Debates on poverty and an unusual view of salvation highlight a theology consultation.
Some, no doubt, expected sparks to fly last month when politically conservative philosopher Ronald Nash shared the podium to discuss poverty with his more liberal counterpart, Richard Mouw. This issue was among a variety of topics addressed by some of the evangelical world’s leading thinkers at a consultation called “Christian Theology in a Post-Christian World.”
Held at Wheaton (Ill.) College, the consultation was sponsored by the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, a function of the college’s Billy Graham Center.
The interchange between Mouw and Nash produced no sparks. Instead, the discussion revealed significant areas of agreement. Mouw, a philosophy professor at Calvin College, stated in a paper prepared for the consultation that the evangelical community does not have a “coherent, biblically faithful, theological understanding” of the poor. He called for future discussions to be “shaped by appropriate theological sensitivities.”
He contended that Christians ought to be concerned about all poor people, not just believers. “The Bible does seem to suggest that the Lord delights in works of justice on behalf of the poor,” he observed, “even when those poor folks do not receive the Savior.”
In addition, Mouw distinguished between people “whose poverty is due to their own refusal to work” and those “whose difficulties are due … to the oppression of unjust economic and political structures.” He concluded by stressing that Christians ought to avoid capitalistic and socialistic schemes and concentrate instead on being God’s people. “We will all serve the poor most effectively if we refuse to jump onto someone else’s ideological bandwagon, and get on instead with the important evangelical task of bringing our economic thoughts and deeds into submission to the authority of the One who came so that the poor might finally hear Good News.”
Nash, chairman of the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Western Kentucky University, said he agreed with most of Mouw’s observations regarding a biblical response to poverty. “Mouw’s distinction between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor is an important one,” Nash said. He implied, however, that politically liberal evangelicals have failed to recognize that distinction.
Nash took issue with Mouw’s favorable citation of the Catholic bishops’ recent pastoral letter on the U.S. economy. He said the programs espoused in the letter would entrench rather than eliminate poverty by removing the incentive of people to fend for themselves.
Nash criticized the “liberal welfare state” for similar failings, stating that poverty persists “not because we’re not doing enough, but because so much of what we are doing is counterproductive.” He concluded that progress in the war on poverty “is far more dependent upon compassionate people getting smart than it is on tight-fisted people loosening their wallets.”
The 30 participants at the consultation included John R. W. Stott, of the Institute for Contemporary Christianity; J. I. Packer, of Regent College; Gabriel Fackre, of Andover Newton Theological School; Cornelius Plantinga, of Calvin Theological Seminary; and Clark Pinnock, of McMaster Divinity College.
In his paper, Pinnock argued that it is reasonable for Christians to hope for the “final salvation of many unevangelized persons who longed for a Savior but never heard of Christ during their lifetimes.” He said he realized he was “venturing into controversial theology.”
Pinnock stopped short of contending that people can be saved for eternity through general revelation, rather than through God’s special revelation of Jesus Christ. But he did state that people who have responded in some way to God’s general revelation would have an opportunity to be saved through Christ after death. Pinnock stressed that his contention “is a reasonable hope, not a dogma.”
Some, including CHRISTIANITY TODAY senior editor Kenneth Kantzer, were wary of Pinnock’s conclusions. Kantzer cited John 3:18: “He who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
“None of us, if we’re evangelicals, dare slight verses such as this,” Kantzer said. Noting that there are many passages in Scripture with a similar message, Kantzer said he had “great caution in holding out much hope” for the ultimate salvation of those who do not know Christ as Savior in this life.
Another lively discussion focused on hermeneutics, the science and art of Bible interpretation. In a paper written for the conference, Sheffield (England) University theologian Anthony Thiselton warned that evangelical theology is in danger of “elevating merely human claims to authority to the status of the divine.” Noting that some Christians once used the Bible to justify slavery, Thiselton warned against “appeals to divine authority [that] amount to using the Bible … as an instrument of power and domination for social and religious control.”
Thiselton contended in his paper that even interpretations that seem obvious should be subject to critical analysis. Such analysis, he wrote, should include examination of the biblical writers’ audiences, the language structures and literary devices they used, and the historical and cultural context of their messages. Health problems prevented Thiselton from attending the consultation.
John Frame, of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, acknowledged the importance of Thiselton’s concerns. But he emphasized the doctrine of perspicuity (essential clarity) of Scripture. Frame suggested that Thiselton was “too hard on the claim that the basic meaning of the Bible is obvious.”
Personalia
Thomas R. Getman, former chief legislative assistant to U.S. Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Oreg.), is directing a new Washington, D.C., office for World Vision. Getman will serve as a liaison with government and corporate supporters of the Christian relief-and-development organization. He plans to coordinate visits for people who desire personal involvement in famine relief in African nations where World Vision is active.
Marjory Mecklenburg, a prolife appointee to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), has resigned following an investigation of her travel expense accounts. No violations were found, but she told DHHS Secretary Margaret Heckler that circumstances within the bureaucracy forced her to resign. Mecklenburg implemented legislation that awards grants to organizations providing research or demonstration projects encouraging teenagers to avoid sexual activity. Her replacement, Jo Anne Gasper, is known to oppose abortion.
The 1985 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion will be presented next month to noted British marine biologist Alistair Hardy. In 1969, Hardy founded the Religious Experience Research Unit at Manchester College. The research center compiles and classifies data on religious experience in Great Britain. John Templeton, founder of the prize, called Hardy a “pioneer in a new field of theology.”
Gunnar J. Staalsett has been elected general secretary of the Luthern World Federation (LWF). Staalsett, a theologian and former head of a Norwegian political party, will succeed Carl H. Mau, Jr., who has held the general secretary position for 11 years. The LWF is made up of 99 member denominations, representing 54.4 million of the world’s 68.5 million Lutherans.
