Evangelicals in their Quest for Justice

I commend CPJ and its supporters for courage and creativity in advocating biblically oriented views on contemporary life. There are two dangers in going public: You can be misunderstood or be wrong. In speaking publicly, we are vulnerable to mistakes and misquotes. But there is no short cut and no easy way to set forth the claims of Jesus Christ.

In this special series in The Catalyst, as a number contribute to the discussion on justice, it's important that I place an evangelical viewpoint in context. For none of us operate in a vacuum. We grow out of our past and are shaped by current events and people. The roots of our past, in part, determine the structure of the plant. Personal experiences, family, education, church and culture all effect our views and behaviour.

Some wonder why it seems evangelicals are now just getting involved in discussing justice. My contribution to this special series is not designed to be definitive on the topic of justice. Rather it will be reflective; a look at what has been going on in the evangelical community. I also want to comment on why it seems it has taken some evangelicals so long to even describe, let alone develop strategy on this important biblical category.

In reviewing the past, I'll look at what has shaped the evangelical community and then to suggest three areas which call for deeper understanding and clarity.

This century
The Protestant church, during much of this century, experienced severe stress in what historians labeled as the modernist/fundamentalist controversy.

Theological liberalism, a growing factor of the early 1900s, questioned the accuracy of the Scriptures, the nature of supernaturalism and sin and how biblical faith works in modern culture.

Three areas of modern science affected the "modernist" debate. Darwin's theory of evolution generated with some, a discomfort with the Genesis account of creation. Sociologists described the cultural impact on people's belief. And psychologists questioned the impulses which affects human behaviour. The emergence of these three sciences, aided and abetted a liberalizing of faith.

Sin was defended by "modernism" more as a manifestation of environmental evil than of the individual. Thus to eliminate evil, social conditions needed changing. Those who developed the "Social Gospel" asserted that to bring about change, both social protest and legislative change were needed.

Many evangelicals (the term "fundamentalism" was coined in the early 1920s) reacted to this theological trend. Emphasizing individual sin and the need for personal salvation, many of the newly formed denominations were influenced by "Dispensationalism,"--a belief that history was about to end.

As well, the emergence of the "Social Gospel," reinforced, in the minds of evangelicals, the linkage between liberal theology and social action.

These, along with other factors, tended to distract evangelical/fundamentalists from justice and social issues, instead focusing activities on calling people to personal conversion. This resulted in less involvement by many evangelicals in public affairs. In reality, evangelicals became quite sectarian.

Recent Shift
In recent years, there has been a profound shift in how evangelicals view social concerns. This has come about for three fundamental reasons.

Through much of this century, evangelicals assumed those who ruled society would affirm biblical ideals and standards. In the early 70s it became obvious this was no longer true. Thus if you can't trust public leaders to defend your religious/moral views, you have no choice but to try and get elected those who will.

Then evangelicals climbed the socio-economic ladder. Increasingly they were more comfortable in the areas that were traditionally seen as "worldly." This helped to cut down on the distance between those in the evangelical churches and main-line churches.

However, the shock which broke evangelical out of a sectarian mind-set, was the highly publicized debate on moral and religious standards which surfaced during the late 60s. It included abortion, pornography, religious values in education and homosexuality. These served to break evangelicals away from a sole preoccupation with internal holiness and eternal concerns.

Since Carl F.H.Henry wrote "The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism" (1947), there has been increasing concern over the definition and practise of social concerns. This is best seen in the Grand Rapids Report, which emerged out of a co-sponsored meeting with the World Evangelical Fellowship and the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization in 19 .

Christology; the hub of justice.
However, as we consider justice, what is pivotal? In my view, our historic focus has been, and today remains, in our Christology. For Jesus Christ not only verified the Old Testament call for justice, but He set a new standard.

Central to how we live justly is Christ's absolute and comprehensive claim; "I am the way, the truth and the life..." Instead of bowing to the religious, compulsive urge for legalism, as amplified by the Pharisees, Jesus reduced the categories, rules and codes to Himself. Justice, therefore is more than knowing and following regulations, even if they be religious. Instead it is a response to Christ. Jesus calls His followers to be as He is therefore do as he does.

And that is much more difficult. How much easier to simply follow a code book on justice: A comprehensive list and unending combinations of possible scenarios, which would then eliminate the need to wonder. As well, it would give us an excellent "charter" which could be used as a measuring stick, especially for those we dislike.

Fortunately, that is not how Jesus Christ engages us. Serving Him justly in this world is not an option: We have been mandated. However we are daily called to not only make the choice to live justly but to know the difference between biblical justice and cultural expectations.

In my view, this century, evangelicals have lost time in both understanding and responding to the justice issues. As we engage in understanding and promoting justice, there are three categories which call for our consideration.

1. Personal sin versus social evil.
Trapped by individualism, we too quickly assumed that evil was only a function of a person's will. On the other hand, the "Social Gospel" failed, in part, because it focused on sin as a function of society and its institutions. Thus its prescription didn't go much beyond reconstructing social categories.

While it is true we are shaped by social realities, the Bible calls each person to account. And to ignore the inner fallenness of people is too pretend that sin is only exterior.

In searching for a definition of justice, we need not be in reaction to the social sciences of psychology and sociology. Their findings and insights can be useful in understanding the nature and makeup of humankind. For justice is concerned, not only with the inter relationships of people but of social groupings and business enterprises, to name just two.

2. Evangelism versus Social Concern.
This is a classic debate on what should be our prime concern: To win people to personal faith in Christ or to repair and reconstruct our environment? To dismiss or minimize this polarization is to do disservice to what I believe is a healthy tension.

The value of the tension is that each side is called to consider the opposite. Justice issues not only call us to see the evil inflicted on people today. But we are forced to see beyond the perimeters of time. To only respond to the needs of people today and now, is to do no more than what a well intentioned secularist would do. For life is not only to live in time, but for eternity.

And so to act justly is to advocate the rights of people today, but also to inform them of the realities of life beyond time.

3. Personal Holiness versus Social Righteousness.
Much of the modern evangelical movement comes out of holiness movements which emphasized inner spirituality. But spiritual leaders of the 18th and 19th centuries did not see a dichotomy between the two. It seems, that is more a function of the church this century. While some look at those Christians concerned with social issues and label then, pejoratively as "Social Gospellers," the other side think of those who emphasize inner spirituality as "pietistic."

Both get trapped by selective biblical interpretation. James makes it so clear, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." 1:27.

Justice is not a religious nicety but an absolute essential. Historically, evangelicals have been at the forefront of justice issues. It's time we gave full attention to asserting biblical justice.