This is an attempt to
highlight, and maybe analyze, some of
the trends I see in that part of the Christian community that is focused on
urban, poverty, cross-cultural (ethnic and racial), justice, and community
development issues.
By way of full disclosure I am a
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) minister, which means I am a Reformed
Biblical conservative, and in my case, white.
I am also married to an African American woman, and a member of the
Christian Community Development Association. I have been involved in urban, multi-ethnic
churches and ministry since I was saved as a child.
Since I have tried to participate in
conferences and events dedicated to a Christian approach to the issues
mentioned above I have seen various trends and developments in philosophy,
theology, and personalities. Obviously
all institutions and movements are affected by their leadership and the
personalities involved within them, and since people grow old, grow different,
or pass away, leadership changes within movements and organizations. This is inevitable, and movements and
organizations often struggle to remain committed to their first principles
after their initial leadership changes.
All of the organizations and movements that
I have been involved with, or have observed, are affected to some degree by national
and general cultural trends. There is
both a desire to be relevant to those trends, and a corresponding resistance to
some trends that seek to negatively affect the value system of these movements
and organizations. They have varied
success in each direction.
I am a member of one of the most
conservative Christian denominations in the USA in what some might identify as
the Evangelical camp. It is not the same
as fundamentalism, not simply nor solely evangelical, but Reformed, Covenantal,
and Confessional. That might be a
difference meaningless to anyone outside of our own circles, but it does set
certain boundaries for our members.
One reason I am involved with various
conferences and movements is because I believe the Kingdom of God is larger
than my denomination. I have my
theological convictions, and my willingness to love, befriend, and fellowship
with other believers doesn’t mean I have abandoned my convictions. Sometimes my ability to fellowship and
cooperate with other believers depends on their willingness not to demand that
I surrender my convictions.
Discerning when there is a uncompromising conflict or knowing when I
must separate myself from others due to conviction is sometimes both difficult
and painful. It is fairly easy to know
when I hear something I don’t like, but that is not the same as a reason for
separation.
As I seek to participate in and enjoy the
fellowship of the wider Body of Christ, (especially among those who care deeply
about those things which have been too long ignored and even resisted by some
of our American Christian forefathers), I know that I need God’s wisdom and
love to maintain a faithful witness to the things I believe while working among
those with whom I sometimes disagree. My
hope is that those believers who disagree with me would also seek for a godly
tenaciousness in loving me, and being patient with me and those who believe as
I do.
Too
many of my brethren tend to set very narrow lines to discern who is a brother,
who is a friend, and are fairly quick to separate from fellowship. This is true from both the “left” and the “right”
in my experience. I understand that
sometimes there is no choice, and sometimes it is just not worth the effort to
keep trying to build bridges when the other side keeps trying to burn them
down. Sometimes that separation is formal and comes by declaration, more
immediately it happens from non-participation and the ending of communication.
I am committed to seeking to obey the Word
of God and I take the prayer of Jesus (thus realizing what his will is concerning
me) seriously when He says in John 17:21, “I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let
the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” The Scripture also says, “If it is possible,
as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone.” Romans 12:18
Unity, peace, and love between the brethren
are high values for the Lord Jesus, and thus they must be high values for his
followers, which I believe includes me.
I have to keep trying to pursue these values. Among the Christian social
activists I know, and among whom I include myself (and I realize that even as I
use the phrase, “social activist” some of my conservative brethren have already
drawn a line to distance themselves from me), there are various trends that can
cause real concern, misunderstanding, if not clear distinction. Sometimes that difference is fairly drastic.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
The most foundational difference would be
an old argument in theology and that is the struggle between a liberal
interpretation of the Bible versus a conservative one. The evangelical social activists I am
concerned about in this regard would still call themselves Bible believers, but
their view of Scripture might not be consistently high, and I think some of
them don’t realize that their interpretation of the Scriptures comes from a
liberal interpretation of it and not a conservative one.
Please understand that these words,
“conservative” and “liberal” are a bit different than the political meaning of
these words. Some would consider me a
social liberal in some things while I would claim I am seeking to be
consistently conservative in my interpretation of Scripture. My advocacy of justice and mercy are not
driven by social liberal politics but by a conservative reading of Jesus, the
Torah, and the prophets. My hatred and
resistance to racism doesn’t come from liberalism, Marxism, or current fads,
but from the commandment to love my neighbor as myself and the Biblical
injunction to hate evil.
So, when my brothers and sisters seem to
pick and choose what Scripture they want to obey, or choose to ignore, then I
see a failure to keep the Word of God in high regard. One of the marks of that failure is a very
convenient way of interpreting Scripture culturally, so that the things that
smack in the face of current philosophical and political trends, and cause a
bit of generational embarrassment, are softened, ignored, or changed in their
meaning. The most obvious examples fall in the realm of sexual-gender
issues. It seems to be getting harder to
tell the difference between a theological liberal and an intellectually sloppy
Evangelical.
FEMINISM
The power and impact of feminism has hit the
Evangelical church and the wider Christian church hard. In the world of evangelical social activism
there are some who assume the everyone who is keeping socially and culturally current
believes that women should be accepted as pastors and preachers, that this is
progress, and that those who are opposed to it are not only failing to grow but
may actually be oppressors of women. The
ordination and elevation of women preachers is not consigned to liberals alone,
as some Pentecostal and prosperity preachers are women.
My participation in evangelical social
activist circles becomes offensive to feminist adherents when I use male
focused language and seem to imply that only men are preachers. They are correct in picking up the
implication. Though they have little patience with my convictions they seem to expect
that I will support women preaching and participation in leadership in the
events we commonly attend and support.
I recognize there are denominations of
Bible believing Christians that ordain women, and I can fellowship and interact
with those women in various settings.
Usually this happens in an “association” but not in a denomination, nor
in a worship service provided in my church or denomination. This is by Scriptural conviction on our part. Advocates of women preachers would find it
hard to be happy in my denominational circles, and might not want to even
recognize the legitimacy of our convictions.
However,
the trend I see in some events is a desire to have more women preachers, even
when some fail to preach very well (some women are amazingly gifted
communicators so this has nothing to do with innate ability). Sometimes this
whole area is fudged a bit by referring to a “plenary speaker.” I have no problem with women being plenary
speakers; some of them have great things to say and I need to learn from
them. It is the assumption of the
preaching office that causes concern.
The problem is not women, the problem goes back to the interpretation of
Scripture and with a lack of consistency on that part too many things begin to
shift in Biblical application.
I
don’t see very much concern, by leaders in Evangelical social action settings,
for those of us who don’t really believe women should be up there
preaching. I believe they mistakenly
think that justice for women requires this elevation of women that
conservatives believe God designed for men. The desire for gender diversity has
sometimes trumped content. As with several
of these trends this tends to drive conservative believers away from
participation as they seek other venues where they will not have this conflict. I am not sure if social activists Christians
even know that there are many Christians who no longer attend their events. I don’t think this difference is going to end
anytime soon, and for some it will never end.
EVANGELISM AND THE LOCAL CHURCH
One of the things I don’t hear very often
from Evangelical social action folks is the necessity of conversion, which
implies the necessity of evangelism, and the irreplaceable part the local church
plays for true community and cultural change. Corresponding to those
necessities then is an imperative to plant wholistic, Gospel preaching and
Spirit empowered neighborhood loving congregations in the communities of the
poor.
In fact, one might misunderstand some of
the economic community development rhetoric and believe that God is already in
the communities of the poor, we need to listen to the poor and not tell them
anything, and that by utilizing their assets and their own ideas they can change
their own communities. Well, maybe it is
not a misunderstanding; maybe this is what some Evangelical social activists
think. Of course God is already among
the poor. He is already everywhere. Yes, the poor have resources and they need to
use their own assets and take ownership of their own development. Yes, many outside forces have coalesced to
create poor communities and they are not simply the result of the moral or
immoral personal choices of the poor.
However, it is a denial of the Gospel and
the entire missionary history of the Church to think that any individual or community,
poor or otherwise, doesn’t need a spiritual conversion into a life of
discipleship. It is also a denial of
reality that those captured by their sins among the poor don’t need to be set
from them; that freedom cannot happen by social improvement. Does the preaching of the cross matter? If it does then it doesn’t matter as a
historical anachronism, as something we Evangelicals used to do, or did once in
a neighborhood. It matters just as much
today, and will matter as much tomorrow so as to be a constant dynamic. The proclamation of the cross is as much
needed today, for everyone, but especially among the poor as it has ever
been. The commission of Jesus is still
in force. Any Evangelical social
activist who doesn’t believe in the necessity of preaching the cross and need
for people to be saved is simply and only a social activist, but not truly an
Evangelical, and without the Gospel his or her social activism is inherently
limited in power.
Can people socially, culturally, and
economically change without believing the Gospel message? Certainly they can. I don’t think one has to be a Christian to
stop being a drug addict, or a gangster, or an alcoholic; though many have
found deliverance from these things through Christ. One doesn’t have to be a
Christian to value education, finish school, and learn a good work ethic. One doesn’t have to become a Christian to
learn how to manage their money and gain financial literacy, or to value
marriage, or to raise children with love and boundaries. I think Christianity gives a person a great
foundation, and reasons, to pursue such things but these things don’t require
Christianity, and they are not the same as Christianity. This was the great mistake of 19th
century missions with their so-called Christian civilizing of the savage.
However, real character change cannot
happen without the Gospel. A real
understanding of purpose and identity cannot happen without the Gospel. An assurance of the forgiveness of one’s sins
cannot happen without the Gospel. A hope
of heaven cannot be real without the Gospel.
The power to love neighbors and even enemies, and to come together as a
church community in love, cannot happen without the Gospel. I don’t want to give up either side of the
challenge, that of preaching and believing the Gospel and that of wholistic
love that provides resources for communities to achieve justice and human
flourishing.
THE NON-PROFIT VERSUS THE LOCAL CHURCH
In line with this need to remember the
Gospel is the unfortunate abandonment of recognizing the need for good
churches, really good churches, to be planted among the poor. I am in favor of non-profit, or for profit,
social enterprises and ministries to help in the work of social and economic
community development. It is just not enough
in and of itself, nor is it the main agenda of Jesus, nor is it the self-governing
and self-perpetuating organism God created to be the most grass roots kind of
an organization.
Churches don’t simply exist to supply funds
to non-profit Christian ministries, non-profits exist to help accomplish the
wholistic work of the Church. It takes
great leadership, and loving cooperative leaders, to get these ministries to
work in concert and mutual support. Far
too many well-meaning non-profits have lost their connection to the church and
to the Gospel. Many of them do really
good work, but they are not the local church.
Obviously the common pastor who is not radicalized by a Gospel love of
the poor, or a God given thirst for justice, will seek to “have” church, but
fail to do the really hard mission work of building a local congregation in
places of need. These kind of pastors
are hard to find, but God still raises them up, and we need thousands more of
them.
ETHNIC JUSTICE VERSUS RECONCILIATION
Another dynamic within Evangelical social
activist circles is the discussion of how we should deal with racism, with
white privilege, with institutions that wittingly or unwittingly support white
advantage. Even the terminology is
problematic. Proclaiming white supremacy
as the enemy, with its historic horrific icons of the KKK, the Nazi party, and
violence without a differentiation between the average and often clueless white
person who lives in the luxury of white privilege produces misunderstanding and
alienation.
The growing antagonism of people of color
who have become frustrated with Evangelical institutions and their slowness of
change, or resistance to it, or the deafness of white evangelicals to the pain
of those who continue to suffer the brunt of police brutality, profiling, over-policing, and mass incarceration has given a seeming new incentive for racial
separation.
As the commission on race riots once
pointed out anger is often a symptom of improved conditions, due to heightened
expectations married to a rising frustration.
There is also a feeling of power, a self-confidence to not care for the
feelings of those perceived as the problem.
So language because more strident, and declarations are made, and
division is seen as acceptable. The
reality and problem of racism in America has created a long history of division
and separateness, sometimes by overt racism by white people, and sometimes by
reaction from people of color. The black
church is a creation of white racism, at least if one remembers the story of
Bishop Richard Allen and the African Methodist Episcopal church.
Many of these voices of frustration are not from people of color who grew up in segregated churches but by many who have been reached, educated, mentored, and supported by white evangelical institutions and churches. They have experienced these institutions from the inside, even as these institutions were, in and by their conscious effort, trying to be less "white." Too slow, too late, and still un-woke can make the Evangelical experience hard to take; especially when Evangelicals take political actions that seem monolithic while being racially obtuse if not hostile.
There are multi-ethnic churches which are
mono-cultural, some of them are identity and culture killers for
minorities. Other multi-ethnic churches
are more cross-cultural where people are “becoming” like each other in culture,
with majority folks becoming “slaves” to other people groups to serve
them. Discerning the difference between
these kinds of churches is important.
There are reconciliation heroes, and they have not wasted their
lives. They will bear eternal fruit, and
on earth they are seeing the Kingdom realized; which is what we all are
supposed to be praying for in the Lord’s Prayer.
The realization and actualization of love in
a mixed cultural community is hard and cannot come without cost and
sacrifice. It happens intentionally, by faith, and God's grace. I have found it worth every
bit of effort, and wished all my brothers and sisters in Christ thought it so.
END.
