By John Mincy
Ever since Walter Rauschenbusch popularized the social
gospel in America,
Fundamentalists have been struggling with how Christians should relate to the
multitude of social problems. Criticism has been leveled against
Fundamentalists for dropping out of the social arena in the early part of the
twentieth century. Some have called this the “Great Reversal.”[i]
Perhaps “Great Takeover” would be a better title. Through the influence of
evolution, socialism, and religious liberalism, governmental agencies began to
take over social, psychological, and welfare programs[ii]
and to require certification in order to perform services, greatly limiting
Christians’ ministering with a Biblical philosophy. Fundamentalists had to
withdraw from such situations, and in reaction to the liberal social gospel
they also withdrew from social activity that would require theological
compromise.
The accusation that Fundamentalists in the early twentieth
century deserted social service is often overstated. There is evidence that
Fundamentalists were still involved socially.[iii]
They were hindered, however, because they were busy rebuilding church
congregations, buildings, and ministries after losing the battles over
theological liberalism in the major denominations. Carl Henry leveled this
accusation in his book The Uneasy
Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, published in 1947.[iv]
Henry emphasized the absolute necessity of Biblical redemption as the keynote
in all social service, but since he gave very little direction and safeguard,
he left the door open for the development of social programs that easily
developed into ministries that strayed from Biblical principles and were often
without evangelism at all.
Social programs for both saints and sinners have never died
in Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists have been involved in rescue missions,
prison ministries, sports leagues, medical missions, addiction counseling,
adoption ministries, disaster relief, and many others, some of which have been around
for many years. Most Fundamentalists would agree on the following: in the
course of preaching the whole counsel of God, pastors should preach on a wide
range of social topics; individual Christians should use their positions,
influence, and talents to Biblically and evangelistically confront social
problems; and churches should compassionately meet the social needs of
Christians.[v]
The main disagreement is over the legitimacy of a church
having social programs for the purpose of evangelism. Several writers have
voiced their opinions.[vi]
The FBFI has mentioned many social problems in its past resolutions and has
recommended actions to be taken.[vii] Although
emphasizing the role of the individual Christian, some of these resolutions
imply that the local church should be involved.
The important question is, “What does the Bible have to say
about churches being involved in social evangelistic programs?” The Book of
Proverbs provides wisdom even for us today. Proverbs emphasizes the importance
of helping the poor, and no distinction is made about who the poor are.
“He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker:
but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor” (14:31).
“Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor,
he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (21:13).
“He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but
he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse” (28:27).
“The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it” (29:7).
“Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the
cause of the poor and needy” (31:9).
Is it possible for a
church to use such verses to lead to a program to help the poor in order to
reach them for Christ?
Jesus said,
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith
shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and
to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is
set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a
bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the
house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works,
and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matt. 5:13–16).
This can very easily be
interpreted to mean that Christians, whether singly or corporately, can do good
things before or for the unsaved world in order to bring them to a right
relationship to the Father.
In Matthew 5:44–48, Jesus
said,
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward
have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren
only, what do ye more than others?
do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect.
Here is a command to do
good, even to our enemies. Can exegesis limit this to individual Christians? It
seems that it would not be wrong for a church to use this passage to lead into
a ministry to social groups that hate Christians (radical Muslims,
homosexuals)? The same conclusion can be argued from the parable of the
Samaritan recorded in Luke 10:30–37.
In Matthew 15:32, the
Scripture records, “Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because
they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not
send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.” The primary purpose of
Jesus’ miracles was to confirm that He was Messiah, but His compassion for
people, both Jews and Gentiles, is specifically noted as another motive. (See
also Matt. 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34.) Could it be that the
demonstration of compassion could be used by Fundamental churches to lead
people to the compassionate Savior?
Paul argues that the
goodness of God leads to repentance (Rom. 2:4). Is it wrong for a church
to demonstrate the goodness of God through social programs such as prison
ministries, rescue missions, crisis counseling, and so on in order to bring the
unsaved to repentance? Indeed Paul testifies that, “I am made all things to all
men, that I might by all means
save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). We could argue that this applies to individual
Christians only, but it would be an argument from silence. Paul’s attitude was,
“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of
the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). It seems implausible that this should be
interpreted to apply only to the individual Christian and not also to a planned
action by a body of believers.
Finally, would we say
that James was referring to Christians only when he wrote, “Pure religion and
undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows
in their affliction, and to
keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). Were local churches wrong
for supporting the orphanages of George Mueller and Amy Carmichael, or for
today sustaining the many orphanages operated and supported by Fundamental
ministries in Eastern Europe,
India, and so
on? Just because there is no mandate, warrant, pattern, program, or
agenda spelled out for the churches in the Scripture to be involved in
evangelistic social programs does not mean that it is necessarily wrong to be
involved in such programs, if the purpose is to win people to Christ and
disciple them. We could just as well say that there is no mandate against such programs. When the Bible is
silent, we should not be dogmatic.
Having said that, we must realize that there are dangers
involved in such ministries: putting social needs before the gospel; becoming
partakers of evil deeds (getting involved with Catholicism, the World Council
of Churches, New Evangelicalism, etc.); creating “rice Christians”; and
mismanagement of our limited ministry resources. We cannot afford to ignore the
high percentage of good social programs that go wrong. Those who refuse to
learn from history are doomed to make the same mistakes. The evangelistic and
discipleship ministry must always be in the forefront, the raison d’être.
Some disagreement will continue among Fundamentalists on
this issue, but we can hope that the Baptist doctrines of individual soul
liberty and the autonomy of the local church will prevail and that good men
will allow other good men some latitude.
Dr. John Mincy is an
FBFI Board Member and pastors Heritage Baptist Church in Antioch, California.
[i]
“Moberg contends, however, that ‘a great reversal’ took place between 1910 and
the 1930’s in which the position of evangelicals on social action shifted”
(quoted by James Singleton, “Fundamentalism: Past, Present, and Future Part
VIII,” Tri-City Builder, February
1990).
[ii]
Rushdoony refers to a book written by Albert Jay Nock in 1935: “The state, as
Albert Jay Nock saw, has become the new church of man.” R. J.Rushdoony, The Death of Meaning (Vallecito, CA:
Ross House Books, 2002), p. 155. Specific influences would include John Dewey,
Sigmund Freud, the Scopes trial, and the creation of social agencies (U.S.
Children’s Bureau established by Congress in 1912, the University of
Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice founded in 1908, the Boston
School for Social Work established in 1904, to name a few). “The meaning of the
[Scopes] trial emerged through its interpretation of social and intellectual
values” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm,
accessed 01/18/07).
“[President Woodrow] Wilson
[1913–21] argued that intellect—not Victorian traditions or religious precepts—should
guide our social institutions” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/ projects/ftrials/scopes/finalword.html,
accessed 01/18/07).
[iii]
Rolland McCune, Promise Unfulfilled (Greenville, SC:
Ambassador International, 2004), pp. 235–36.
[iv] Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, 2nd ed.
[v]
McCune, p. 268; L. Duane Brown, Confronting
Today’s World: A Fundamentalist Looks at Social Issues (Schaumburg: Regular
Baptist Press, 1986), p 70.
[vi] McCune
(pp. 260–274) and Brown (pp. 63–71) strongly denounce local church social
programs. At the end of his book, however, Brown says that social ministry is
justified when it “gives opportunity for sharing the gospel. Some examples of
this would be medical missions, city rescue missions, servicemen’s centers and
possibly emergency funds for certain crises.” (p. 170). David L. Burggraff
gives a brief history of the issue and suggests that the future of
Fundamentalism will probably involve more social programs, but stops short of
condoning such (see http://seminary.cbs.edu/content/events/nlc/2006/ papers/WE5-DBurggraff.pdf
). James Singleton opts for recognition of both evangelism and social action
without specifying what the social actions might look like (“Fundamentalism:
Past, Present, Future, Part VIII,” Tri-City
Builder, Feb. 1990. For the
entire booklet see http://www.tricityministries.org/tcbc/ resources/fundamentalism_booklet.pdf).
For a recent blog discussion by Fundamentalists see http://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/drying-out/
(accessed 9/15/2006).
|
