evangelical support. Countless critics have pointed out that therhetoric of “social justice” is deeply rooted in Gramscian Marxism. For manydecades, “social justice” has been employed as political shorthand by radicalleftists as a way of calling for equal distribution of wealth, advantages,privileges, and benefits—up to and including pure Marxist socialism.
The rhetoric has been effective, and nowadays the typicalsocial justice warrior is convinced that equal opportunity and equal treatmentunder the law are not sufficiently just; we haven’t achieved true socialjustice until we have equality of outcome, status, and wealth. That’s why wehear so much about income comparisons, racial quotas, and other statisticssuggesting, for example, that systemic oppression by a male oligarchy isconclusively proved by the dearth of women who pursue careers in STEM fields(science, technology, engineering, and math).
Marxists, socialists, anarchists, and other radicalspurposely use such arguments to foment resentment, class warfare, ethnicstrife, tension between the genders, and other conflicts between various peoplegroups, because in order to restructure society to fit their ideologies, theymust first break down existing societal norms.
All of that is true, and the connection between Marxismand postmodern social justice rhetoric is surely a valid and important point.But it is even more vital that we as Christians employ the light of Scriptureto scrutinize and evaluate the ideas currently being promoted in the name ofsocial justice.
No Justice but God’s Justice
The Bible has much to say about justice. In the EnglishStandard Version of the Bible, the word is used more than 130 times. It isnever preceded by an adjective, except inEzekiel 18:8,which speaks of “true justice.” It is occasionally paired with possessivepronouns. God Himself speaks of “my justice” twice in Scripture. Twice inprayers addressed to God, we read the expression “your justice.”
The point? There are not different flavors of justice.There is only true justice, defined by God Himself and always in accord withHis character.
It is a fact that the Bible puts enormous stress on thecharitable aspects of justice—goodwill toward all; compassion for theunderprivileged; assistance for the fatherless and the widow; love forforeigners; and care for the poor, especially providing needy people with thenecessities of life (Deuteronomy10:18; Psalm 140:12;Ezekiel 22:29).
But biblical justice is not a one-sided affair, showingpartiality to the poor or disenfranchised in an effort to even the scales ofprivilege. In fact, Scripture expressly condemns that mentality as unjust (Exodus 23:3; Leviticus19:15).
Justice in Scripture is often paired with the wordsequity and righteousness. Equity means equal treatment for everyone under thelaw. Righteousness signifies that which is consistent with the demands of God’slaw—including punishment for evildoers (Jeremiah5:26-29); obedience to governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7); penalties that fit the crime and areapplied without partiality (Leviticus24:17-22); and a strong work ethic, enforced by the principle thatable-bodied people who refuse to work shouldn’t benefit from public charity (1 Thessalonians 4:11; 2Thessalonians 3:10).
Those aspects of true justice are conspicuously missingfrom the recent evangelical dialogue touting “social justice.” Instead, what wehear is an echo of the same accusatory rhetoric and political slogans beingshouted by secular social justice warriors. That fact ought to awaken theBerean urge in every Christian.
Widening the Gospel
Even more troubling are statements that have been made bycertain evangelical thought leaders who claim that anyone who doesn’t advocatefor social justice is preaching a truncated gospel. Some say that thosewho reject their social justice ideology don’t have any gospel at all. AnthonyBradley, Chair of Religious and Theological Studies at The King’s College,recently posted this remark online:
Here’s the problem (and this will be hard): from a blackchurch perspective, evangelicals have never had the gospel. Ever. Read the bookDoctrine A[nd] Race. Here then is the actual Q: When will evangelicals embracethe gospel for the first time ever?
Those who say such things typically bristle when criticscompare their views to Walter Rauschenbusch and the social gospel. But theargument and most of the rhetoric are identical. Rauschenbusch was an earlytwentieth-century liberal theologian and author of a book titled A Theology forthe Social Gospel. He taught that Christians need to repent not only for theirpersonal transgressions but also for “social sins.” Like most of today’sevangelical social justice advocates, Rauschenbusch insisted (at first) that hehad no agenda to do away with any vital gospel truth; he just wanted to widenthe focus of the gospel so that it would encompass social evils as well as theissue of individual sin and redemption. But soon Rauschenbusch was sayingthings like this:
Public evils so pervade the social life of humanity inall times and all places that no one can share the common life of our racewithout coming under the effect of these collective sins. He will either sin byconsenting in them, or he will suffer by resisting them. Jesus did not in any real sense bear the sin ofsome ancient Briton who beat up his wife in B.C. 56, or of some mountaineer inTennessee who got drunk in A.D. 1917. But he did in a very real sense bear theweight of the public sins of organized society, and they in turnare causally connected with all private sins. [1]
Several of America’s largest mainstream Protestantdenominations eagerly imbibed Rauschenbusch’s ideas. All that did quicklydrifted even further into liberalism until they had abandoned any commitmentthey might have had to the authority of Scripture. By then they had long sincelost the gospel completely.
Why? Because those who let the culture, a politicalideology, popular opinion, or any other extrabiblical source define “justice”for them will soon find that Scripture opposes them. If they are determined toretain their perverted idea of justice, they will therefore have to opposeScripture.
Furthermore, every attempt to widen the scope of thegospel will ultimately put the gospel so far out of focus that its actualmessage will be lost.
The message of social justice diverts attention fromChrist and the cross. It turns our hearts and minds from things above to thingson this earth. It obscures the promise of forgiveness for hopeless sinners bytelling people they are hapless victims of other people’s misdeeds.
It therefore fosters the works of the flesh instead ofcultivating the fruit of the Spirit.
Let Us Not Provoke One Another or Envy One Another
Christians are the last people who should ever becomeoffended, resentful, envious, or unforgiving. Love “does not take into accounta wrong suffered” (1Corinthians 13:5). The mark of a Christian is turning the othercheek, loving our enemies, praying for those who mistreat us. Christ isthe example whose steps we are to follow: “While being reviled, He did notrevile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrustingHimself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Peter2:23).
Hatred, envy, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger,disputes, dissensions, factions, hostility, divisiveness, bitterness, pride,selfishness, hard feelings, vindictiveness—and all similar attitudes ofresentment—are the self-destructive works of the flesh. The beneficial fruitthe Spirit produces are the exact opposite attitudes: “love, joy, peace,patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” The NIV translates 1Corinthians 13:5 this way: “[Love] keeps no record of wrongs.”
Such qualities, frankly, are in short supply in therhetoric of those advocating for social justice.
Doing justice (i.e., biblical justice, not the secularsubstitute) together with loving mercy and walking humbly with God are allessential virtues. Those are the chief practical duties incumbent on everybeliever (Micah 6:8).Constantly complaining that we are victims of injustice while judging otherpeople guilty of sins we cannot even see is antithetical to the Spirit ofChrist.
As Christians, let’s cultivate the fruit of the Spirit,the qualities named in the Beatitudes, the virtues outlined in 2 Peter 1:5-7, and the characteristics of lovelisted in 1 Corinthians 13. Any notion of moral equity that omits or minimizesthose righteous qualities has no right whatsoever to be called “justice.”