5. CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all people. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women from every kind of oppression. Because men and women are made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, colour, culture, class, sex or age, has an intrinsic dignity because of which he or she should be respected and served, not exploited. Here too we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ they are born again into his kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.(Acts 17:26,31; Gen. 18:25; Isa. 1:17; Psa. 45:7; Gen. 1:26,27; Jas. 3:9; Lev. 19:18; Luke 6:27,35; Jas. 2:14-26; Joh. 3:3,5; Matt. 5:20; 6:33; II Cor. 3:18; Jas. 2:20)
A few comments are in order.
First, it leads with the affirmation that Christians are rightly concerned with "justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women from every kind of oppression." This was the Evangelical nod to the kernel of truth in liberation theology. We should be concerned about justice (but also with reconciliation). We do want to liberate people from every kind of oppression (but economic oppression is not singled out as of highest priority and no Marxist analysis is used). Liberation from addictions and from fear of death are as much concerns of Christian theology as liberation from poverty. The problem with most liberation theology is a narrowing of focus to the group (losing sight of the individual), to the here and now (losing sight of eternity) and to the material (losing sight of the spiritual). Lausanne does not engage in this kind of reductionism.
Second, a Christian anthropology is affirmed as the basis for social concern. It is our having been made in the image of God that gives us intrinsic worth and this is what makes exploitation of people so offensive. It is an attack on God.
Third, penitence is expressed "both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive." This sentence is unclear: neglect of what? Is it neglect of social concern or of evangelism or both? In any case, the main point seems to be that the Covenant is a rejection of the idea that social concern and evangelism are mutually exclusive in the sense that only evangelism is important.
Fourth, several qualifications are now made to that last statement. Evangelism is not social concern: no reductionism along the lines of liberal Protestantism or liberation theology. Reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God and political liberation is not salvation (a salvo directed against Gustavo Gutierrez, the father of Liberation Theology). Activity on the horizontal level is important but is not evangelism and cannot substitute for evangelism.
Fifth, we have the key sentence: "we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty." It seems highly significant to me that it says "Christian duty" and not "Christian mission." Now it all depends on the meaning that we intend by the word "mission." If we speak of the unique mission of the Church as defined by Matt. 28:18-20, then it is important that social-political involvement not be included in the mission of the Church. However, if we are using the word more loosely to include everything Christians should do as parents, citizens, neighbors, friends, voters, businesspeople, educators, doctors etc., then socio-political involvement belongs on that list.
We can distinguish between the function of the Church qua Church, which is to evangelize, teach, worship and fellowship, and the outworking of Christian discipleship in the lives of believers in terms of love of neighbor and responsible stewardship. Socio-political is a Christian duty, but it should not replace the specific tasks assigned tothe ministry of the Church as Church. This is why we need Christian institutions like schools, hospitals, relief and development agencies etc. They are good but they do not replace evangelism. Faith without works is dead and works instead of faith are just as bad.
Sixth, the Kingdom of God is not defined in terms of social-political progress: "When people receive Christ they are born again into his kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world." Here the Kingdom is seen in the lives of converted sinners who enter it by faith in Jesus Christ. Their good works of social concern make it visible, but the Kingdom is not a secular, political project or something built by human beings.
Conclusion:
The Lausanne Covenant, written at the height of Liberation Theology and influenced by the theologians of the Two Thirds world, clearly affirms an orthodox theology of mission and constitutes a solid basis for the development of a proper understanding of the relationship between evangelism and social action.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment