There's a deliciously synchronicitous irony about the release of two statements on social justice, both authored or part-authored by Christians, on either side of the Atlantic, within a day of each other.

One is the IPPR report co-written by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It says the UK economy is broken, that people can't afford to live decently even when they're employed, and that rich people and rich corporations ought to pay more tax to make society fairer.

In an article for the Mail, the archbishop says: 'As a Christian I start with learning from Jesus Christ that people matter equally, are equally loved by God, and that justice in society matters deeply – a theme that runs throughout the Bible.'

He concludes with another biblical reference: 'In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is recorded as giving one of the greatest challenges possible to his disciples just before his arrest and crucifixion when he describes the judgment of God at the end of time.

'In that passage he explicitly says that judgment is linked to justice, namely, in the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest. Out of that extraordinary passage comes the Christian call to work for the common good and for the welfare of everyone in our society.'

Compare and contrast that with the 'Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel' that's rapidly acquiring signatures in the US. It's from the same stable as the 1987 Danvers Statement, the foundational document on complementarianism, and the 2017 Nashville Statement on sexuality, to both of which it refers. It has the same handy 'We affirm'/'We deny' layout, too.

What it denies is a whole discourse about justice that's common currency today. Nothing that doesn't 'arise from God's commandments' is prescribed for righteous living. Sin is not generational – with the implication, of course, that today's white Americans have nothing to repent of or make reparations for regarding the sins of their ancestors. 'Gay Christian' is not a 'legitimate biblical category'; gay marriage is not marriage; there are no 'sexual minorities'. Complementarianism: of course. On race: 'We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep, we deny that a person's feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice.' So much for Black Lives Matter.

And where the contrast with the archbishop's position is particularly clear: 'WE DENY that political or social activism should be viewed as integral components of the gospel or primary to the mission of the church.'

Here the framers of SJG find themselves right alongside Britain's Taxpayers Alliance, which in a much-mocked tweet said: 'The Archbishop seems to have forgotten Jesus' command to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's'. He should stick to his important theological work and keep out of politics!'

Hint: Jesus explicitly told people to pay taxes, and the archbishop is sticking precisely to his 'important theological work'. 

Now, we should not make too much of SJG. It represents a particular section of US evangelicalism that is white and frightened. It's pushing back against the assertiveness of Black Lives Matter. It doesn't like the reaction against nostalgia for the Confederacy. It doesn't like much of the modern world – gay marriage, #MeToo, the upsurge of serious questions about economics and fairness. Bernie Sanders. Colin Kaepernick. The fragility of US governance. It's rolled up all its fear and hostility and stuck a label on it saying 'Social Justice'.

It does not represent the US church, or US evangelicalism. And though it has 3249 signatories at the time of writing, some of them are distinctly suspect – 'This statement is bad and you should feel bad' signed it, as did 'Shoo go away and take your racist garbage with you'. I have my doubts about 'Mel Brooks, Hollywood, CA' as well. 

The thing is, social justice is – as the Archbishop of Canterbury knows very well – fundamentally part of the gospel. It's is wrong and an offence to God that women are oppressed and suffer violence, that whether someone gets healthcare or not depends on how much money they have, that black people experience discrimination and disadvantage, that people's lives and opportunities are limited because they're born poor, live poor and die poor.

What the SJG framers don't like is that this stuff is hard. Tackling it is a community-wide, nation-wide and international enterprise. It means listening to everyone, because everyone has a stake in the result – and not prejudging the issue because you have a Bible you can quote, but taking part in thrashing out complex issues in the public space because you have really internalised what Jesus says about bringing abundant life. That is what the Archbishop of Canterbury does, and what many Christians on both sides of the Atlantic do. Withdrawing from the conversation is in nobody's interests, unless it's those who think that building the walls between them and everyone else ever higher somehow serves the cause of the gospel.

Let's by all means disagree vigorously about how to achieve it. But the quest for social justice is necessary and Christian. This SJG statement is just sad.

Follow Mark Woods on Twitter: @RevMarkWoods