Feature
Moving A Church Toward Gospel-Centeredness
by Jeff Louie
Survey of Various Perspectives
In understanding how the gospel affects the church’s role in society, it is important to develop the concept from a sound biblical theological framework. It needs to be consistent with a natural reading of Scripture. It should not be based upon a theological interpretation that forces itself upon the Gospels and the Epistles.
Reconstructionists
There have been various views that attempt to define the role of Christians in their community. The Reconstructionists hold to a literal carrying-over of both the moral and civil aspects of the Old Testament Law into modern times. The continuation of the civil aspects of the Law is what sets this view apart from the more common Reformed position, which sees a literal continuation of the moral Law alone. For the Reconstructionist, the civil and moral codes of the Law of Moses are to be the pattern of social justice for all cultures. Because of this understanding, societal interaction for the Christian is to focus on civil law reform in government, so that it reflects the Law of Moses.
I find three major weaknesses with Reconstructionism. First, is their insistence on the literal continuation of the civil Law. Second, their failure to realize the unique position of Israel both as a nation and God’s holy people. Finally, their system does not reflect Christ’s teaching. Instead their theological framework is forced upon the teachings of Christ. Nowhere in Scripture is there a call for Jesus’ followers to change the laws in their governments to reflect the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law.1
Cultural Mandatists
The culture mandatist believes we must use Christian principles to influence all spheres of society. Abraham Kuyper is the best-known proponent of this position. A modern adherent is Charles Colson. This view sees a cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." This represents God’s enduring command to develop civilizations and societies. Colson writes:
The same command is still binding on us today. Though the Fall introduced sin and evil into human history, it did not erase the cultural mandate. The generations since Adam and Eve still bear children, build families, and spread across the earth. They still tend animals and plant fields. They still make music and works of art . . . It is our contention in this book that the Lord’s cultural commission is inseparable from the great commission.2
Though I enjoyed reading Colson’s book and agreed with many of his applications to society, the powerful concept of the “cultural commission” is overstated. Genesis itself does not use 1:28 as a major theme in the development of the book. The focus is on the “calling out” rather than the influencing “from within.” It is reasonable to assume that followers of God would be involved in developing their societies, but this should not be based upon a cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28.
Legislative Moralists
The “Religious Right” would fit under the category of legislative moralist. They are not united by a well-developed theological system. It is a reactionary movement to the increasing secularization in American society. I describe them as “Legislative Moralists” because they seek to stop the moral decay in America primarily through the legislative process. Because it is a reactionary movement, the tone is defensive and combative. The legislative moralist contends that something is being taken away; (e.g., the identity of being a “nation under God,” or school prayer). The morals of the nation have gone awry with the legalization of abortion, and the possibility of homosexual marriage. There is a need to mobilize the nation in order to stop this continual moral decay before it is too late. Because of this legislative focus, emphasis is placed upon the election of candidates who pledge to fight against the key issues that are promoting the moral decay. Other issues, such as poverty and global warming, may be important, but they are not equal to the critical moral issues that threaten America.
I understand the basis of this position. I agree with it on key moral issues. Nevertheless, I do not agree with its limited agenda. Certainly Christians must vote according to their conscience on moral issues – to articulate their positions publicly – but there is much more to the Christian’s role in society than that of a political reactionary. The legislative moralist is “John the Baptist” in style, proclaiming the need to “repent.” This Jesus did also, yet he simultaneously acted with a tireless devotion to demonstrate God’s powerful grace to the multitudes. If we claim to represent a fully orbed Christianity, then the graciousness of our Lord must be included in our role in society.
Redemptive Moralists
The redemptive moralist is the counter-balance to the religious right. He may affirm some of the positions of the legislative moralist, but insists on a more positive, or “redemptive,” response in his interaction with society. While the legislative moralist focuses on a few crucial issues, the redemptive moralist recognizes many issues of significant importance. Abortion may be important, but so is the poverty-cycle of the inner city. The breakdown of the traditional family is a key concern, but so also is the reality of global-warming. This group will not put all its eggs in the basket of a few political “litmus tests.” It seeks to express Christian faith in a gracious and proactive manner, helping to relieve the emotional, physical, and spiritual needs of society. The redemptive moralist believes that to simply focus on a few select issues would reflect an injustice that does not evidence the full heart of God. I have enjoyed reading works from this perspective, such as Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics, and Tony Campolo’s Speaking My Mind. Nevertheless, I have observed tendencies in the redemptive moralist camp that need to be addressed.
Firstly, there is the problem of selective proof-texting to support certain claims. Tony Campolo refers to the “peacemakers” in the Sermon on the Mount to argue that our nation should refrain from war, and that Christians should not be soldiers. But does he understand the Sermon on the Mount fully? Why doesn’t he ask for the application of the other 99% of the sermon? Why not advocate a nation where the citizens are poor, or poor in spirit? Jim Wallis cites the return of property during the year of Jubilee to illustrate the need for wealthy nations to cancel third-world debt. Of course, I am not opposed to the cancellation of debt. The purpose of returning the land during the year of Jubilee, however, was to remind Israel that the land belongs to God, rather than being a law to level the economic playing field.
Besides the proof-texting, I have also noticed a rhetorical emphasis. The argument is made that Christians should not limit themselves to such social issues as abortion and homosexuality, because other issues (e.g. the cycle of poverty and genocide) are equally important. But I suspect this argument is, at times, more rhetorical than real. While it is true the religious right focuses too exclusively on certain issues (while neglecting other glaring expressions of need), I do wonder how often the redemptive moralist preaches about the worldwide problem of abortion. Genocide is wrong, to be sure, and Christians should seek to end it, for example, in places like Darfur. But the plain fact is there are more human lives lost in three days through abortion than the total lives lost in the Darfurian genocide. Sometimes the Christian desire to be more “redemptive” serves to skirt the more controversial issues.
Toward a Biblical Theology of Community Interaction
In developing a biblical theological framework, we should avoid any theological basis not founded on the teachings of Jesus. Rather, we should begin with the observable emphases in Christ’s teaching and ministry.
The Question of the Greatest Commandment
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."3
1 The Reconstructionist position is detailed elsewhere, and an analysis of it is beyond the scope of this paper. For arguments against this view see Ligon Duncan’s article, "Moses' Law for Modern Government,” Vern Poythress’ The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (from a reformed perspective), and Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? By Wayne House and Thomas Ice (from a dispensational perspective).
