A FUNDAMENTALIST SOCIAL GOSPEL?
By Robert M. Price
Just
a few
years ago, our title phrase would
have seemed like a contradiction in terms. One of the paramount tenets
of the fundamentalist movement was its individualistic piety, its
stubborn withdrawal from the social and political arena. As is only too
well known, this retreat came as a reaction to the theological
liberalism of the “Social Gospel” movement. But it had not always been
so. As Timothy Smith, Donald Dayton, and others have pointed out for us,
Evangelical Christians (at least some of them) had played notable roles
in early periods of social reform in
America.
Indeed, the attention Smith, Dayton, et al., have received from
Evangelical readers is symptomatic that the tide has turned once again.
It is surely one of the most important and welcome of the many religious
phenomena of recent years, that Conservative Protestants are becoming
vigorously interested in a kind of “social gospel” of their own. Witness
the various organizational names: “Evangelicals for McGovern,”
“Evangelicals for Social Action,” “Evangelical Womens Caucus.” And this
is but to name a few.
Though the new Evangelical social
awakening may seem long overdue, it is also the product of a long
development. The present revival of social concern among Evangelical
Christians seems to stem historically from the clarion call of the
“Neo-Evangelical" movement, as sounded forth in the late 19401s by its
pioneers Harold J. Ockenga,
Edward J. Carnell, and Carl F.
H. Henry.
The hallmark
of
"Neo-Evangelicalism" was a
repudiation of
fundamentalist separatism, and this
at several levels. Neo-Evangelicals, though still avowedly
fundamentalist in doctrine, wanted to remain in mainline denominations.
And they wanted to pursue dialogue with Neo-Orthodox and Liberal
theologians on an academic level. Yet one needn’t look too far before it
became apparent that primarily all that was intended was a change of
tactics. Ockenga announced the Neo-Evangelical goal as one of
“infiltrating" and taking over mainline denominations. Henry and Carnell
wanted merely to get a better, more respectable, platform for
fundamentalist apologetics. As for the new call to social action, it
too was, in Henry’s phrase, “a plea for evangelical demonstration.” The
not-so-hidden agenda was to make Evangelical Christianity the spearhead
for social reform partly, at least one suspects, to gain credibility for
it as a theological alternative. And still today present in the
literature of the "Young Evangelicals,”1 one may find
the inference, if not the outright assertion, that Evangelicals have a
superior approach to social action. What can this mean since there is no
uniformity of political opinion among Young Evangelicals? Basically it
all revolves about the strong element of biblicism still present in
Evangelical social theory. Evangelical Christians themselves see this
"centrality of the Bible” as their strong point, whatever particular
positions result from this. They feel that they can avoid the subjective
trendiness of the 60's Liberal Protestant activism, as well as the
discouragement that resulted from the intransigence of the problems the
Liberals faced.
After all, they have the "scriptural
mandates," what Carl Henry would have called "biblical verities,” to
stand on, not the mere sentimentality of conscience. This all sounds
good, but closer examination will show cause for reservations. I am
going to describe a certain hermeneutical naiveté which mars the
otherwise quite admirable political consciousness-raising now occurring
among Evangelicals. There is evidence of a wide-ranging rethinking of
hermeneutics among Evangelicals (see recent writings by Clark Pinnock,
Daniel Fuller, and Charles Kraft), but in much of the social action
literature, we may be surprised to find a survival of the
unsophisticated fundamentalist approach to the Bible. This naiveté
results in two different abuses which I am going to call "hermeneutical
ventriloquism" and "political snake-handling.”
Most Conservative Evangelicals have
been taught that personal opinions and cultural views are worthless
unless they can make direct appeal to a biblical warrant of some sort.
Many of the current "Young Evangelical" writers grew up in the 60's, and
could not resist the perceived cogency of certain cultural trends, for
instance, racial and sexual equality, or nonviolence. Their religious
upbringing provided no basis or authorization for espousing such views,
however. (For a 'couple of autobiographical accounts along these lines,
see the introductions to Dayton's Discovering an Evangelical Heritage,
and Wallis’ Agenda for Biblical People.) Some renounced their
religious background. Others sought to accommodate their new,
liberalized, stance to their Evangelical ethos. The main strategy here
was an appeal to the Bible that I call "hermeneutical ventriloquism."
The Young Evangelical approaches the problem like this: "Feminism (for
example) is true; the Bible teaches the truth;
therefore
the Bible must teach
feminism." Now it is far from obvious that the Bible explicitly
teaches feminism, yet the Young Evangelical will feel he or she has
no right to be a feminist unless “the Bible tells me so.” Thus the
primary task of the reform-minded Evangelical is to make the Bible teach
feminism in the most plausible way. I think it is rather revealing in
this regard to examine the intra-feminist dialogue in Young Evangelical
publications. There we find at least two competing approaches. Sharon
Gallagher, Aida Spencer, Letha Scanzoni and others maintain that
rightly understood, the
plain sense of the text has always been feminist in nature. For
instance, I Timothy 2:12
read in the light of Assyrian,
rabbinic or Hellenistic texts, seems suddenly to mean that women should
not teach only if they happen to be heretics, orgiasts, etc. Or the
"headship" of Christ over the church, and of husband over wife, in
Ephesians 5:23 really connotes "source," not "authority," despite
the context which would seem to suggest that "source" implies
“authority" (e. g., Ephesians 1:22). Other writers, e. g., Virginia
Mollencott and Paul Jewett, admit that various biblical texts do
inculcate male domination, but that such problem texts “problematic”
only to feminists, note) should be ignored in favor of the implicit
thrust of other, egalitarian, texts such as Galatians 3:28. At this
point I should perhaps mention that I have no objection to such
Bultmannian "content criticism," and as a matter of fact I support most
Evangelical feminist goals. But I cannot help noticing the ideological
nature of these arguments. The agreed upon goal is that the Bible is to
support feminism. The debate is over the best way to arrive at this
predetermined goal exegetically! The Bible must support
the desired social
position;
otherwise how can the
Young
Evangelical believe it, much less
persuade fellow Evangelicals?
So far, I have proposed that many
activist Evangelicals have really come to hold their social views on the
basis of cultural osmosis or legitimate political argumentation. But
they need to believe that "biblical mandates" are the reason for their
conviction. The real reason has been hidden, even from themselves. There
is real utility (and real danger) in this unnoticed ground- shifting if
one is trying to convert other Evangelicals to, e. g. , "biblical
feminism. " If one can plausibly appeal to biblical texts, the battle is
nearly won, but quite possibly on false pretenses. Since prooftexting
(albeit sophisticated) is the avowed criterion, other more subtle and
more appropriate criteria are ignored, even
on principle.
"Worldly" considerations like pragmatic or political realities (the real
though hidden origins of the Young Evangelical's own position) must bow
to exegetical arguments. Obviously, Young Evangelicals will do a better
job dealing with the inevitable practical factors if they consciously
recognize their presence.
There is an even more disturbing
implication to all this. When biblical texts are the only sufficient
reason for holding ethical and political views, a dubious "divine
voluntarism" results. For instance, in a discussion of apartheid, David
Field remarks:
From a Christian point of view, it
is. important to examine the case for apartheid in some detail. . .
because among its strongest supporters it numbers Christians who claim
to have tested their attitudes and opinions by the standards of
Scripture. 2
The barely hidden implication is that
if the apartheid advocates could marshall
sufficiently weighty exegetical
support, Field would agree with them! Fortunately, however, Field is
obviously too sensitive and noble a person for this to have any chance
of happening, no matter what reading of the Bible should come out ahead.
But the point is, his conscience is better than his methodology.
But there is a second group of Young
Evangelicals who take something like Field's avowed biblicism with a
good deal more seriousness. I
have in mind primarily the
Sojourners Community and their orbit, but the same attitude can be found
elsewhere. These are the “political snake-handlers.” Our first group,
the "hermeneutical ventriloquists, " think to espouse positions because
of the Bible, but do so actually because of unsuspected
political/cultural factors. Now our second group actually does
dispense with all political realities. Here the operative principle is
“The Bible said it - I believe it that settles it!” We face an
absolutist sort of “deontological” ethics. In other words, "the means
justifies the end" (read that again). As long as we obey the "biblical
mandates of radical discipleship, 'I we can let God worry about where
the chips fall. In their own terms, it is a choice of "faithfulness"
over "effectiveness." Young Evangelicals may take such an approach to
pacificism, unilateral disarmament, “no-nukism," multinational corporate
exploitation, or world hunger. Solutions to such problems seem simple,
because the issues are seen in black-and-white terms. What is the
absolutely righteous thing to do? Then let's do it! And if the standard
of living drops, people lose jobs, foreign powers pounce, then what?
Trust the Lord! Even if he doesn’t deliver us from a nuclear attack
prompted by our unilateral
disarmament, our country is no doubt sinful enough to deserve what it
gets. At any rate, it will
provide the Young Evangelical
“righteous remnant” (the explicit terms, incidentally, in which they see
themselves) with an excellent opportunity to "go the way of the cross,"
paying the cost of radical discipleship. What else can a “radical
Christian” expect in this fallen age?
We have seen this kind of thing in
Evangelicalism before. Premillenialists have often blindly supported
Israel against the Palestinians regardless of (not because of) political
considerations. All they needed to know was that If God promised the
land to the Jews." But besides this it seems to me that there is a
rather obvious parallel between such a political stance and the faith
which leads fringe Pentecostals to refuse medical care in favor of
"Doctor Jesus” who will heal miraculously. It is not unrealistic even to
call to mind the Appalachian snake handlers whose blinding faith in Mark
16:18 assures them that the serpents will not strike. (Thus my
designation “political snake handling” for this viewpoint.) Most
Evangelicals readily repudiate such extremism. Faith, they realize, must
be coupled with
realistic common sense, if one is to
maintain any sense of proportion at all. How then can they let
themselves throw realism to the winds when it comes to politics?
And the reader should keep in mind that this is quite literally being
advocated when we are told to brush aside the considerations of If this
“age” in favor of the alien standards of the Kingdom of God. When Jim
Wallis writes words like the following, it becomes evident that he has
decided for a stance that disregards political reality as we know it: “…
biblical politics are invariably alien to the politics of the
established regime and will also question the politics
of the new regime that any revolution
will eventually establish for itself.”3 In other
words, the gospel as understood by Wallis is incompatible with any
conceivable state of political affair’s! This man is playing in a
completely different ballpark than most of the rest of us.
This is a radically negating "Christ
against Culture" position.
Now if it were clear that allegiance
to the Kingdom were to be put in these terms, what could one do but grit
one's teeth and go the way of the thermonuclear cross? But it is not
quite so clear except to the biblicist. We may yet hope to see a more
sophisticated Evangelical hermeneutic that will not lift the
(interim-ethical?) injunctions of the New Testament out of the first
century and drop them heavily on the twentieth. Perhaps the writings of
Reinhold Niebuhr or Jose Miguez Bonino might be helpful guides. And of
course there are appropriately- reasoned political defenses for pacifism
(e. g., that of Martin Luther King) and other positions espoused by
Young Evangelicals. What is disturbing is the biblicistic,
"let-the-chips fall-where-they-may" attitude often present in their
literature. Given the fundamentalist personal background of many Young
Evangelical writers, this unconscious hangover of biblicism is not too
surprising. What is truly astonishing is the enthusiasm with which their
rhetoric has been embraced by some famous mainstream churchmen who,
hermeneutically speaking, ought to know better. Perhaps such Liberal
Protestants are tired of the ambiguous fruits of their conventional
lobbying and editorial efforts. Young Evangelicals seem to offer a new
cause with vigor and conviction. One is reminded of the denominational
reaction to the current cult phenomena; i. e., "What are we doing wrong?
Why can't we muster the enthusiasm
and commitment
that the Moonies can?" But sometimes
simple answers are not the best. The burden of ambiguity and of being
"old-hat" may have something to do with Christian faithfulness in the
long run. Just a thought.
The much-maligned Evangelical
apologist Francis Schaeffer has wisely noted that the rejection of
fundamentalist legalism, ironically, often results in a "new
super-spirituality," i.e., the old fundamentalism with a vengeance.
I
suggest that both the "hermeneutical
ventriloquism" and the "political snake handling" detailed here, as
serious as they are in themselves, are merely part of such a youthful
burst of enthusiasm. No doubt the creative insight and ingenuity already
being shown everywhere among the Young Evangelicals will lead them to
recognize and mature past these abuses. If this essay has facilitated
such a recognition, its purpose will have been amply served.
NOTES
1
See Richard Quebedeaux, The Young Evangelicals (New York: Harper
& Row Publishers, Inc., 1974).
2
David Field, Free to do Right (Downers Grove:
Inter Varsity Press,
1976), p. 10.
3
Jim Wallis, "Liberation:
and Conformity,” in Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky
(eds.), Mission Trends No.4, Liberation Theologies (New York:
Paulist Press, and Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1979), p. 55.
===============
No comments:
Post a Comment