Will it be the case with the church’s response to modern-day slavery that we say we are passionate about abolition, but neglect to engage slavery and other issues of justice as integral, even central to what we understand the mission of the whole church to be? Will we make great claims of what we believe to be true about Jesus and the life he offers, and yet not live out this life on behalf of those who sit in what might feel like an unreachable darkness?

The moment seems ripe for a response. The opportunity to live what we say we believe, and therefore, to truly believe, is freshly at hand. There is a fresh work of the Holy Spirit, reviving the hearts of God’s people to see and understand and respond to injustice and to bring an end to the heinous abuse of the poor that brings contempt to their Maker.

However, there is yet another dichotomy in the Christian life that has woven itself into the very foundations of classic evangelical belief, particularly in the United States, for at least a century. We have segregated our souls, and consequently our Christian mission, into spiritual and physical realms. Even as efforts to uncover, highlight and mend this dichotomy have been underway to various degrees for decades, we are living in a time of unprecedented opportunity. The opportunity is not to simply mend this rift, but to relearn the implications of salvation, of Jesus’ work as it ends not at redemption, but restoration. The opportunity is at hand for Christians to pursue justice for the oppressed as fundamental to discipleship itself.

TO ACT JUSTLY AND TO LOVE MERCY

As is often the case, it is helpful to look behind us as we discern the way forward.

100 years ago, much of the Church in America was steadily building toward a major rift in belief about what constituted the best ways for Christians to tangibly live out the Gospel on behalf of their neighbors. The rift that transpired by about 1920 has come to be known by historians as the Fundamentalist/Modernist Divide.²

There was much at stake on both sides of the theological spectrum, and it was, in the end, views on the ultimate authority of scripture that determined one’s position on the theological spectrum. The arenas of social action and justice became part of this divide. As the so-called Modernists (espousing a liberal view of the authority of scripture) of the day became more actively and vocally engaged in social reform, the so-called Fundamentalists of the day – those who most vehemently argued for a traditional, orthodox understanding of the authority of scripture (basically synonymous with what we would call “Evangelicals” today) – began to back away from any kind of social reform. Verbal evangelism regarding the salvation of one’s soul became, on the whole, the only emphasis in mission. There was an evangelical backlash against any definition of mission that could breed confusion with Modernist commitments. In tandem, Modernists launched forward with what became known as “the Social Gospel,” – a departure from the orthodox understanding of the Gospel as found in the scriptures - seeking to meet the physical, tangible, temporal needs of society to the abandonment of any emphasis on spiritual needs.

By 1920 a divorce between evangelism and social action was all but written in stone for the American church.

It is important to note that even when the evangelical understanding of mission had once involved a hearty embrace of tangible, physical needs of one’s neighbors near and far around the globe, there was not a robust theological rationale driving their social action. In the late 1800’s and into the turn of the 20th century, evangelically-minded Christians had been, in many ways, actually known for their involvement in society, particularly related to such issues as temperance, health, poverty, even forced labor and forced prostitution. However, without a deeper understanding and commitment to the Biblical view of justice, any mission activity that was not completely synonymous with traditional evangelism became unsustainable when a time of marked theological conflict came upon the church.

Because action on behalf of the social, physical needs of one’s neighbors was seen as merely a convenient, albeit good, byproduct of the more pressing and primary focus of mission – namely, soul salvation – and not as a good in itself (much less, an aspect of holistic biblical salvation in itself), it was easily abandoned. Neglect of social action became an opportunity for evangelicals to clearly distinguish themselves from the liberal Modernists and demonstrate their exclusive commitment to a particular understanding of salvation – namely, the salvation of souls. It was the ideal vehicle for conveying a strong “us against them” message in the Fundamentalist arguments for orthodoxy.

Much has changed since the original divisiveness of the Fundamentalist/ Modernist conflict – but much has remained the same. In the arena of change, after WWII in particular, evangelical leaders began forging a frontier of relief and development work. Bob Pierce, who began his ministry as an evangelist with Youth for Christ, sought to meet the immediate physical needs of orphans in Korea, thus birthing World Vision, a now billion-dollar mercy ministry spread throughout the globe. Carl Henry wrote “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism,” and, while seemingly uneasy himself with exactly what implications he wanted his indictment to have, effectively called the evangelical American church and its leaders to deeper engagement with matters in the public, social sphere. World Relief, Compassion International, Habitat for Humanity, Opportunity International, and nearly countless other organizations have sprung up and have been effectively drawing evangelicals into engagement with the more physical, tangible needs of their neighbors in the name of Jesus Christ, both near and far around the world.

Most recently, Christians are even beginning to involve themselves not only in mercy ministries but in matters of violent injustice as well – rising up to intervene where there is abuse against the poorest of the poor. Slavery in all of its literal, rampant forms, police abuse, unprosecuted rape, torture, illegal detention, and land exploitation are all beginning to come onto the radar screen of the church, and action is brewing. God’s people are beginning to mobilize on behalf of the very most vulnerable and voiceless in our world – on behalf of little girls just like Kunthy and Chanda.

Whether the ministry is one of mercy or of intervening in violent injustice, the divide continues. There is still a significant degree of wariness toward justice ministry among much of the evangelical church. We have not understood the way in which tangible rescue in the here and now effectively points to God’s eternal purposes for His people. Evangelical engagement in social action is still misunderstood as a byproduct of the more primary priorities related to the needs of the human soul.

Comments

Comments are now closed