While I have a minute today, I have been working through James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World along with another book which I think is the right theological companion to it, and it turns out that Chuck Colson has published a “response” to Davison’s book at Christianity Today. After all the PR for the work of Colson’s conservative social activism, the money quote comes here:
That brings me to my biggest concern about Hunter’s argument: The “faithful presence” he advocates most likely will result in Christians remaining silent in the face of injustice and suffering. Instead of seeking the welfare of the city in which God has placed us, we are indifferent to its decay and that decay’s impact on the life of our neighbors.This isn’t a logical necessity: Faithful presence doesn’t per se require silence and indifference. But I’m hard-pressed to come up with an historical example of quietism and commitment to fighting injustice going together. And it is insensitive to the social and cultural context in which Christians are called to live out their faithfulness.
Now, re-read that a couple of times before you go forward here because it’s a more than a little absurd.
Let me explain and disclaim something first: If anyone reads into this post as a denunciation of Chuck Colson, well, that’s what happens on the internet: people have to find something to complain about. For the record, Chuck Colson does good political work for the sake of our country. He finds things that really matter in our society and our world and wants people to do something about them and not just sit on their hands, and I admire that. He is also plainly a believer in Jesus Christ, even if his public proclamations which involve theological categories usually make me more than a little itchy.
However, I am not a fan of Colson when all things are said and done, and the reason is in the very next paragraph of his CT essay:
In his Christianity Today interview, Hunter said, “When Christians turn to law, public policy, and politics as the last resort, they have essentially given up on a desire to persuade their opponents. They want the patronage of the state and its coercive power to rule the day.” I doubt he would have said that to Dr. Martin Luther King or to William Wilberforce when they waged long and heroic battles against injustice.
In the first place, this is not an argument: this is a supposition – and, I think, a bad one. Comparing Wilberforce and King in this way is a randy and enthusiastic mixing of serious distinctions.
For example, with all due respect to Dr. King, he did not share the theological presuppositions of Wilberforce. Wilberforce’s spiritiual mentor throughout his most rigorous political battles was John Newton – who is well known as a staunch confessional Anglican. More to the point, Wilburforce was convinced that while laws may restrain the evil-doer, societal change was only truly possible through conversion in faith which would cause men to resist radical causes and revolution. Dr. King, however, was first and foremost a populist in politics, and saw the appeal of democratic socialism if he was not in fact a socialist. His view of government as a coercive and frankly authoritative voice in society came before his commitments to the second birth and evangelism as tools of reforming men and therefore their societies.
And it is in this where Colson makes his critical error in this discussion, and in what is ultimately the debate over what the church is and what it is meant to do in and for the world.
In Colson’s view, evangelism is in the best case a partner with social activism – which is certainly Dr. King’s view, but not so much Wilburforce’s view. But Hunter’s critique of this is summed up in his book thus:
To the extent that collective identity rooted in resentment has been cultivated and then nurtured through a message of negotiation toward “the other,” many of the most prominent Christian leaders and organizations in America have fashioned an identity and witness for the church that is, to say the least, antithetical to its highest calling. … The tragedy is that in the name of resisting the internal deterioration of faith and the corruption of the world around them, many Christians – and Christian conservatives most significantly – unwittingly embrace some of the most corrosive aspects of the cultural disintegration they decry.
Colson does not address this in the least, and continues down the same path he has been on for decades: marrying the church to a political social agenda which, in the end, is not a partner with the mission of the church but a much later consequence of the mission of the church.
Now: here’s what I sat down to post before all of that necessary preamble – it is utterly faithless (but, to be clear, not necessarily damnable) to say what Colson says in criticism of Hunter’s point. For Colson to say that “the ‘faithful presence’ [Hunter] advocates most likely will result in Christians remaining silent in the face of injustice and suffering” demands that the reader interpret 3 things which, I think, are indefensible coming from a person who says Jesus has died for our sins and is raised from the dead to be both our Lord and Christ:
[1] It assumes that somehow “faithful presence” is itself a passive ethic. Let me use a radical example to explain why this is absolutely indefensible: there are no places in the world where there are Mennonite or Amish communities where the community is not greatly impacted for the better and the presence of those living the radical solution is not obvious and active to those not in the radical solution. There are certainly faults among the Amish and the Mennonites – they are human, after all, and not caricatures or demigods. But the historical example of these communities speak so loudly and boldly against the “do nothing” conclusion Colson offers that one has to wonder if he’s serious about challenging the position Hunter is offering.
[2] It ignores the value of evangelism in Colson’s core ministries. Listen: when Colson is at his best, he has established a parachurch platform for local churches to draw resources from in order to convert the lost in prison and turn them away from their sin and their path of present corruption and eternal damnation. At his best, Colson has his arms around the lost for the sake of the Gospel, and a heart for people who otherwise are going to hell. But his criticism here completely neglects that the foundation of the great wins his ministry has produced in these prisons is primarily to make of men something new in Christ, and not to teach them more law so that they have more rules to follow. Colson’s solution for men in prison is a faithful presence for them from those who believe in Christ.
[3] It makes the church far subordinate to the parachurch, which is an inversion of the Bible’s economy and polity of the world. That statement deserves a week’s worth of 10-page blog posts, but I will settle for saying this: when the day comes that we as Christian have made our local churches into museums for the Gospel where it is displayed but never taken down into the street to save a lost person, and we call that a “faithful presence,” we will not be good and faithful servants: we will be Pharisees of the highest order, sons of Benjamin, taught by the greatest of teaches, who count all that as silver and gold rather than filthy rags in comparison to Christ and his work for those who are lost rebels. However, then, we define “the work” or “the presence”, let it never be in such a way that our first objective is ever obscured by our other concerns for other human beings. We are right to want to save people physically from danger, but the greatest danger to them are their unrepentant souls – something you cannot legislate away.
Hunter’s challenge to we who call ourselves Christian is this: our engagement is first to save the souls of our enemies, and therein save their bodies and their homes and their properties. If we seek to first save men’s bodies and their homes and their property, we will never get to their souls.
May 19th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #1
Well said, Frank. I look forward to reading To Change the World.
May 19th, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #2
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Frank Turk. Frank Turk said: http://bit.ly/aCMfEQ at Evangel – how filthy rags come back in style [...]
May 19th, 2010 | 12:40 pm | #3
So many disagreements, so little time. Since I have to leave to pick my daughter up at college, I will simply say this.
Thank you Frank for a serious and thoughtful post. While I do disagree with many points, and may actually get around to detailing them after 20 hours of driving, I appreciate your valiant attempt to make this a meaningful blog (something for which so many contributors cannot seem to find the time to post even only once a week here)
So again, thank you.
May 19th, 2010 | 1:10 pm | #4
“Wilburforce was convinced that while laws may restrain the evil-doer, societal change was only truly possible through conversion in faith…”
Indeed. “The victory that overcomes the world,” one might say. Faith in Christ is the only thing that can tear our eyes away from the allure of this world and its economies and seats of power.
…where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
May 19th, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #5
I am not familiar with the book, but I am wondering if there is a confusion between changing culture, and changing laws. The former is subject to a number of variables, but the latter is subject to justice. One’s labors would seem to be better spent on working towards the goals of the latter than the former no matter what our theology would be.
May 19th, 2010 | 1:43 pm | #6
Couldn’t agree more. This gets to the very heart of the conservative evangelical embrace of moralism over the gospel. In the name of making the world a better place, we subvert the good news of Jesus by communicating that we’re really after changed behavior, not changed hearts.
May 19th, 2010 | 1:48 pm | #7
Changing behavior Changing hearts
Changing hearts Changing minds
Changing minds Changing behavior
God uses them all.
May 19th, 2010 | 2:34 pm | #8
TUaD: the question is not whether all are used. It is whether of which the Church is called pre-eminently to do. There are many places one may find the social will to offer ethical reforms: there is only one Gospel, and one place it can be found.
In that place, it should not just be one of the choices: it should be the pre-eminent object of its activity.
May 19th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #9
Adam:
I have this suspicion that if we discussed your comment we would have very broad agreement, you and I. However, the way you said it seems less than optimal.
Is the church’s primary objective “justice and mercy,” “justice,” “mercy,” or something which government cannot offer in any way?
May 19th, 2010 | 2:38 pm | #10
Shawn –
One great point of Hunter’s book is that the political liberals are guilty of the same thing.
May 19th, 2010 | 2:52 pm | #11
The solution to the Gospel is the Culture!
;-)
May 19th, 2010 | 2:58 pm | #12
Frank:
Sounds like a very interesting read. In my experience, most conservative evangelicals fail to appreciate how similar the philosophies and tactics they embrace are to those of the political left. Or, as with the appeal to MLK, they see the similarity as a good thing because the tactics have proven to be effective. Just pay no mind to any inconsistency with the gospel message . . .
May 19th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #13
Agreed. Jesus is Lord so why not let people abort their babies? Kant was right, after all: only pure motives are legit; therefore, anything that isn’t uniquely Christian is wrong.
May 19th, 2010 | 3:56 pm | #14
I have no idea what you’re talking about, OrthoDJ.
May 19th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #15
TUAD – #11 – would you pls elaborate? I’m curious.
May 19th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #16
#11 is a play on words as the slogan of my home blog is, “The Gospel is the Solution to Culture.”
May 19th, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #17
WeighingIn,
Another perspective is what James says in James 2:18
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
What kind of faith? Gospel faith.
(But someone will say, “You have gospel faith and I have works.” Show me your gospel faith apart from your works, and I will show you my gospel faith by my works.)
So it’s entirely plausible that some folks have come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ because they have first witnessed the “works” done by Christians (works that are an outward expression flowing from their gospel faith) to redeem some fallen aspect of the culture or society.
For example, it’s plausible or possible that someone became a Christian because they saw pro-life activists outside an abortion clinic. The pro-life activists are being Salt and Light in a fallen culture. For that person who came to Christ because of their faithfulness, the cultural work of the Pro-Life activists made the receptivity to the Gospel easier. The Gospel was easier to penetrate because of what they did.
Analogously, the relief efforts in Katrina and Haiti done by Christians. There may have been people who came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ because of those Christian relief workers. Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists didn’t help out. Christians did. This made the receptivity to the Gospel by which to penetrate hitherto lost souls easier.
James 2:18: I will show you my (gospel) faith by my works.
May 19th, 2010 | 5:24 pm | #18
TUAD:
I agree, but so would Frank (probably). He is not saying that works are useless, or that they cannot cause people to want to seek Christ. His point is that our works (however noble) are not what the world ultimately needs. What the world ultimately needs is to be saved from Sin, and there is only one “work” that accomplished that: the work of Christ on the Cross. Social justice campaigns and activities (for all their fine results and good intentions) often miss that, and if we’re not careful then we can too. People can see our (gospel) faith by our works, but it is still the (gospel) faith that can save them, not our works.
May 19th, 2010 | 5:30 pm | #19
I agree Halcyon! Sola Fide!
May 19th, 2010 | 9:11 pm | #20
I find it interesting that TUaD proffered this:
Rather than this:
I’m pretty sure James isn’t talking about woodworking or even mandating by law the use of seatbelts.
May 20th, 2010 | 1:09 am | #21
Excellent!
May 20th, 2010 | 10:40 am | #22
I keep reading reviews for Hunter’s book in all the blogs I am subscribed to. I really need to get it and read it for myself.
In the meantime, it sounds to me like he may be saying something similar to what I wrote in this post:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/03/15/christ-the-faithful-suffering-servant-in-the-midst-of-culture/
Do you (or anyone out there who might take the time to read my article, and has also read Hunter) see any important differences?
May 20th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #23
Frank,
absolutely correct, as a person who is fairly involved in short term missions to northern mexico to provide shelters for homeless, i can tell you that this is a constant issue.
when we go and do what we do, if Christ, and His work is not intentionally kept front and center, our work becomes something for which we need to repent.
making humans comfortable on their way to hell is not the work to which Christians have been called,
May 20th, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #24
Here’s a recent story about Baptist missionaries to Haiti whose work with orphans helped lead someone to Christ.
Excerpt: “With the children falling to sleep and the group members preparing MREs (meals, ready to eat), the border guards and Baptists practiced their lingual skills — the border guards’ limited English and the Baptists their rough Creole. Out of the blue, one of the border guards, speaking through a translator, told the Baptists, “I want to become a Christian and I want to know how to become a Christian.” The Baptists, amazed at what had just been requested, led the man to the Lord.
“Our act of compassion upon his country, God was using that to draw this man to Himself — I’m sure with a lot of other things,” Thompson said. “Because of what just happened we became very satisfied that this was God’s ordained moment for this man’s life.”
The Baptists rejoiced with the man, and the experience made the fact that they were still in Haiti — and would be sleeping without a bed for a second straight night — significantly more palatable.”
Read it all: Here.
May 20th, 2010 | 4:27 pm | #25
Mike –
The short answer is that your essay is about something in parallel to Hunter’s book.
The long answer will have to wait for another day.
May 24th, 2010 | 11:59 am | #26
Great thoughts Frank. What is that other book you mentioned in the first paragraph that is a theological companion to Hunter’s book?
June 2nd, 2010 | 10:26 pm | #27
Great post.
To put it in biblical terms that an evangelical (like myself) can understand, I think it boils down to the fact that, in the Great Commission, Jesus did not command his disciples to save the Roman Empire, keep (or make) its law godly, etc.
Instead Jesus commanded them to “[g]o therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [i.e., the disciples of all nations, wherever they may be found] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19). In doing this, we — the disciples of Christ — become a shining set set on a hill, a people who recognize now (however imperfectly) what all creation will one day know: that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Phrases associated with right-wing American politics like “God and country,” “Focus on the Family,” and “Country First” (McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign slogan) appear nowhere in the New Testament and, in fact, contradict its core teachings in important ways. So do most of the slogans of the American left and, perhaps even more importantly, those of American political interests group, who tend to support whatever political party most identifies with their political and financial interests (often meaning both parties: see, e.g., CitiCorp., which split its corporate donations in 2008 nearly evenly between the parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#2008_Election_Cycle).
Americans may be a people with the soul of a church. But America is not the church. No nation is.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact