by Steve Cornell
In the early part of the twentieth century, the movement known today as fundamentalism began– partially due to the theological shift within mainline denominations. As these denominations moved away from essential doctrines of historic Christianity (e.g. the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Jesus Christ, salvation through Christ alone, and eternal judgment of all who reject Christ), many of their clergy were conscience bound to remove their associations — some at great loss in terms of retirement benefits. A good number of these men began to unite, finding common fellowship in adherence to the fundamental or essential beliefs of the Christian faith.
Meanwhile, in the denominational churches, the shift in belief led to a change in ministry emphasis. The physical and social needs of people took priority over spiritual needs. In the mainline churches, works of relief and community development took precedence over evangelism. Eternal needs (if they believed in them) took a backseat to the physical and temporal needs.
But among those who withdrew, this change became known as the “social gospel.” In this sense, fundamentalism began as a reactionary response to an abandonment of the spiritual priority of the gospel. Yet the primary goal of the original adherents of this concern was not as much revolutionary as restorative — a desire and effort to get back to the basics of historic Christianity.
Unfortunately, however, in every reaction there is the temptation to overreact or to add too much to the “concern” list. And, in this case, the reaction didn’t limit itself to erroneous beliefs; it included emphasis of ministry. Out of a desire to avoid all appearances of identification with the so-called social gospel, fundamentalists sometimes embraced an non-biblical view of social action — a view that itself departs from historic Christianity.
Throughout history, Christians took the lead in helping solve the social problems of their communities: medical care, trade unions, prison reform, abolition of slavery, establishment of orphanages, etc. … This wholesome approach to ministry grew out of the awareness that God made man a physical being with bodily needs, a social being with community needs, and a spiritual being in need of salvation. Therefore, a biblical approach to ministry will involve works of relief, development, and evangelism.
Yet according to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, the primary need of humanity is salvation — the need to be made right with God (Luke 12:4-5). Salvation, as one has said, “bind’s man’s will afresh to the Creator and Lord of life.” According to the biblical model, the gospel changes people, and changed people have a beneficial influence on society (as salt and light, Matthew 5:13-16).
In this order, it could be said that the regeneration of individuals within society proceeds and gives way to reformation of society. Any ministry that fails to respect this priority departs from historic Christianity. Yet, to ignore the physical and social needs of our neighbors is less than consistent with the love of God. The Apostle John wrote: “If anyone has material possessions, and sees his brother in need, but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” (I John 3:17-18).
In the later part of the twentieth century and onset of the twenty-first, those who adhere to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity have become much more aggressive in social concern. Works of relief and development are much more emphasized among adherents of the essential teachings of historic Christianity. All of this serves to warn against the dangers of a reactionary posture. Sometimes in our desire for purity, we narrow ourselves more than necessary. We overly separate and we renounce more than required. We need minds and hearts saturated in God’s Word and full of godly wisdom. May God mercifully grant this great need to His people!
Steve Cornell
[...] I picked up a copy of Stott’s book in 1993. When I read his balanced treatment of human dignity and depravity it helped me tremendously (He also outlined it in the early chapters of Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today). In my background and training, emphasis was placed on human depravity and anti-self image talk. Although thankful for much of my training, this was clearly an area lacking biblical balance. It narrowly focused on certain theological emphases without placing them in a larger biblical framework. No doubt this emphasis was forged in reaction to erroneous thinking in the other directions. Contemporary thinkers outside of and within the Church began to promote views of humanity that downplayed depravity and almost deified humans. The self-esteem movement also ignored large and important portions of biblical truth. This prompted reactions in the opposite direction. God used the teaching of Stott to help me learn the way of God more clearly. For more about this: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/history-fundamentalism-and-holistic-ministry/ [...]
[...] He also sets up what I would view as a bit of a straw man view of ministry by picturing people who view it as merely saving souls for the future while letting the world go to its corruption. I am sure there are some folks who are irresponsible in this way but using such extremes to make a point loses me. Similarly, he groans over “rampant belief in the rapture as a strong support for the attitude that says “who cares what the state of the planet is.” I know lots of people who believe in the rapture (and, I assume Wright also believes I Thessalonians 4:16-17 means something about believers being raptured) but I do not know any who hold to this extreme view of the earth. Certainly, as II Peter 3 teaches, responsible Biblical research indicates that “…the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” But it in view of this, the apostle wrote, “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.” The reactionary response Wright note is from my view an older brand of fundamentalism that has been changing directions in some encouraging ways over the past several decades (see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/history-fundamentalism-and-holistic-ministry/). [...]
Кто когда спать ложится? Я раньше часу двух ночи не ложусь.