by
Jaymes P. Morgan
The following is an address that was delivered in 1967 to one of the
last meetings of the former Presbytery of Los Angeles (now divided into
seven presbyteries). The presbytery responded to the presentation with a
long, standing ovation. In many ways, the speech marked a new beginning
in the often troubled relationship between Fuller and the Presbyterians
of Southern California.
It’s author and presenter, Jaymes P. Morgan, was hired by Fuller 1966
following the untimely death of Edward John Carnell. He brought a
passionate and forceful voice to the seminary relative to justice
issues. His, of course, was not the first such voice at Fuller. Paul K.
Jewett, one of Jim’s own teachers, had long been committed to racial and
feminist issues. But, Jim was younger, better able to relate personally
to the majority of the seminarians, and thus was able to capture the
imagination of the seminary community in a way few of the older
professors could.
Although he died of cancer a little more than six years after joining
the Fuller faculty, Jim Morgan taught hundreds of seminarians about
their social responsibility as evangelicals. Fuller’s annual lecture
series in social ethics still bears his name.
Jim Morgan was my friend and mentor. So, it is with personal pleasure
that I share his remarkable speech. As you read it, however, please
remember that it was written in 1966.
It is also my pleasure to point you to the ministry of another friend,
Roger Minassian, who was himself influenced by Jim’s brief tenure at
Fuller, and whose award-winning program HOPE NOW FOR YOUTH [1]
exemplifies evangelical social action at its very best.
Sylvia
*WHY EVANGELICAL SOCIAL ACTION?*
*by*
*Jaymes P. Morgan*
*IT IS PATENTLY FUTILE TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF* _where_ and _how_
evangelical Christians should participate in social action as long as
confusion lingers over the prior question of _whether_ they should involve
themselves in social and political matters at all, and particularly, whether
they should engage in overt social action.
I submit that evangelicals must pursue the goals of social righteousness by
means of Christian social action. Apart from such action, the imperatives of
Christian ethics remain unsatisfied.
Evangelicals must commit themselves to Christian social action, first of
all, because they are already and inevitably although for the most part
unconsciously, and often in un-Christian ways socially involved. Since
involvement is inevitable, evangelical involvement must become Christian in
character.
If we take as a broad definition of social action _any activity purposing to
influence man’s condition and behavior through structuring his environment_,
the evangelical’s factual participation in social action is apparent.
Something as innocuous as membership in the PTA fits the definition. And
voting is quite clearly another form of social action being an attempt to
influence man’s condition and behavior by structuring his environment. Most
of us would concede the Christian’s right to work on behalf of candidates
for political office. This is social action. Other illustrations readily
come to mind. Consider, for example, the sermons, articles, and
ecclesiastical resolutions that have been used as weapons in the holy war
some Christians wage against attempts to eliminate capital punishment.
Consider too the plethora of articles, speeches and advertisements of
evangelical churchmen in defense of _laissez-faire_ capitalism. Evangelicals
have articulated their views about the House Un-American Activities
Committee and the admission of Red China to the United Nations. One must
insist that these, too, are instances of social action — activities
intended to influence man’s condition and behavior through structuring his
environment.
Of even greater significance, however, than these illustrations of social
action is the involvement of many evangelicals in the politics of silence.
By this means, the forces of evil have marshaled tens of thousands of good
men in support of demonic causes. The politics of silence the art of doing
and saying nothing is in actuality forceful social action in behalf of the
status quo. It is as assuredly a form of social action as any of the more
visible varieties like sit-ins, freedom marches, and protest demonstrations.
All evangelicals admit the truth of this in some areas of life. Most of us
get the point of the story of the Good Samaritan, and rightfully deplore the
behavior of the priest and Levite who bypass the problem by walking on the
other side of the street. We shake our heads at contemporary parallels,
where dozens of people witness gross crimes and say nothing and do nothing.
We mount the podium of our moral dignity and shout for all the world to hear
that the guilt of World War II and the race-murder of six million people lie
not only at the door of the war criminals, but at the door of the majority
of German people. Why? Because they said nothing and did nothing. Which is
precisely the point.
Since most of us recognize the damning implications of the politics of
silence in some areas, perhaps all that is needed at this point is a
widening of horizons. For me, the politics of silence is the demonic aspect
of the Southern tragedy. It is not so much that men are being acquitted of
murder, nor that churches and homes are being bombed by night-riders. What
appalls me more is the silence, the deadly quiet of drawn blinds and closed
shutters, the silence of ten thousand churches in a thousand communities.
This is the truly demonic dimension of white, churchly suburbia across the
nation. I am horrified, although not surprised, by the obscene mob hurling
rocks at nuns; for I believe in original sin. What 1 cannot understand is
the silence of the churches of Christ.
The simple fact is that in the political world, there is no nonpolitical
stance. Even the refusal to take a stand is a political stance, for it is a
_de facto_ endorsement of things as they are. Christians are involved in
social action by virtue of their citizenship in a democracy. Churches are
involved in social action because they are centers of social prestige and
economic power. _There is no neutral ground._ My plea is that this
involvement be made conscious and Christian. Since we are involved, let us
act conscientiously and with Christian compassion
*OUR INESCAPABLE INVOLVEMENT IN SOCIAL ACTION* leads directly to a second
point, which is really first and fundamental. Evangelicals must involve
themselves in Christian social action because the Scriptures place that
responsibility upon us. The Word of God calls us to Christian social action
because it calls us to the pursuit of social righteousness.
Our historical inheritance of individualism and privatism sometimes blinds
us to the biblical imperative. We ought to regain the Scriptural
perspective, to recall that we stand under a cultural mandate.
Evangelicals are very much aware of the missionary mandate. They underscore
the Great Commission in their Bibles and in their hearts, and they sally
forth to claim men’s lives for Jesus Christ. What they often overlook is the
other biblical mandate, the cultural mandate with which God confronts
mankind. According to Genesis 1:28, God the Creator at the dawn of human
history instructs man to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it.
Not only was this primordial mandate never repealed, it was reaffirmed after
the fall of man into sin. In the early verses of Genesis 9, God the Redeemer
addresses his servant Noah in almost identical words, giving to man dominion
over creation. Man is God’s vicegerent over the kingdom of this earth; he
is, under God, lord of creation. I conclude from this that man is called to
the task of using his power and talents to the limit, to create and sustain
the best possible society, even though his power and talents are fallen,
capable of demonic distortion, and desperately in need of the healing which
the Gospel alone can bring. Surely this is part of the meaning of the story
of Cain and Abel. The curse on Cain represents the divine indication that a
society where human life is regarded as sacred is infinitely to be preferred
to a society where life is cheap.
If there were any doubt in our minds concerning our responsibility before
God to seek the best possible society, the prophetic message of the Old
Testament ought to clear the air. Hear and reflect on the word of Amos, as
he describes the day of God’s awful wrath:
“On that day,” says the Lord GOD, “I will make the sun go down at noon,
and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into
mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth
upon all loins, and baldness on every head; I will make it like the
mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.”
For what enormous evil in the life of Israel is this punishment threatened?
For idolatry and faithlessness alone? Not by any means! Hear the divine
indictment:
“Because they, sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair
of shoes they … trample the head of the poor into the dust of the
earth, and turn aside the way of the afflicted.”
Amos pictures for us a society where the social life was cut in two, where a
property-owning and self-sufficient upper class lived at the expense of the
common people, where men sat as judges in their own cases, where slaves,
foreigners, widows, and orphans had no one to plead their cause, where
bribery and dishonesty were the standing order, For this, God’s wrath will
full in its apocalyptic fury.
The prophet Micah promises that God Almighty will “make Samaria a heap in
the open country,” and that “Zion shall be plowed as a field.” Not for the
sin of idolatry alone, but because “they covet fields, and seize them; and
houses, and take them away; they oppress a man and his house, a man and his
inheritance.” Micah sees in Israel a scene of economic cannibalism, where
rulers are described as those “who hate the good and love the evil, who tear
the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; who eat
the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their
bones in pieces.”
According to Isaiah, God the Lord will make his vineyard Israel a waste,
because “he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness,
but behold, a cry!” because the nation’s economic entrepreneurs “join house
to house” and “add field to field.”
What can the nation do to avert the vengeance of God? “Cease to do evil,
learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless,
plead for the widow.” Or again: “He has showed you, O man, what is good; and
what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?” Or again: “Let justice roll down like
waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.”
The Scriptures entrust those who control _the life of society with a
responsibility for creating and preserving the best society that it is
within fallen man’s power to create and sustain. And the price of living in
a nation where government is “by the people,” where the control of national
life is invested in the hands of the common man, is that there is no place
to hide from the eyes of God on that day when he shall look for those who
are responsible.
*****
At this point, an extended note is in order. This affirmation of our
continuing responsibility to labor for the betterment of society does
not question the fact that regeneration is the primary solution to the
ills that beset mankind. Certainly man’s power to do the will of God
remains radically truncated apart from the converting work of the Holy
Spirit. Surely the best way to engage men in the pursuit of social
righteousness is to win their allegiance to Christ and instruct them in
the whole counsel of God. Obviously, the converted man ought to have a
capacity for loving his neighbor that transcends that of his unbelieving
counterpart. Nor is our affirmation meant to question the fact that the
triumph of righteousness in the world awaits the revelation of Christ in
power. The apocalyptic portraits in Scripture ought to rid us of any
facile optimism. Man is not going to “bring in the Kingdom” through any
program of social action nor by any other means. The New Testament seems
to predict a gradual polarization in the moral history of the world,
climaxing in an ultimate conflict between God and the forces of evil
represented in the picture of Antichrist.
But these truths the fact that regeneration is the primary solution to
man’s ills, and the facts of biblical eschatology do not limit the
evangelical to a choice between regeneration, Second Coming, or nothing!
Doubtless the best solution to the problem of slavery in America would
have been widespread conversion of slaveholders and a thorough exercise
of Christian responsibility on their part. But since this was not
forthcoming, many evangelicals worked for abolition, and supported the
Underground Railroad. No doubt the horror of Nazi Germany could have
been stemmed by a revival in the churches and a widespread reception of
the Gospel. Since this did not happen, many evangelicals dedicated their
energies to resisting Hitler’s programs and some of them paid for their
social action with their lives.
Furthermore, it would appear ill-advised to argue from the
eschatological pictures of the growth of evil in history to a course of
social behavior. I believe the Scriptures enjoin us to work for the
improvement of society without regard to the question of success or
failure. I submit that there is a tension in the area of Christian
social ethics paralleling the paradox of Christian personal ethics. In
the area of personal ethics, we are asked to combat sin in all its
disguises, knowing that the man who claims to be without sin is
self-deceived. In the area of social ethics, we are asked to labor for
society’s improvement, knowing that society can be rescued from its
ultimate deterioration only by an irruption of the power of God into
history.
*****
*A THIRD REASON FOR EVANGELICALS TO ENGAGE IN* social action is in order to
bring a sorely needed perspective, critique, understanding and discipline to
the contemporary pursuit of social righteousness.
Evangelicals can contribute a perspective concerning the rationale of social
action. When the goal of social action is assumed to be the utopianization
of society, then it is clearly vulnerable to the criticism of the
Scriptures. This is not the reason Christians must commit themselves to
social action; evangelicals are called to represent the biblical reason for
social involvement. Evangelicals are needed to demonstrate that Christian
social action at its best is not some kind of cause into which men are to be
enlisted, but a matter of conscience, a matter of love and obedience to the
God who gave himself to us and for us in Jesus Christ, a matter of meeting
the demands other people put upon our Christian consciences by their very
presence among us. If the evangelical absents himself from conscious social
action, then the pursuit of social righteousness will in all likelihood
assume a non-evangelical character. Then, of course, we are free to point
with righteous indignation at the un-Christian perspective of the movement.
(Which is what sociologists call a self-fulfilling prophecy!)
Evangelicals can also contribute to a critique of the means used in social
action. Not all of the methods employed by our contemporaries in the pursuit
of social justice are legitimate from a Christian point of view. This must
not be stated as a negative end in itself, but for the purpose of developing
methods more suited to the ends desired.
Evangelicals must engage in social action because as Christians they are
better prepared for the task than are other men. The evangelical’s
understanding of the reality of sin makes him aware of the potential for
evil in every man. He is forearmed against its expressions, both in himself
and in other people, and he is protected from the trap of idealizing the
dispossessed and downtrodden. His experience of justification by faith alone
prevents him from finding his security in his social involvement, making him
wary of a justification by works of social righteousness. His understanding
of Christian discipleship protects him from confusing material benefits with
spiritual well-being. His experience of the love of God in Christ breeds an
indiscriminate love for his fellow men.
Finally, the evangelical can bring staying power to the pursuit of social
righteousness. As the utopia for which so many have dreamed does not appear,
as the excitement of social action wanes, as those for whom one has labored
turn upon him in anger and contempt, the evangelical will have an
opportunity to demonstrate what he is made of, or better, by whom he has
been wrought. It is the man who is justified by faith and empowered by the
Spirit of God who works on into the night when the day holds no promise.
In this context of staying power and persistence, I believe evangelicals can
bring solid, disciplined thinking to our burning issues and problems
thinking that is informed by biblical perspectives and impatient with easy
answers. Can we any longer remain satisfied with casual, off-the-cuff
answers to the question of racial intermarriage? Can we any longer remain
satisfied with self-interested ecclesiastical endorsement of private
property which is insensitive to social claims? Can we any longer remain
satisfied with blanket condemnations of civil disobedience as the only
reaction to blanket endorsements of it, when both of these fly in the face
of the biblical witness? Can we remain satisfied with flippant distinctions
between a clergyman’s activity as a private citizen and his pulpit ministry,
or between social action by individual Christians and social action by
churches as institutions, as if the pulpit by its very nature were not
involved, as if churches by their very nature were not involved already? The
times demand serious, informed wrestling with these very difficult issues. I
believe evangelicals have the capacity for the task.
Evangelicals must engage in Christian social action because social
involvement is unavoidable, because the Scriptures call for social
righteousness, and because they have a great contribution to make. If the
evangelical world will renounce once and for all the illusion that there is
a place of privileged neutrality, it will hear the biblical imperatives and
recognize the grand opportunities that challenge it.
[1] http://www.hopenow.org/