Witness, Separation, and Reform
Mar 13, 2019 11:29:38 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Mar 13, 2019 11:29:38 GMT -6
The social stance of Christians, (and therefore, the Church) can be seen as three different approaches to their relationship to the World. The first might be described as the Church as the body of legalistic observance. This is the slavish adherence to certain arbitrary, culturally determined rules of conduct. The code ethic is elevated to the status of canonical, and given pseudo-Biblical support. This approach is seen among fundamentalists in their ban on movies, card playing, dancing, drinking, smoking and so forth.
The belief is that this kind of “pure life” will convince the world's onlookers of their own sin, as well as keep the Christian from sin. The view overlooks the fact that sin takes its beginning in an impure heart, and exists independently of overt actions. It also overlooks the problem of its witness being not of Jesus Christ, his teaching, and the liberty He gave us, but of extraneous minutia.
But the worst aspect of this view is the fact that these Christians can go on ignorantly supporting all forms of institutionalized evil from industry to mining and exploitation of Human beings, to nationalism, socialism and a welter of conflicting political views which are antithetical to their Bible. This is true because they have the false security of their idolatrous, legalistic code ethics.
The second approach is a logical alternative to the first, and in terms of relative value stands head and shoulders above it. This view will be called the “Church as corrective.” Now it is true that the legalists view the Church as a corrective also, but they are restricted to trying to induce the world to see the beauty of their code ethics as a corrective and are therefore unable to actually correct anything. The legalist is unable to correct anything which is consistent, whether moral or immoral, precisely because it is itself immorally inconsistent.
But the corrective approach properly puts the Christian to work seeking to witness to people in a fallen society, by supporting that which is the best in that society and challenging it to become even better. This approach lets the Christian set the example. Thus, Christians may speak out against social evils in unsaved society, and cast their vote of confidence with whatever in society they consider “good.” This is practical heresy to fundamentalists because it allows personal freedom and assumes personal responsibility for decision making. Christians should, on this view, flock to good movies, shun bad ones, and thus support civic responsibility and decency by supporting those theater owners who deal in family entertainment. Hollywood would also count the ballots when deciding to which books they should buy the movie rights and then produce. Wineries would be supported, distilleries shunned. In all aspects of life, the Christian would cast his vote by his living. In one sense of the term, this is true in any case, but here it is the normative way of Christian influence on society for “the better.” This constitutes the normal procedure for affecting society from movies to international politics. It is a political stance precisely at the point of trying to influence the behavior of society. It attempts to alter society to the point that only that which is “decent” is available to the people. In this regard, one is forced to remember the crusade against the use of alcohol and prohibition.
But this seems to be nothing more than a way to escape evangelism. This is but a way to escape evangelism, by making society “better.” It is not an attempt to alter individual preferences by dealing with spiritual problems. It is an attempt to simply make the more odious forms of evil unavailable to society. But this position fails to see that a “clean” society, far from making true evangelism possible, obscures the issue of personal sin by removing the more obvious outworkings of sin, thus making society a refuge for sinners, instead of letting it be the wasteland it truly is. We should allow no man to take comfort in the fact that because he is “socially acceptable,” he is, therefore good. Yet this is implicit in the “Church-as-Corrective” position, precisely because of the political nature of supporting social good and protesting social evil.
But by “taking charge of society,” or seeking to correct its numerous evils, the church has no choice but to support society in its fallenness. No corrective can undo this state of fallenness, either in persons or in societies. And as long as the Church views its mission to be that of a corrective, it will be unable to shake off the fetters of pragmatism, relativism, or flux as a theologically normative principle. It will never bring the Biblical Christ to bear on the world because it has misjudged the nature of Sin.
This view entirely misses the point that we are to call men out of, and away from worldly society and its uncorrectable evil, into the communion of the saints. It misjudges and underestimates the nature of sin, and consciously shares and believes in the professed aims of politics. Thus, one may not only justify any political position, as the Protestants do but a certain radical type of political position of constant reform with the Anabaptists. But, qualitatively speaking, how different is the notion “the status quo is in need of alteration,” and the fact that the social flux, which is the very nature of “reform as a constant need,” becomes the new and ever moving status quo of the when that notion is consistently applied? The fact is that evil is still evil, no matter how many concessions it makes. Even reformed evil is still evil; it just assumes a new shape.
Both “legalism,” and “correctivism” share the means-end dichotomy in which ends and means are viewed as separate entities capable of analysis and manipulation separately, without reference to one another, and subject to man's “vision.” This, however, is not the Biblical pattern and is but another bit of sophistry at best.
The third view is the “Church-as-Alternative,” in the world by its location, but not of the world because of its allegiance to God. It functions by acting righteously without regard for “ends.” This position regards righteous, personal, individual and corporate action, based on Biblical morality as the only responsibility of the Christian to society. It is neither the means to a preconceived end nor the end of a program of action. It is both the means and the end of the Christian “social” responsibility. The Christian, particularly if living in a community of Christians, is responsible to present the world an easily visible alternative to all of its own sinful institutions. Thus, we are not to correct the evils of Society, we are to provide an alternative to the evil which is Society.
This view holds that the full witness to Christ which the Christian is to live is in no need of tailoring to fit specific needs, but will, by its very nature, convict every sinful person, institution, and state precisely of its own sin.
- Todd
The belief is that this kind of “pure life” will convince the world's onlookers of their own sin, as well as keep the Christian from sin. The view overlooks the fact that sin takes its beginning in an impure heart, and exists independently of overt actions. It also overlooks the problem of its witness being not of Jesus Christ, his teaching, and the liberty He gave us, but of extraneous minutia.
But the worst aspect of this view is the fact that these Christians can go on ignorantly supporting all forms of institutionalized evil from industry to mining and exploitation of Human beings, to nationalism, socialism and a welter of conflicting political views which are antithetical to their Bible. This is true because they have the false security of their idolatrous, legalistic code ethics.
The second approach is a logical alternative to the first, and in terms of relative value stands head and shoulders above it. This view will be called the “Church as corrective.” Now it is true that the legalists view the Church as a corrective also, but they are restricted to trying to induce the world to see the beauty of their code ethics as a corrective and are therefore unable to actually correct anything. The legalist is unable to correct anything which is consistent, whether moral or immoral, precisely because it is itself immorally inconsistent.
But the corrective approach properly puts the Christian to work seeking to witness to people in a fallen society, by supporting that which is the best in that society and challenging it to become even better. This approach lets the Christian set the example. Thus, Christians may speak out against social evils in unsaved society, and cast their vote of confidence with whatever in society they consider “good.” This is practical heresy to fundamentalists because it allows personal freedom and assumes personal responsibility for decision making. Christians should, on this view, flock to good movies, shun bad ones, and thus support civic responsibility and decency by supporting those theater owners who deal in family entertainment. Hollywood would also count the ballots when deciding to which books they should buy the movie rights and then produce. Wineries would be supported, distilleries shunned. In all aspects of life, the Christian would cast his vote by his living. In one sense of the term, this is true in any case, but here it is the normative way of Christian influence on society for “the better.” This constitutes the normal procedure for affecting society from movies to international politics. It is a political stance precisely at the point of trying to influence the behavior of society. It attempts to alter society to the point that only that which is “decent” is available to the people. In this regard, one is forced to remember the crusade against the use of alcohol and prohibition.
But this seems to be nothing more than a way to escape evangelism. This is but a way to escape evangelism, by making society “better.” It is not an attempt to alter individual preferences by dealing with spiritual problems. It is an attempt to simply make the more odious forms of evil unavailable to society. But this position fails to see that a “clean” society, far from making true evangelism possible, obscures the issue of personal sin by removing the more obvious outworkings of sin, thus making society a refuge for sinners, instead of letting it be the wasteland it truly is. We should allow no man to take comfort in the fact that because he is “socially acceptable,” he is, therefore good. Yet this is implicit in the “Church-as-Corrective” position, precisely because of the political nature of supporting social good and protesting social evil.
But by “taking charge of society,” or seeking to correct its numerous evils, the church has no choice but to support society in its fallenness. No corrective can undo this state of fallenness, either in persons or in societies. And as long as the Church views its mission to be that of a corrective, it will be unable to shake off the fetters of pragmatism, relativism, or flux as a theologically normative principle. It will never bring the Biblical Christ to bear on the world because it has misjudged the nature of Sin.
This view entirely misses the point that we are to call men out of, and away from worldly society and its uncorrectable evil, into the communion of the saints. It misjudges and underestimates the nature of sin, and consciously shares and believes in the professed aims of politics. Thus, one may not only justify any political position, as the Protestants do but a certain radical type of political position of constant reform with the Anabaptists. But, qualitatively speaking, how different is the notion “the status quo is in need of alteration,” and the fact that the social flux, which is the very nature of “reform as a constant need,” becomes the new and ever moving status quo of the when that notion is consistently applied? The fact is that evil is still evil, no matter how many concessions it makes. Even reformed evil is still evil; it just assumes a new shape.
Both “legalism,” and “correctivism” share the means-end dichotomy in which ends and means are viewed as separate entities capable of analysis and manipulation separately, without reference to one another, and subject to man's “vision.” This, however, is not the Biblical pattern and is but another bit of sophistry at best.
The third view is the “Church-as-Alternative,” in the world by its location, but not of the world because of its allegiance to God. It functions by acting righteously without regard for “ends.” This position regards righteous, personal, individual and corporate action, based on Biblical morality as the only responsibility of the Christian to society. It is neither the means to a preconceived end nor the end of a program of action. It is both the means and the end of the Christian “social” responsibility. The Christian, particularly if living in a community of Christians, is responsible to present the world an easily visible alternative to all of its own sinful institutions. Thus, we are not to correct the evils of Society, we are to provide an alternative to the evil which is Society.
This view holds that the full witness to Christ which the Christian is to live is in no need of tailoring to fit specific needs, but will, by its very nature, convict every sinful person, institution, and state precisely of its own sin.
- Todd