"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 2): Evangelical Declarations in the 1970s

 In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical. My concern is not that evangelicalism has become too conservative or too liberal (depending what branch of evangelicalism you are in). My concern is that it has increasingly abandoned a prophetic critique of attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus in favor of partisan allegiance.

Evan as I recounted my memories of growing up evangelical in my previous post, I realized that memories can be selective. Nostalgia has a way of polishing the past, and personal experience is never the whole story. So before I make my case, I want to start with something more objective than my recollections.

For several decades, evangelical leaders, organizations, denominations, and ministries regularly published statements, declarations, and manifestos explaining what they believed evangelical Christians should value and how they should engage the world. These documents were not perfect, and they did not always reflect how evangelicals actually behaved. Nevertheless, they provide a record of what the movement publicly claimed to stand for.

What follows in the next few posts is a sampling of those statements from the 1970s through the early 2000s. As you read them, I would encourage you to pay attention not only to what they affirm, but also to the tone, priorities, and moral instincts they reveal.

Once again, my argument is not that evangelicals always lived up to these ideals. Clearly, we did not. My argument is that many of the virtues these statements called us to pursue are now often ignored, minimized, or even treated with suspicion within the movement itself.

Before we discuss what evangelicalism has become, it is worth remembering what evangelicalism has said, over and over again, it aspires to be.

* * * * *

We begin the 1970’s, the first decade of my life that formed the moral and spiritual ecosystem in which I was raised. 

In 1973  - I was four years old -  around 50 evangelical leaders, most notably Ron Sider and John Perkins, published the “Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern”. [1] It reads as follows in its entirety (the highlights are mine).

A DECLARATION OF EVANGELICAL SOCIAL CONCERN 

As evangelical Christians committed to the Lord Jesus Christ and the full authority of the Word of God, we affirm that God lays total claim upon the lives of his people. We cannot, therefore, separate our lives in Christ from the situation in which God has placed us in the United States and the world.

We confess that we have not acknowledged the complete claims of God on our lives. We acknowledge that God requires love. But we have not demonstrated the love of God to those suffering social abuses.

We acknowledge that God requires justice. But we have not proclaimed or demonstrated his justice to an unjust American society. Although the Lord calls us to defend the social and economic rights of the poor and the oppressed, we have mostly remained silent. We deplore the historic involvement of the church in America with racism and the conspicuous responsibility of the evangelical community for perpetuating the personal attitudes and institutional structures that have divided the body of Christ along color lines. Further, we have failed to condemn the exploitation of racism at home and abroad by our economic system.

We affirm that God abounds in mercy and that he forgives all who repent and turn from their sins. So we call our fellow evangelical Christians to demonstrate repentance in a Christian discipleship that confronts the social and political injustice of our nation.

We must attack the materialism of our culture and the maldistribution of the nation's wealth and services. We recognize that as a nation we play a crucial role in the imbalance and injustice of international trade and development. Before God and a billion hungry neighbors, we must rethink our values regarding our present standard of living and promote more just acquisition and distribution of the world's resources.

We acknowledge our Christian responsibilities of citizenship. Therefore, we must challenge our misplaced trust of the nation in economic and military might – a proud trust that promotes a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad. We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.

We acknowledge that we have encouraged men to prideful domination and women to irresponsible passivity. So we call both men and women to mutual submission and active discipleship.

We proclaim no new gospel, but the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ who, through the power of the Holy Spirit, frees people from sin so that they might praise God through works of righteousness.

By this declaration, we endorse no political ideology or party, but call our nation's leaders and people to that righteousness which exalts a nation. We make this declaration in the biblical hope that Christ is coming to consummate the Kingdom and we accept his claim on our total discipleship till He comes.

(Adopted 25 November 1973, Chicago, Illinios)

What stands out to me:

• defending the social and economic rights of the poor and the oppressed
•   calling out racism in individuals and institutional structures, including in economic systems
• decrying materialism of our culture and the unjust distribution of the nation's wealth and services, including a responsibility for economic justice on an international level
• challenging a misplaced trust in economic and military might, a “national pathology” that glories in war-making and violence
• the importance of not giving a nation or its institutions near-religious loyalty.
• calling men and women to engage in mutual submission and respect, free of domination or passivity.

It does not mention human sexuality or abortion (even though it was passed in the same year that Roe v. Wade became law). I am not stating that to make an argument; I’m just noting where the focus was and wasn’t at that time. There were a LOT of other moral issues that evangelicals considered really important, as you will see in upcoming declarations. [2]

______________________________________

One year later, in 1974, 2,300 evangelicals from 150 nations crafted the Lausanne Covenant, with a focus on  Christian mission that blends evangelism with social responsibility. The delegates split over the extent to which missionaries should address social justice and collective sins. Anglo-American representatives expressed skepticism about prioritization; South Americans insisted a gospel that focused only on individual repentance was not the whole gospel. I encourage you to read the whole thing; [3] meanwhile, I offer two selections from what they eventually released that are pertinent to the point of this series. 

CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women from every kind of oppression. Because men and women are made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, colour, culture, class, sex or age, has an intrinsic dignity because of which he or she should be respected and served, not exploited…. 

Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and Man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist… Faith without works is dead.

EVANGELISM AND CULTURE

The development of strategies for world evangelization calls for imaginative pioneering methods. Under God, the result will be the rise of churches deeply rooted in Christ and closely related to their culture. Culture must always be tested and judged by Scripture. Because men and women are God’s creatures, some of their culture is rich in beauty and goodness. Because they are fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and some of it is demonic. The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another, but evaluates all cultures according to its own criteria of truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture...

What stands out to me:

• Every single person, without exception, has dignity and should be treated with dignity. 
• All alienation, oppression and discrimination should be denounced as evil and unjust.
• We don’t presuppose the superiority or inferiority of cultures, but evaluate all of them – including ours - in the light of truth and righteousness.

UP NEXT: EVANGELICAL DECLARATIONS IN THE 1980s

_________________________________________________

[1] As I share Declarations and Statements, I am trying to find evangelically ecumenical ones that are broadly focused and include statements of orthopraxy.

[2] I suspect the stance on human sexuality was assumed in the midst of the Sexual Revolution. As for abortion, it would not become a hot political topic until the late 70s in evangelical circles. In fact, in 1971, 1974, and 1976, the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions affirming that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the mother's health. Just five years before that, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism and the Christian Medical Society, sponsored a symposium that notably refused to characterize abortion as sinful, instead citing factors like, "individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility" as valid justifications. Leaders like W. A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, initially expressed approval of Roe v. Wade. Criswell stated that he believed personhood and the soul began at birth, rather than at conception.

[3] I am generally going to skip the theology statements. They remain consistently representative of traditional conservative evangelical theology. Go to the links and read the entire statements to see what that looks like.