A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICALISM (pt. 9)

This is the final installment (part 9) of an important series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries.

Summing Up

It is possible to view the evangelical church’s renewed preoccupation with social action as merely a difference in emphasis. And that is undoubtedly true in some cases. Because of the varying gifts in the body of Christ, some churches and missionaries will focus on mercy more than others: that’s to be expected. However, the social justice debate is not merely a squabble over whether the church should add one lump or two of mercy to its ecclesiastical tea. Ultimately, it is about making social action and gospel proclamation co-equal partners in the church’s mission. We believe that is not merely a difference in emphasis: it’s a different ecclesiology altogether.

Results and Solutions

What has been the effect of all this in Africa? It’s an oversimplification, but the result is the wrong missionaries doing the wrong things. The African church needs help. Good at celebration and community, the African church (with a few notable exceptions) needs all the help it can get when it comes to church planting, spiritual depth, and theological training. However, the West is currently sending primarily two kinds of missionaries to Africa: first, missionaries who are unprepared to truly help the African church—wonderful, compassionate, college-age girls who have come to do orphan care;and second, missionaries who are underprepared to help the African church—enthusiastic men or couples who are eager to lead mercy projects, but whose lack of theological training and ministry experience means that they can offer little help of real significance to the African church. The work they do is emotionally rewarding for the missionaries and for the churches that send them. However, fewer and fewer of the kinds of missionaries who will make a long-term difference in Africa—Bible translators, church planters, and leadership trainers—are being sent.

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND (pt. 7)

This is part 7 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions"
by two veteran missionaries from Africa.
Specific Biblical Concerns (to the social action trend in evangelicalism)-

7. A Misunderstanding of Jesus’ Ministry and Miracles:

Those who hope to make social action and gospel proclamation two wings of the same bird claim that they are imitating the earthly ministry of Jesus. Jesus, they contend, not only preached repentance, He also focused on relieving the physical needs and the oppression of the economically downtrodden in Palestine. He healed their sicknesses, filled their stomachs, and dropped a coin in the outstretched hands of the poor.

While the Scripture implies that Jesus did express mercy to the poor on a personal level (Matt 26:9; John 13:29), it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus started no orphanages, established no poverty relief funds, no low-cost housing schemes, no well-digging programs, and set no prisoners free (not even John the Baptist). Neither did Jesus instruct or train His disciples to do so. That doesn’t mean that it’s intrinsically wrong for Christians to be involved in such work. But it certainly makes suspect the argument that, based on Jesus’ example, the church should make social action central to her mission. Personal expressions of mercy and church-organized social action programs are not the same thing: Jesus exemplified one, not the other. In fact, the purpose statements of Jesus’ earthly ministry always focused on proclamation and on His substitutionary death for sinners: “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for” (Mark 1:38). “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 4)

This part 4 of a series titled, "Regaining Our Focus: A Response to the Social Action Trend in Evangelical Missions" by two veteran missionaries from Africa.

Specific Critiques (to the social action trend in missions):

"Having surveyed our concerns, we want to highlight eight biblical problems with the social action model of the church and missions. It is unlikely that any single author or ministry embodies all these problems, but for simplicity’s sake we paint with a broad brush.

1. A Redefinition of the Gospel

Social justice advocates are fond of describing the gospel in terms of human flourishing.  The incarnation, they say, was about Christ bringing shalom or general well-being to the human race.  Many evangelicals (without turning away from substitutionary atonement) have adopted this notion enthusiastically: if the gospel is about human flourishing, then any Christian effort that increases that flourishing is gospel ministry. On that basis, building a hospital or an orphanage is just as much a fulfillment of the Great Commission as church planting.

D. A. Carson notes that this redefinition of the gospel is categorically wrong, since the gospel is “the good news of what God has done, not a description of what [Christians] ought to do in consequence. . . . One cannot too forcefully insist on the distinction between the gospel and its entailments.”   Furthermore, to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ as being about the general betterment of unbelieving society is to misrepresent the gospel. 

John MacArthur writes, "Is social reconstruction even an appropriate way for Christians to spend their energies? I recently mentioned to a friend that I was working on a book dealing with sin and our culture’s declining moral climate. He immediately said, “Be sure you urge Christians to get actively involved in reclaiming society. The main problem is that Christians haven’t acquired enough influence in politics, art, and the entertainment industry to turn things around for good.” That, I acknowledge, is a common view held by many Christians. But I’m afraid I don’t agree.. . . . God’s purpose in this world—and the church’s only legitimate commission—is the proclamation of the message of sin and salvation to individuals, whom God sovereignly redeems and calls out of the world.

2. An Overly Realized Eschatology

A RESPONSE TO THE SOCIAL ACTION TREND IN EVANGELICAL MISSIONS (pt. 3)

Concern 2 (to the social action trend in evangelical missions): Is the Underlying Theory Flawed?

While Jesus commanded believers to love their neighbors and to care for the poor, we don’t see that the New Testament church (either by dictate or example) fulfilled that command by organizing itself to carry out social action projects directed at the general betterment of Roman society. In other words, we believe that the theory of social action missions is suspect from the start. If anything, the apostles seemed to avoid social reform projects directed at the world in favor of preaching the gospel to the world.

We ardently believe that Christians can and should be involved in meaningful demonstrations of compassion—everything from giving a sandwich to a homeless person to working at an orphanage. In this article we are dealing with a different issue: the idea that social reform and the gospel are equal partners in Christian mission.  We will develop our reasons for rejecting this dual-track view of the church’s mission in a moment.

Concern 3:  Is the Mission of the Church Being Unintentionally Neglected?

All true evangelicals are committed to keeping the gospel, expository preaching, and the church the main things; however, this becomes difficult to do in the social action model of the church and missions. Social action projects are like black holes— they have a habit of sucking in all the ecclesiastical resources within reach of their gravitational pull. While the theory states that the gospel, preaching, and the church are the main things, in regard to budgets, planning, staff, and effort, what’s actually first is all too clear.

Even the proponents of social action acknowledge this problem. For example, Keller admits, “Churches that . . . try to take on all the levels of doing justice often find that the work of community renewal and social justice overwhelms the work of preaching, teaching and nurturing the congregation."

In response to Keller’s admission, Naylor writes, "Keller speaks as if there is a certain point at which this becomes problematic, but he does not demonstrate how this effect is not already in operation the moment the church becomes involved in this kind of work at all."

The Shack; A Microcosm of Evangelicalisms' Immaturity: A Brief Analysis of Where This Problem Stems From.

American evangelicals today often flock to churches that offer "relevant, creative, and practical" Bible teaching. On the surface this sounds like a good thing, right? Many of these same "church growth" gurus promote "seeker-friendly" series such as "Finding God in the movies" and other topical messages in hopes of attracting large crowds and holding the interest of the audiences entertainment orientated minds. When books of the Bible are actually "exposited" in worship services it is generally done in a very surfacy manner. I often refer to this as "shallow, evangelical principlizing."  What's wrong with any of this Mr. blogger dude?  To which I say this...if the primary goal of a local church is to fill auditoriums and establish multi-site campuses under the banner of ministry success then this consumer-driven, market-savvy approach makes complete sense.  However, if the goal of Christian ministry is to make "mature disciples" of all the nations, as Jesus' states in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), then the American church is in serious crisis.

One of the problems with "church growth" methodology is that it often promotes a kind of topical (surfacey) preaching, which by definition, lacks theological depth and precision (see 2 Timothy 4:1-5). It is "evangelical lite" (see Heb. 5:12-14; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). Over time congregations that are regularly fed milk fail to truly grow up; which is no small problem (see Colossians 1:28-29). Without a solid understanding of the orthodox faith (i.e. doctrine and theology) the flock of God will not learn how to discern.  Paul put it this way in Ephesians 4:11-16; And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Given enough time this unbiblical approach to preaching and ministry always come back to haunt the Christian church.