The social justice imperative

Skye Jethani, writing at Out of Ur, raises — then dashes — hopes for the end of a 100-year-old conflict within Christianity:

The impact of the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy shaped the direction of the American church for most of the 20th century by creating an 'either/or' scenario. Either a church cared about social justice or it focused on saving souls.

In "The Battle Lines Over Justice," Jethani cites findings by LifeWay Research that younger evangelicals are increasingly likely to regard social justice as a "gospel imperative." The post considers whether the trend indicates the closing stages of a century-old division between Christians who emphasize social issues and those who stress repentance and salvation.

Hopes that "both/and" thinking might replace the "either/or" conflict, are dim. While some think fundamentalism is on life support, the heated debate cited by Jethani and further articulated in user comments shows that last rites for the either/or are premature.

Certainly this isn't the first time evangelicals have shown an interest in social action movements.

Sojourners, a group that seeks to "articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world" formed in 1971.

In 1973, a group of evangelicals released the Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern, which led to the formation of Evangelicals for Social Action. And a second Chicago statement was issued 20 years later. (Both statements are available here.)

A 1979 article in Christian Century outlined "A Fundamentalist Social Gospel," tracing the rise of social action in the 1970s to the "neoevangelical" movement in the 1940s.

The highly publicized controversy within the Southern Baptist Convention that started in 1979 was a reaction to a perceived rise in the liberalism in SBC seminaries.

The recent Out of Ur article shows that similar perceptions are alive and well. It first references an article by J. Mack Stiles, a former InterVarsity Christian Fellowship staff worker. Stiles fears InterVarsity is "slipping into the errors of liberal theology" due to the elevation of justice issues by the ministry and says the pursuit of justice is a gospel implication not a gospel imperative.

On the other side is Richard Stearns, president of World Vision, who says, "Proclaiming the whole gospel, then, means much more than evangelism in the hopes that people will hear and respond to the good news of salvation by faith in Christ."

Commenters on the post stake out both positions, with few taking a conciliatory approach.

In 2000, Richard Mouw called for "Reclaiming Evangelicalism" from the Religious Right in a column on BeliefNet:

I wish that we evangelicals could work together to promote a third way -- a middle course between withdrawal from politics and campaigns that give the impression that we are attempting to impose a full range of moral and religious specifics on our fellow citizens.

That "third way" can only be found by a broad cross-section of Christian believers who respect and work with each other. And Jethani at Out of Ur sees an unresolved dichotomy:

One side is vowing to guard the gospel against neo-liberalism; the other side is hoping to restore the gospel to its fullest expression by reconciling proclamation and demonstration.

Still work to be done.

Fundamentalism on life support

Although neither God nor fundamentalism is dead, Harvard Divinity School professor Harvey Cox believes the latter is on its deathbed.

Cox's article in the Boston Globe looks at the history of fundamentalism, and proclaims "that for all its apparent strength, the fundamentalist sun is setting on all horizons." Cox also argues that the religious right in America "is becoming a niche."

The shrillest TV evangelists are losing audiences to more moderate “evangelical-lite” preachers. Fundamentalist congregations are ceding ground to Pentecostals and mega-churches, which embrace a wider social agenda and teach the spiritual authority - not the literal inerrancy - of the Bible.

Cox calls the fall of fundamentalism "a decisive change in global society."

It has already freed Christians, Muslims, and Jews to explore what all three have in common as they now begin to cooperate in confronting nuclear weapons, poverty, and climate change.

A key reason for the downfall of fundamentalist movements is their "inherently fractious" nature, Cox says.

When your view of reality is the only acceptable one, you cannot compromise. Almost from its inception, American Protestant fundamentalism split into warring factions.

No doubt. Earlier today we reviewed the Southern Baptist Convention seppuku - a relentless process of denominational self-destruction through ejection of all but a steadily narrowing group of the sufficiently fundamentalist.

Cox believes the frozen righteousness of fundamentalism will fail because young people learn that "inherited prejudices can soften and melt when confronted with good, morally upright people from different belief systems."

Virtually anywhere on the planet, it is hard to imagine the grandchildren of fundamentalists reconciling themselves to their tightly constricted spiritual world.

Read the entire piece here.

[H/T Bruce Gourley.]

Hardball Religion: Feeling the Fury of Fundamentalism

The book Hardball Religion by Wade Burleson gets an almost play-by-play punches-unpulled review from John Pierce, executive editor of Baptists Today.

Key snippet:

Burleson’s courage to stand toe-to-toe with abusive power-brokers, to expose the misuse of denominational authority and resources, and to defend those harmed by heavy-handed tactics is commendable.

Yet, for so many of us, his recent “discovery” of fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist Convention is not breaking news. It shows just how late Burleson is getting to the game.

He writes: “I began to realize in 2005, to my horror, that the issue causing such pain in the Southern Baptist Convention was not a battle for a belief in the inspired, inerrant word of God.”

Burleson is right. It is about something else — something very destructive.

Read the entire review here.