Basic HTML Version
a strong evangelical faith that prom–
ised a " blessed assurance" of eter–
na! life hereafter to compensate for
the defeat, suffering and poverty
that resulted from the war. Their
sense of otherworldliness and doc–
trinal purity led to a spiritual one–
upmanship toward the " worldliness "
and liberalism of Northern Protes–
tants- an attitude that persists to–
day.
On the other hand , Nort hern
Protestants have been critica! of
their Southern counterparts for ne–
glecting the social problems of the
day. In part, this neglect has been
the consequence of the other–
worldliness of Southern Evangeli–
cal ism that led to the development
of what Martín Marty, one of the
foremost interpreters of modern
American religion, calls " prívate
Protestantism." Private Protestant–
ism holds the pessimistic view that
the world is a hopelessly evil place.
Souls must be rescued from it one
by one, but it wi ll take the return of
Christ to fully right all the wrongs.
Christians should adopt as a policy
Christ's prayer to His Father that
"thou shouldest (not] take them
out
ot
the world, but that thou shoul–
dest keep them from the evil. They
are
not ot the world,
even as 1am
not of the world" (John 17: 15-16).
In contrast, the "worldl iness" of
the Northern Protestants has led to
a more opti mistic view Marty calls
"publ ic Protestantism." They be–
lieve that Christians can and shou ld
change society through social re–
form, ecumenism and moral in–
fluence in education and politics. In
this way they can be "good Samari–
tans," fulf il ling Christ's instruction:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself" (Matt. 22:39).
Revivalists since the Civil War
have traditionally preached a prí–
vate Protestantism that has ignored
or deprecated the need for social
reform. But recent ly groups of
"New Evangelicals" have sprung
up to crusade with typical evangeli–
cal fervor for a "social gospel" rele–
vant to the world here and now.
Sti ll, most evangelical leaders
continue to proclaim the gospel of a
born-again experience now and a
32
better world in the indefinite here–
after.
Thus, the lnternational Congress
on World Evangelization , meeting
July 1974, in Lausanne, Switzer–
land, rejected a call for more social
act ion on the part of Evangelicals.
Whi le consideration was given to
the "liberation of the whole man"
and the social implications of the
gospel, a majority of the 2,500
delegates opposed the trend to–
ward "secular sa lvat ion" that
viewed human liberation in a pol iti–
cal and social trame of reference.
Can Evangelicals
realistically continue to
confine their role to just
witnessing and soul
winning now that they
have come off the
sidelines and gotten
involved in "worldly"
affairs?
The congress voted to hold fast to
the narrow, traditional concept of
evangelism, i.e. , preaching Christ to
win souls now in advance of His
return . Article 5 of the covenant
drawn up at Lausanne stated that
"sociai action is not evangelism,
nor is pol iticalliberation salvation. "
Of the World
The Evangelicals at Lausanne in
1974 cou ld afford to avoid choki ng
evangelism with the cares and
causes of this world. After all , Evan–
gelicals have always been a rel i–
gious mi nority. They rare ly
exercised political clout-except on
a reg ional basis-as a consequence
of their relative indifference to
worldly affairs. Very few Evangeli–
cals then held positions of national
or international leadership. Evan–
gelicals more or less condemned
and moral ized from the sidelines as
spectators. But now in 1977 they
have to a degree become players. A
self-confessed "born-again " Chris–
tian occupies the White House. The
candidacy of Jimmy Carter made
evangel ical Protestantism a political
issue because of Carter's born-
again fa i th and h is campaign
pledge to bring morality and trust
back to government.
Carter's candidacy also tempted
severa! evangelical groups- totally
C::isconnected with the Carter presi–
dential campaign-to get involved
in politics. As if the election to
grace was not a sufficient pre–
occupation, they took an interest in
the election of candidates by en–
dorsing cert ified "born-again"
Christians. Evangelicals were en–
couraged to participate in the politi–
cal process-an activity that until
the past severa! years has been
largely foreign to the bulk of the
evangelical community. Reckoning
that " born-again " Christians ac–
count for one-third of the American
electorate, politically minded Evan–
gelicals hoped to score significan!
gaif]s at the ballot box for God and
a more Christian country in the
post-Watergate era.
But their impact on the election
-with the possible exception of
Carter's cand idacy- doesn ' t ap–
pear to have been great. Federal
and state governments were not
born again on November 2. But the
election did serve to exacerbate the
debate among Evangelicals over
thei r proper role in worldly affairs.
Faith without works is dead,
wrote the apostle James. But just
what works should Evangelicals oc–
cupy themselves with till the King–
dom comes? Can they realistically
confine their role to just witnessing
and winning souls now that they
have come off the sidelines and be–
come active participants in national
affairs? Can they develop an ethic
and program to deal with the seri–
ous problems facing the country
and the world : hunger, poverty, pol–
lution, injustice? Just as the nation
is at last taking notice of their
strength, Evangel icals find their
house divided on these vital issues.
lf 1976 was the year of the great
awakening of the Evangelicals' la–
tent strength and influence, 1977
and succeeding years may be a
period of the great disillusionment
as Evangel icals discover the frustra–
tions of going public-being
ot
the
world and not just
in
it.
o
The
PLAIN TRUTH April 1977