There has been a great deal of confusion about the mission of the Church and the responsibility of individual Christians in regard to political, social, and economic involvement. A popular sport in some circles has been that of berating the evangelical wing of Christendom as though it had no social conscience, and as though it advocated Christian non-involvement in the problems of Caesar’s kingdom. This idea has embedded itself solidly in the thinking of some critics of evangelical Christianity and will not easily be dispelled in closed minds. But it has no substantial foundation in fact.
It seems to some of us that, for those who are really seeking the truth, the problem arises largely from a failure to understand the distinction evangelicals make between what the Church as Church ought to do and what Christians, as members both of God’s kingdom and of Caesar’s kingdom, ought to do. Evangelicals emphatically affirm that there are some things individual Christians cannot and ought not to do because these things are within the sphere of the Church’s mission. Likewise evangelicals insist that there are some activities that fall within the compass of individual Christian responsibility and are not part of the mission of the Church as Church.
Baptism, for example, obviously belongs to the Church. Individual Christians have neither the biblical basis nor the personal right to go about baptizing people, no matter how strongly they feel that people ought to be baptized. Baptism is a function of the Church, not of the individual Christian. So also with the sacrament or ordinance of the Lord’s Supper; this belongs to the Church, not to the individual Christian.
Ordination to the gospel ministry is a church function, too. Whether one considers it necessary for a bishop to lay hands on the candidate in episcopal form or whether one follows the Baptist practice in which the congregation ordains the candidate, this much is clear: Ordination does not fall within the sphere of activity belonging to the individual Christian.
Discipline, too, is a church, not an individual, responsibility. A member of any church who assumes this function acts unbiblically and thus wrongly.
On the other hand, there are some activities that the Church as Church should avoid. They belong to Christians, who have a dual citizenship as members of God’s kingdom and of Caesar’s kingdom. Let it be said as strongly as possible that evangelicals believe that Christians, as members of Caesar’s kingdom, ought to be involved in the affairs of Caesar’s kingdom. They have the duty as well as the right to work to influence the political structures and to speak out on socio-economic issues. They should be deeply concerned about the problems of poverty, race, labor unions, war, the draft. No area of human need lies outside the realm of Christian responsibility. Indeed, believers should be more concerned than unbelievers because they are constrained by the love of Christ for men everywhere.
The Church as Church has no mandate to get involved in these socio-political matters. But it is the duty of Christians to do so. Immediately the question is pressed home (and it is a good one): What is wrong with corporate action? Why can’t Christians get together and do as a church what they are supposed to do as individuals?
The answer to this question should be plain to all. There is nothing wrong with Christians’ banding together to do as a group what they would do as individuals. If Christians want to form labor unions, they are free to do so. If they want to start a Coalition of Christian Students for Academic Liberty and Responsibility, they have a right to do this. If they want to organize an Association for the Alleviation of Poverty, they can do so. If they wish to start a new political party and call it the Christian Demo-republican Association, no one should object. But this is a far cry from corporate action by the Church as Church. Individual Christians or Christians banding together can do what the Church does not have the right to do, and what ought not to be done in the name of the Church. If they do these things because they believe that Christians ought to do them, they may be wrong in their judgments, but they are right in declaring their freedom under God to act. It is possible for Christians to believe that they ought to go out on a strike or engage in legal picketing. Others may believe they should oppose striking or picketing. Whether these views are right or wrong remains to be seen. But for either group to assume its stand in the name of the Church is wrong.
In American political life, multitudes of Christians have served God and Caesar as best they know how. As Christians they sought to enunciate their Christian principles in the legislative halls, in the courts, and in the administration of the government. But they did so as Christians and not in the name of the Church. Christian businessmen have been deeply involved in the political processes as Democrats or Republicans and have supported the candidates of their parties as they have felt led to do so. But not in the name of the Church.
Let’s be done once and for all with the libel that evangelicals support a principle of Christian non-involvement in the world. They do call for the Church to be the Church and for it to keep out of certain spheres of activity which do not belong to it, but which belong to Christians generally. And they call for Christians as Christians, and not in the name of the Church, to be involved in every area of human endeavor, deeply concerned with the reformation of society in accord with Christian principles, and seeking earnestly to improve the conditions of life and the lot of men everywhere.
Beware!
“Beware the ides of March!” cautioned the soothsayer. But Julius Caesar dismissed him as a dreamer, though he did not forget the warning. When Caesar and the soothsayer met again on March 15, Caesar reminded him that the day had come. “Ay, Caesar,” replied the seer, “but not gone.”
Since Eve ate the forbidden fruit, Caesar has not been the only one to ignore wise counsel. Noah’s neighbors laughed at his ark; Lot’s wife turned to look at Sodom in flames; Jonah balked at evangelizing Nineveh.
Moses, reviewing God’s law, admonished the Israelites, “Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments.” That is a wise warning even for this March’s ides.
Black-Studies Programs
The sudden demand for black-studies programs on campuses all across the country grows quite logically out of the black-power movement. It stands in ironic contrast to the American mood of just a few years back. In the heyday of the civil-rights movement, militants would probably have resisted establishment of such programs on grounds that they were prejudicially motivated.
This is part of the racial quandary of our age. Concepts are about as stable as hemlines. When the National Negro Evangelical Association was founded in the early sixties, it was criticized as a separatist movement at odds with the then-current drive for racial integration at all levels of life. The NNEA withstood the opposition and presumably now represents a theological counterpart of black power in the best sense of that concept.
Black-studies programs are commendable. Every black should know his heritage. His culture has rich elements that deserve to be perpetuated. That much cannot be debated.
What is troubling about the current drive for black-studies program is that it looks too much like a good excuse for creating chaos. The militants have yet to demonstrate the genuineness of their appeals. One wonders how long they will persevere with this campaign. Will they see it through, or will they soon drop it for a “better” issue with which to disrupt?
An interesting parallel to the ethnic consciousness of American blacks is the struggle for identity by the more than 40,000,000 Ukrainians in the Soviet Union. Their effort has from time to time been the target of the Kremlin’s drive for cultural assimilation among the fifteen Soviet “republics.” The latest blows were two mysterious fires last November 26 that destroyed a seventeenth-century church in Kiev and a noted synagogue in Odessa. Valuable libraries were lost in both blazes, including important documents relating to Ukrainian history and culture. There are signs that these fires may be more than just a tragic coincidence.
Ukrainians do not like to be confused with the Russians. Ukrainian writers and teachers have from time to time been supressed by Soviet authorities, who regard their calls for cultural freedom as “bourgeois nationalism.” The special interest for evangelical Christianity is that the Ukrainians are the most Protestant of all the Slav peoples. More than 1,000 evangelical churches are active in the Ukraine today.
The political significance is substantial. The New York Times reports:
The existence of nationalist dissent in the Ukraine is cited by Western analysts as one of the main reasons why the Kremlin decided to occupy Czechoslovakia last August and reverse the liberalization movement in Prague, before its effects spread across the Carpathian Mountains to the western Ukraine.
A Matter Of Size
Good things may come in little packages, but the United States and Russia probably need new proof, now that the superpowers have had ships pirated by mini-nations North Korea and Ghana. Viet Nam is certainly small, but so was Pandora’s box.
The small confounding the great is not a new phenomenon. Three hundred men, led by Gideon, devastated the Midianites, who were “like locusts for multitude.” One small Israelite boy beheaded a Philistine giant. Jesus said faith no larger than a mustard seed can accomplish great things. And only a few are chosen to walk a narrow way.
If the number of those who remain true to biblical principles seems infinitesimal, perhaps it is time to advocate Small Power—like the voice Elijah heard.
Post-Pill Morality?
A small but influential number of so-called Christian ethicists continue to berate the Church for what they call its pre-Pill mentality, its antiquated adherence to the outmoded notion of premarital chastity. Arguments favoring Christian acceptance and endorsement of fornication are varied. One is that the needs of the age require a theology based upon what is rather than what ought to be. This is ethical relativism that rules out biblical absolutes and denigrates the authority of Scripture.
A second argument is that fornicators who know the Church disapproves of their actions won’t enter into dialogue with the Church or enter its doors. Ergo, we should approve of unchastity so that fornicators will come to church. The speciousness of this approach should be apparent. To call a sinful act good in order to get people in contact with the Church neither alters the wickedness of the act nor aids the sinner who needs regeneration. It most certainly does not attract sinners to the Church. Indeed, when the Church approves what sinners do, the need for the Church quickly disappears. And when church morality and secular morality coincide, the Church becomes nothing more than an appendage that is irrelevant at best and irritating at worst.
The charge that the Church’s support of chastity simply manifests a desire to retain the status quo is threadbare and irrational. To retain the notion of the law of gravity, or the arithmetical formula that one and one make two, is to support the status quo, and who will argue that it should not be supported in matters like these? Likewise there are moral absolutes revealed by God that remain forever true. They are not subject to the vicissitudes of time, nor can they be abridged by the moral vagaries of situationists.
Fornication is evil even when it is called meaningful, an expression of mutuality and loving affection, or a recreational pursuit. Sin doused with the perfume and dressed in silken garments is still sin. There are no conceivable circumstances when fornication would not be an act of sin. But at the same time we pronounce God’s judgment on sin we should also announce his offer of forgiveness and cleansing through faith in Jesus Christ.
An Unwarranted Rebuke
Two foundation stones of Presbyterianism are its Reformed theology and its distinctive church polity. Both of these fundamental principles have been virtually ignored in a recent action by a Grievance Committee authorized by the 1968 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
In acting on a complaint filed by the denomination’s Board of Christian Education, the Grievance Committee has accused the Rev. Dr. G. Aiken Taylor, editor of the independently published Presbyterian Journal, of misrepresentation and irresponsibility in criticizing Christian Doctrine by the Rev. Dr. Shirley Guthrie. The Board of Christian Education participates in the publishing of this volume, which is the adult study book in its Covenant Life Curriculum. A Journal editorial had alleged that the Guthrie text “suggests positions that are radically different from the historic Reformed and evangelical position.”
In its eagerness to chastise Dr. Taylor, an ordained minister in the denomination, and to vindicate the Board of Christian Education, the Grievance Committee omitted mention of several passages in Christian Doctrine that Dr. Taylor had specifically cited in a review as out of accord with the doctrinal standards of the Presbyterian Church. The fundamental tenet of Presbyterian theology is that all statements of doctrine, regardless of source, are to be tested by Scripture. The issue is not only whether Dr. Taylor should have made his criticism (even civil courts repeatly affirm the right of dissent). It is also: Who is guilty of deviation from the Scriptures as interpreted in the confessional statements of the church? Either party is subject to censure on this basis. But this was evidently not the approach of the committee.
The Grievance Committee also committed a glaring procedural error. Its approach to the issue involved a fundamental denial of Presbyterian polity. Presbyterian government is based upon a system of church courts, and in these courts the accused has the right to be heard. This committee, established by the highest court of the church, expressed its opinion without meeting with Dr. Taylor or conducting any hearings before which he could appear. Both the board and the committee failed to show one instance of misrepresentation or irresponsibility on Dr. Taylor’s part.
Attempts to stifle the critics of modern theology within major denominations are not limited to this incident or to this denomination. However, at a time when so many are speaking out against the authority of Scripture, it is illiberal, not to say outrageous, that action would be initiated to silence the voice of one who seeks to uphold this authority that the prophets proclaimed, the apostles endorsed, and Jesus Christ approved.
The approach and procedure of this committee have been detrimental both to Reformed theology and to Presbyterian polity. And “if the foundations be destroyed.…”
Levi Eshkol
The late Levi Eshkol led Israel through a crucial period. Jews will remember him as relatively moderate and conciliatory. True, he was at the helm when Israel took its big gamble in June of 1967—and won decisively. But history will probably show that Eshkol generally kept the more radical elements effectively in tow.
Eshkol’s death raises the possibility of an extended internal political struggle in Israel that could further complicate an already much-too-turbulent Middle East picture. We wish for the Jewish people a leader who will merit broad support, and who will do all in his power to secure peace and justice in that part of the world.
Fair Pay For Preachers
Ministers are rarely at a loss for words, but there is one subject that most of them have difficulty talking about—their salaries. In the midst of spiraling inflation, many pastors find it almost impossible to live on their incomes but feel they must remain tight-lipped for fear of appearing “unspiritual.”
In view of ministers’ hesitancy to discuss their financial situation, those in positions of leadership in local churches are responsible for making certain that pastors (and others on the church staff) are receiving a fair wage. But the fact remains that most ministers are grossly underpaid, and very few church boards are taking steps to correct the situation.
Four major obstacles block the road to fair ministerial compensation. First, the base income of a minister is generally much less than that of other professional men with comparable training (and often is below the earnings of occupations involving considerably less training). This is true even when residence allowance, utilities, and fees are taken into account. A 1963 survey showed that the average annual wage for laymen with seventeen or more years of schooling was $8,434; ministers with similar education earned $5,322.
Second, a minister is seldom adequately reimbursed for expenses he incurs in the course of his work. Many clergymen take a financial beating in auto, travel, office, and other professional expenses. Frequently the pastor finds it necessary to dig into his own pocket to cover expenses that are properly a part of the operating costs of the congregation. The church is probably the only institution that charges business costs against staff salaries.
Third, the minister faces a frustrating lack of opportunity for financial advancement. A recent study showed that the average salary and allowance of a minister with one to four years’ service was $5,814. The average for a minister with twenty to twenty-four years’ service was $7,317, an annual wage increase of $75.15. Frequently advancement comes only as ministers move to larger and better-paying churches. A private industry with this approach would find it virtually impossible to hold talent. Pastors and other church workers deserve the opportunity for annual increments with age and experience.
Fourth, many ministers have recently experienced a sizable reduction in net income because of a law including them in the Social Security program. The minister who was not previously covered under Social Security now finds his income diminished by 6.9 per cent.
These four factors combine to place an unduly heavy financial burden upon many ministers. Most aren’t going to bring up the subject. No labor union or trade association will protect them from exploitation. Dedication will compel most ministers to continue in spite of “long hours and low pay” (though the drop-out rate is alarming). But this doesn’t make the situation right, and it is the moral obligation of leaders in local congregations to take the necessary steps to deal with the problem. Even men of God have to buy bread.
Disproving A Marxist Tenet
To the surprise of authorities, many evangelical Christians in the Soviet Union have shown themselves to be exemplary, productive citizens. According to the Religion in Communist Dominated Areas newsletter, this fact is often acknowledged even in the Soviet press.
It goes to show that Christian believers can be the “salt of the earth” no matter what the circumstances.
And does it not rebuke untold numbers of Protestants in the West who are something less than their opportunity provides?
The pity in the Soviet Union is that the Communist party rejects or restricts the participation of the productive Protestants in national efforts simply because of Marxist prejudice. Marx taught that religion is an opiate that dulls the mind and so hinders its creative activity. The deeds of evangelical Christian believers in the Soviet Union are disproving Marx, but party leaders look the other way.
‘Up Tight’ About Holiness
Why are Christians so shy about holiness? What prompts their reticence toward talk of holy living? Is it that the doctrine has been divisive? Is it that we’re so short of holiness we’re embarrassed to talk about it? Or is it perhaps that we have been influenced by moderns who reduce the concept to mere superficial piety and irrelevant withdrawal?
Whatever the reason, it becomes clear that evangelical Christians need to champion anew the essence of holiness as it relates to our world and the life and times in which we live.
The pursuit of perfection can be frustrating, but the idea is well worth the chase, even if the route taken is unnecessarily circuitous. It is an effort that provides fulfillment and meaning, excitement and enchantment, satisfaction and peace. It brings out life’s most creative dimensions.
Personal holiness also benefits society. It encourages wholesome standards. It challenges others toward righteousness. Pascal said, “The serene, silent beauty of a holy life is the most powerful influence in the world, next to the might of the Spirit of God.”
Most important, holiness pleases God. Indeed, he demands holiness. Many balk at the command on grounds that the aim is too high. But could God have said otherwise? “How could a perfect God say, ‘Just sin a little bit’?” asks Francis A. Schaeffer.
The Hebrew and Greek words for holiness mean being set apart for divine use. The first application of the Hebrew term was to the Sabbath. As the term unfolded it has come to be applied in the highest sense to God himself. Holiness is the unifying attribute of all the other attributes of God.
God demonstrated his holiness most meaningfully to man in the person of his Son, who lived a sinless life entirely given over to the will and purpose of God.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of God’s holiness is that he wants to share it with mankind. Yet though God wants us to be saints, we never seem quite ready for it or capable of it.
Very likely our problem arises out of modern antipathy toward the supernatural. Holiness is most certainly a supernatural work, and we have been conditioned to resist any supernatural rationale. This is one of many areas in which prevailing thought patterns have infringed upon Christian truth, deceiving even the elect.
