Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quote of the Month

Quarterly Newsletter

On-Line Discussion Forum

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The following is an address that was delivered in 1967 to one of the last meetings of the former Presbytery of Los Angeles (now divided into seven presbyteries).  The presbytery responded to the presentation with a long, standing ovation.  In many ways, the speech marked a new beginning in the often troubled relationship between Fuller and the Presbyterians of Southern California.

It's author and presenter, Jaymes P. Morgan, was hired by Fuller 1966 following the untimely death of Edward John Carnell.  He brought a passionate and forceful voice to the seminary relative to justice issues.  His, of course, was not the first such voice at Fuller.  Paul K. Jewett, one of Jim's own teachers, had long been committed to racial and feminist issues.  But, Jim was younger, better able to relate personally to the majority of the seminarians, and thus was able to capture the imagination of the seminary community in a way few of the older professors could. 

Although he died of cancer a little more than six years after joining the Fuller faculty, Jim Morgan taught hundreds of seminarians about their social responsibility as evangelicals.  Fuller's annual lecture series in social ethics still bears his name.

Jim Morgan was my friend and mentor.  So, it is with personal pleasure that I share his remarkable speech. As you read it, however, please remember that it was written in 1966. 

It is also my pleasure to point you to the ministry of another friend, Roger Minassian, who was himself influenced by Jim's brief tenure at Fuller, and whose award-winning program — HOPE NOW FOR YOUTH — exemplifies evangelical social action at its very best.

Sylvia

IT IS PATENTLY FUTILE TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF where and how evangelical Christians should participate in social action as long as confusion lingers over the prior question of whether they should involve themselves in social and political matters at all, and particularly, whether they should engage in overt social action.

I submit that evangelicals must pursue the goals of social righteousness by means of Christian social action. Apart from such action, the imperatives of Christian ethics remain unsatisfied.

Evangelicals must commit themselves to Christian social action, first of all, because they are already and inevitably — although for the most part unconsciously, and often in un-Christian ways — socially involved. Since involvement is inevitable, evangelical involvement must become Christian in character.

If we take as a broad definition of social action any activity purposing to influence man's condition and behavior through structuring his environment, the evangelical's factual participation in social action is apparent. Something as innocuous as membership in the PTA fits the definition. And voting is quite clearly another form of social action — being an attempt to influence man's condition and behavior by structuring his environment. Most of us would concede the Christian's right to work on behalf of candidates for political office. This is social action. Other illustrations readily come to mind. Consider, for example, the sermons, articles, and ecclesiastical resolutions that have been used as weapons in the holy war some Christians wage against attempts to eliminate capital punishment. Consider too the plethora of articles, speeches and advertisements of evangelical churchmen in defense of laissez-faire capitalism. Evangelicals have articulated their views about the House Un-American Activities Committee and the admission of Red China to the United Nations. One must insist that these, too, are instances of social action -- activities intended to influence man's condition and behavior through structuring his environment.

Of even greater significance, however, than these illustrations of social action is the involvement of many evangelicals in the politics of silence. By this means, the forces of evil have marshaled tens of thousands of good men in support of demonic causes. The politics of silence — the art of doing and saying nothing — is in actuality forceful social action in behalf of the status quo. It is as assuredly a form of social action as any of the more visible varieties like sit-ins, freedom marches, and protest demonstrations.

All evangelicals admit the truth of this in some areas of life. Most of us get the point of the story of the Good Samaritan, and rightfully deplore the behavior of the priest and Levite who bypass the problem by walking on the other side of the street. We shake our heads at contemporary parallels, where dozens of people witness gross crimes and say nothing and do nothing. We mount the podium of our moral dignity and shout for all the world to hear that the guilt of World War II and the race-murder of six million people lie not only at the door of the war criminals, but at the door of the majority of German people. Why? Because they said nothing and did nothing. Which is precisely the point.

Since most of us recognize the damning implications of the politics of silence in some areas, perhaps all that is needed at this point is a widening of horizons. For me, the politics of silence is the demonic aspect of the Southern tragedy. It is not so much that men are being acquitted of murder, nor that churches and homes are being bombed by night-riders. What appalls me more is the silence, the deadly quiet of drawn blinds and closed shutters, the silence of ten thousand churches in a thousand communities. This is the truly demonic dimension of white, churchly suburbia across the nation. I am horrified, although not surprised, by the obscene mob hurling rocks at nuns; for I believe in original sin. What 1 cannot understand is the silence of the churches of Christ.

The simple fact is that in the political world, there is no nonpolitical stance. Even the refusal to take a stand is a political stance, for it is a de facto endorsement of things as they are. Christians are involved in social action by virtue of their citizenship in a democracy. Churches are involved in social action because they are centers of social prestige and economic power. There is no neutral ground. My plea is that this involvement be made conscious and Christian. Since we are involved, let us act conscientiously and with Christian compassion

OUR INESCAPABLE INVOLVEMENT IN SOCIAL ACTION leads directly to a second point, which is really first and fundamental. Evangelicals must involve themselves in Christian social action because the Scriptures place that responsibility upon us. The Word of God calls us to Christian social action because it calls us to the pursuit of social righteousness.

Our historical inheritance of individualism and privatism sometimes blinds us to the biblical imperative. We ought to regain the Scriptural perspective, to recall that we stand under a cultural mandate.

Evangelicals are very much aware of the missionary mandate. They underscore the Great Commission in their Bibles and in their hearts, and they sally forth to claim men's lives for Jesus Christ. What they often overlook is the other biblical mandate, the cultural mandate with which God confronts mankind. According to Genesis 1:28, God the Creator at the dawn of human history instructs man to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it. Not only was this primordial mandate never repealed, it was reaffirmed after the fall of man into sin. In the early verses of Genesis 9, God the Redeemer addresses his servant Noah in almost identical words, giving to man dominion over creation. Man is God's vicegerent over the kingdom of this earth; he is, under God, lord of creation. I conclude from this that man is called to the task of using his power and talents to the limit, to create and sustain the best possible society, even though his power and talents are fallen, capable of demonic distortion, and desperately in need of the healing which the Gospel alone can bring. Surely this is part of the meaning of the story of Cain and Abel. The curse on Cain represents the divine indication that a society where human life is regarded as sacred is infinitely to be preferred to a society where life is cheap.

If there were any doubt in our minds concerning our responsibility before God to seek the best possible society, the prophetic message of the Old Testament ought to clear the air. Hear and reflect on the word of Amos, as he describes the day of God's awful wrath:

"On that day," says the Lord GOD, "I will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness on every head; I will make it like the mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day."

"Because they, sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes — they ... trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and turn aside the way of the afflicted."

The prophet Micah promises that God Almighty will "make Samaria a heap in the open country," and that "Zion shall be plowed as a field." Not for the sin of idolatry alone, but because "they covet fields, and seize them; and houses, and take them away; they oppress a man and his house, a man and his inheritance." Micah sees in Israel a scene of economic cannibalism, where rulers are described as those "who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces."

According to Isaiah, God the Lord will make his vineyard Israel a waste, because "he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!" — because the nation's economic entrepreneurs "join house to house" and "add field to field."

What can the nation do to avert the vengeance of God? "Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow." Or again: "He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Or again: "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream."

The Scriptures entrust those who control _the life of society with a responsibility for creating and preserving the best society that it is within fallen man's power to create and sustain. And the price of living in a nation where government is "by the people," where the control of national life is invested in the hands of the common man, is that there is no place to hide from the eyes of God on that day when he shall look for those who are responsible.

At this point, an extended note is in order. This affirmation of our continuing responsibility to labor for the betterment of society does not question the fact that regeneration is the primary solution to the ills that beset mankind. Certainly man's power to do the will of God remains radically truncated apart from the converting work of the Holy Spirit. Surely the best way •to engage men in the pursuit of social righteousness is to win their allegiance to Christ and instruct them in the whole counsel of God. Obviously, the converted man ought to have a capacity for loving his neighbor that transcends that of his unbelieving counterpart. Nor is our affirmation meant to question the fact that the triumph of righteousness in the world awaits the revelation of Christ in power. The apocalyptic portraits in Scripture ought to rid us of any facile optimism. Man is not going to "bring in the Kingdom" through any program of social action — nor by any other means. The New Testament seems to predict a gradual polarization in the moral history of the world, climaxing in an ultimate conflict between God and the forces of evil represented in the picture of Antichrist.

But these truths — the fact that regeneration is the primary solution to man's ills, and the facts of biblical eschatology — do not limit the evangelical to a choice between regeneration, Second Coming, or nothing! Doubtless the best solution to the problem of slavery in America would have been widespread conversion of slaveholders and a thorough exercise of Christian responsibility on their part. But since this was not forthcoming, many evangelicals worked for abolition, and supported the Underground Railroad. No doubt the horror of Nazi Germany could have been stemmed by a revival in the churches and a widespread reception of the Gospel. Since this did not happen, many evangelicals dedicated their energies to resisting Hitler's programs and some of them paid for their social action with their lives.

Furthermore, it would appear ill-advised to argue from the eschatological pictures of the growth of evil in history to a course of social behavior. I believe the Scriptures enjoin us to work for the improvement of society without regard to the question of success or failure. I submit that there is a tension in the area of Christian social ethics paralleling the paradox of Christian personal ethics. In the area of personal ethics, we are asked to combat sin in all its disguises, knowing that the man who claims to be without sin is self-deceived. In the area of social ethics, we are asked to labor for society's improvement, knowing that society can be rescued from its ultimate deterioration only by an irruption of the power of God into history.

A THIRD REASON FOR EVANGELICALS TO ENGAGE IN social action is in order to bring a sorely needed perspective, critique, understanding and discipline to the contemporary pursuit of social righteousness.

Evangelicals can contribute a perspective concerning the rationale of social action. When the goal of social action is assumed to be the utopianization of society, then it is clearly vulnerable to the criticism of the Scriptures. This is not the reason Christians must commit themselves to social action; evangelicals are called to represent the biblical reason for social involvement. Evangelicals are needed to demonstrate that Christian social action at its best is not some kind of cause into which men are to be enlisted, but a matter of conscience, a matter of love and obedience to the God who gave himself to us and for us in Jesus Christ, a matter of meeting the demands other people put upon our Christian consciences by their very presence among us. If the evangelical absents himself from conscious social action, then the pursuit of social righteousness will in all likelihood assume a non-evangelical character. Then, of course, we are free to point with righteous indignation at the un-Christian perspective of the movement. (Which is what sociologists call a self-fulfilling prophecy!)

Evangelicals can also contribute to a critique of the means used in social action. Not all of the methods employed by our contemporaries in the pursuit of social justice are legitimate from a Christian point of view. This must not be stated as a negative end in itself, but for the purpose of developing methods more suited to the ends desired.

Evangelicals must engage in social action because as Christians they are better prepared for the task than are other men. The evangelical's understanding of the reality of sin makes him aware of the potential for evil in every man. He is forearmed against its expressions, both in himself and in other people, and he is protected from the trap of idealizing the dispossessed and downtrodden. His experience of justification by faith alone prevents him from finding his security in his social involvement, making him wary of a justification by works of social righteousness. His understanding of Christian discipleship protects him from confusing material benefits with spiritual well-being. His experience of the love of God in Christ breeds an indiscriminate love for his fellow men.

Finally, the evangelical can bring staying power to the pursuit of social righteousness. As the utopia for which so many have dreamed does not appear, as the excitement of social action wanes, as those for whom one has labored turn upon him in anger and contempt, the evangelical will have an opportunity to demonstrate what he is made of, or better, by whom he has been wrought. It is the man who is justified by faith and empowered by the Spirit of God who works on into the night when the day holds no promise.

In this context of staying power and persistence, I believe evangelicals can bring solid, disciplined thinking to our burning issues and problems — thinking that is informed by biblical perspectives and impatient with easy answers. Can we any longer remain satisfied with casual, off-the-cuff answers to the question of racial intermarriage? Can we any longer remain satisfied with self-interested ecclesiastical endorsement of private property which is insensitive to social claims? Can we any longer remain satisfied with blanket condemnations of civil disobedience as the only reaction to blanket endorsements of it, when both of these fly in the face of the biblical witness? Can we remain satisfied with flippant distinctions between a clergyman's activity as a private citizen and his pulpit ministry, or between social action by individual Christians and social action by churches as institutions, as if the pulpit by its very nature were not involved, as if churches by their very nature were not involved already? The times demand serious, informed wrestling with these very difficult issues. I believe evangelicals have the capacity for the task.

Evangelicals must engage in Christian social action because social involvement is unavoidable, because the Scriptures call for social righteousness, and because they have a great contribution to make. If the evangelical world will renounce once and for all the illusion that there is a place of privileged neutrality, it will hear the biblical imperatives and recognize the grand opportunities that challenge it.