Evangelicals and socio-political involvement

During the 1960s and 70s Western evangelicals spent much time discussing the relationship between social action and gospel proclamation with major conferences held in Berlin (1966), Lausanne (1974) and Lausanne 2 in Manila (1989).

Some see such developments as a recovery of a vital element of authentic evangelicalism that was previously lost as an overreaction to the 'social gospel.' Other assessments are more negative, seeing a move away from full-blooded evangelicalism to a more liberal direction.

The question is this: has there been a return to the kind of evangelical social involvement characterised by our forefathers, or has such a theological change occurred that the modern basis of such action would hardly be recognised by the likes of Wilberforce as being evangelical at all?

One way of determining the answer to this question is by considering what some of the great 18th and 19th century evangelical social reformers taught about their theological motivation and comparing it with what the heirs of Lausanne are advocating. When we do this, we discover significant differences.

THE REFORMING

The social reforms of the 19th century took place in the wake of the revivals of the 18th century, the revivals providing the moral context, not to mention spiritual impetus, for the reforms. The relationship between the two has been carefully considered by J. Wesley Bready in his England Before and After Wesley.

If we take John Wesley as one of its leading spokesmen, what do we find him teaching about gospel and social action? In his preface to the first Methodist Hymn Book (1739), Wesley wrote: 'The gospel of Christ knows no religion but social, no holiness but social holiness. This command have we from Christ, that he who loves God loves his brother.'

In the university sermon delivered in St. Mary's, Oxford in 1774, Wesley pictures Christianity as 'beginning to exist in individuals,' next as 'spreading from one to another,' and finally 'as covering the earth.' He then asks his congregation to pause 'and survey this strange sight, a Christian world!' He proceeded to challenge those in leadership positions within the town as to whether they were of one mind with the love of God shed abroad in their hearts (i.e. converted). He then pleaded that the sure hope for a better age was a better man, and only Christ's new man can herald Christ's new world. So Henry Carter comments: 'To Wesley, a scheme of reconstructing society which ignored the redemption of the individual was unthinkable.'

Similarly, Bready writes of Wesley: 'As a prophet of God and an ordained ambassador of Christ, he did not conceive it his task to formulate economic, political and social theories; nor did he judge himself competent so to do. His 'calling' he believed was far more sacred, and more thoroughgoing: it was to lead men into . . . 'abundant life'. For if once men, in sufficient numbers, were endowed with an illumined conscience and spiritual insight, they, collectively as well as individually, would become possessors of the 'wisdom that passeth knowledge'; and in that wisdom social problems gradually would be solved.'

William Wilberforce

Wilberforce followed the same principles and is most widely known for his Herculean labours for the abolition of the slave trade, but he also had another great aim. On October 28 1787, he wrote in his diary: 'God Almighty has set before me two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of Manners'. Jonathan Bayes notes: 'His plan was that his Society for the Reformation of Manners should serve to restore England to its Protestant faith by standing against those moral offences which militated against Christianity. As a by-product, Wilberforce believed, there would follow a general moral improvement'.

Being a shrewd politician, he did not restrict the membership of the society to evangelicals. Initially he couched his campaign in purely moral terms. But then he went further to challenge the religious outlook of many, by writing his book, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in this Country Contrasted with Real Christianity. Published in 1797 (having taken four years to write), Wilberforce's aim was to share his testimony and lead members of his own class into vital Christianity, by exposing the shallowness of nominal Christianity. The book went through five reprints within six months and kept selling.

He argued that the lack of concern with true Christianity could be traced back to two maxims: 'One is that it signifies little what a man believes; look to his practice. The other (of the same family) is that sincerity is all in all.' So he wrote: 'The first of these maxims proceeds from the monstrous supposition that, although we are accountable creatures, we shall not be called upon to account before God for the exercise of our intellectual powers. The second proceeds on this groundless supposition: The Supreme Being has not afforded us sufficient means of discriminating truth from falsehood or right from wrong.'

The ignorance of Christian basic truths was a result, argued Wilberforce, of a failure to recognise the depth and extent of man's moral depravity through original sin and that although nominal religion may pay lip-service to Christ, it lacked that which was required of authentic faith, a commitment of the totality of one's life so that everything is done to the glory of God.

Bayes proposes that in the medium and long term, the impact of both the Society and The Practical View was considerable. Speaking of the improved moral mood in society in the 1830s and the sense of being accountable to God which pervaded society at every level, it was, Bayes contends, 'in no small measure due to Wilberforce.' However, as A Practical View shows, Wilberforce, like Wesley before him, saw conversion as being the main need, especially given his strong view of human corruption.

Such an understanding of the relation between gospel renewal and societal reformation is very similar to the position advocated at Berlin in 1966, but rests less easily with what some evangelicals have proposed since.

The model of the Reforming Evangelicals might be contrasted with that of the Radical Evangelicals, whose spiritual pedigree can, as we shall argue, be traced directly back to Lausanne.

THE RADICALS

Ranald Macaulay observes that at Lausanne a rift occurred which centred on the meaning of the phrase 'Kingdom of God'. This is key to understanding much of the debate that has ensued.

Back in 1967, in his paper for NEAC 1, Sir Norman Anderson argued: 'There is a sense in which that Kingdom is already a present reality, for the King is already on his throne, waiting till all things are put under his feet . . . But is there a wider sense in which one can think of the Kingdom, as advanced wherever the will of the King is done, even by those who do not give him personal allegiance? This, it seems to me, is dangerous ground, for we cannot regard the Kingdom of God as having materialised in a factory, for example, merely because social justice and harmony reign therein . . . The evangelical holds no brief for the so-called 'social gospel', for society, as such, cannot be 'redeemed' or 'baptised into Christ'. But it can be reformed.'

Matters have moved on a long way since then, for the Radical Evangelical would contest almost everything in Anderson's statement. So, rather ironically, in the first Sir Norman Anderson lecture delivered at the Salt and Light Conference in Swanwick, 1988, we find Graham Cray stating: 'Jesus's proclamation concerned the 'reign of God' - God who is creator, upholder and consummator of all that is. We are not talking about one sector of human affairs . . . we are talking about the reign and sovereignty of God over all that is.' The same argument has been advanced more recently by Nigel Wright: 'All the earth is the Lord's and so we trace the Spirit at work beyond the Church, especially in movements that make for human dignity and liberation.'

Dr. Chris Sugden, also advocating the Kingdom of God as the basis for evangelical socio-political involvement, extends the redeeming work of Christ on the cross to cover all positive social change in society, thus: 'Jesus's rule and action are cosmic. He disarmed the principalities and powers which create division in society. Where we see barriers broken down, can we divorce this from God's will seen in Christ's victory over the powers on the cross, and 'this understanding gives us a basis for seeing God at work in society beyond the church applying the effects of Christ's victory on the cross through social change'.'

Developing this point, Sugden and Samuel argue that any movement, Christian or not, which takes place to establish justice, is to be interpreted as having the same character as Jesus's Kingdom acts of power and healing.

What to make of such claims?

First of all, it is based on a dubious understanding of the term 'Kingdom of God' which means far more than 'God rules'. In Scripture it is something to be sought and entered into, requiring poverty of spirit (Matthew 5.3, 7.21). As Professor Don Carson correctly maintains, it is to be understood in terms of the sphere of salvation entered into through faith in Jesus Christ. R.T. France similarly contends: 'It is wrong to identify the Kingdom of God with social reform, as it is with the church or heaven, and for the same reason: it is a category mistake. To talk of men, even Christian men, bringing about God's kingdom is to usurp God's sovereignty. Yet this sort of language is increasingly being heard in evangelical circles. It is strangely reminiscent of the language of 19th-century liberalism.'

Secondly, it must be said that Scripture is being handled in a way which is hermeneutically suspect from an evangelical point of view. Thus, when it is said by Sugden that wherever just relationships are established we are to take these as signs of God's Kingdom, and Galatians 3.28 is cited in support, it must be firmly pointed out that what Paul is referring to is what happens in the church as a result of people hearing the gospel, and not 'just relationships' in society at large.

Such a loose and selective approach to handling the Bible hardly accords with what is generally regarded as a hallmark of evangelicalism, namely, respecting the historical integrity of the text and how it functions within the overall canonical sweep of Scripture.

Radical evangelicals

It may be argued, however, that the departure of the Radical Evangelicals from the evangelical mainstream is an aberration and not a necessary result of the changes which took place at Lausanne 1 and 2. After all, John Stott one of the main architects of Lausanne would hardly endorse the 'Kingdom' approach outlined above, indeed, in his response to another 'Kingdom' advocate, Ron Sider, he is so critical that he can write: 'I still want to insist that the kingdom of God in the New Testament is fundamentally a Christological concept, and that it may be said to exist only where Jesus Christ is consciously acknowledged as Lord.'

But it may well be the case that the Radical Evangelicals were simply attempting to be consistent in drawing out the implications of the way of thinking that was developing at these conferences. The result is the emergence of two streams of thought. Those represented by the likes of Fred Catherwood and Norman Anderson on the one hand, who would be placed in the Reforming Evangelical category, and those represented by Sugden and Wright on the other, who would be identified with Radical Evangelicalism and its salient similarities with the old liberalism. If this is so, then the position of Dr. Stott is most interesting, for it would appear that there is an internal inconsistency in his position which places him with a foot in both camps.

Therefore, going back to Dr. Stott's treatment of the results of the Grand Rapids Consultation, it may be granted that while the Reforming Evangelicals would have agreed that 'social activity is a consequence of evangelism', one would be hard pressed to find any evidence that they would have shared the view that it was one of its 'principal aims'. Where in the New Testament is this ever put forward as being the case, if evangelism is taken as proclaiming the evangel? What that evangel is, is presented by the apostle Paul in Romans 1.2-5, and indeed the rest of the epistle is an exposition of that gospel together with its implications. It is impossible to find any reference to social transformation being integral to its message, it is a spiritual transformation which is its focus. As people's relationship with God is changed, social change also takes place, which is primarily, although not exclusively, within the realm of the redeemed community - the church.

Evangelist's aim

What is Paul's aim as an evangelist? To bring about social change? Not directly, such that it could legitimately be said to constitute an aim. His priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God is 'so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit' (Romans 15.16). That is, they become incorporated into the people of God by believing the message of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But if social responsibility is put forward as a principal aim in evangelism, it is a small and logical step to conceiving social change as part of the evangel itself. To take that step is to produce 'another gospel'.

Secondly, as we have seen, Dr. Stott, in elaborating the Grand Rapids document, speaks of evangelism and social activity as a partnership, like two blades of a pair of scissors or two wings of a bird, while earlier insisting that evangelism has a logical and theological priority.

But this position is untenable, for the very imagery used negates the claim that evangelism has priority. Can one say which blade in a pair of scissors is more important? Similarly, can one speak of one bird's wing as having priority? Both are equally important, for without a pair of wings the bird would not be able to fly at all. Perhaps unthinkingly what has happened is that social action has been exalted to the same status as evangelism, and, as we have seen, neither Wesley nor Wilberforce would countenance such a notion.

Inconsistency

But this is an inconsistency, for elsewhere in the Grand Rapids report it is stated explicitly that 'evangelism relates to people's eternal destiny (no mention here of social activity), and in bringing them the good news of salvation, Christians are doing what nobody else can do. Seldom, if ever, should we have to choose between healing bodies and saving souls . . . Nevertheless, if we must choose, then we have to say that the supreme and ultimate need of all humankind is the saving grace of Jesus Christ.' But such a claim is undermined by talk of evangelism and social action being 'in reality a marriage'.

Dr. John Woodhouse's comment on this point is very astute: 'The significant disagreement among evangelicals has to do with the motivation that has been advanced for our social concern. On the one side of the debate, a perceived neglect of social responsibilities is redressed by arguing that social action is more significant than evangelicals have hitherto acknowledged. It is a worthwhile question to ask whether in the proposed heyday of evangelical social action - last century - the kind of theological justification advanced today was present. My impression is that it was not. On the other side of the debate, it is acknowledged that to love one's neighbour is a Christian duty . . . And who would deny that we have neglected our duties? It is right that we should be called again and again to care. But when that obligation is given the theological undergirding that belongs properly to the task of evangelism, when the evangelistic task is no longer seen as unique in importance, when evangelistic responsibility is taken for granted, and our neglect of social action causes deeper remorse than our neglect of evangelism, then the cart has been put before the horse and is trying to grow legs.' How true!

A fuller version of this article appeared in The Churchman in 1999.

Evangelicals and socio-political involvement

What are the tensions between evangelism and good deeds?