The Gospel as the Foundation for Civil Society

This past week I preached a message for Right to Life Sunday, and I referenced this in a post last week called A Short HIstory of the Pro-Life Movement and Abortion.  I mentioned that I had read George Grant's book Third Time Around in preparation for this. In the book George shows that abortion and other elements of the culture of death have always been around and that Christians have always found themselves battling against these things.

One of the things I didn't mention in that post, that George points out, is that where the gospel has flourished the culture of death has been defeated and many other salutory effects have ensued.

Something clicked with me in reading this - a thing I had long thought, but hadn't articulated.  The thing that clicked for me is that the existence of a free and civil society is contingent on the spread of the gospel, not the other way around.  This is in no way a brilliant insight, and it shouldn't be startling to anyone, yet I think this is a simple truth that is often forgotten.

To illustrate this I would like to take issue with a few statements from the Blogfather himself, Hugh Hewitt.  I realize there will be great rejoicing in the land of liberalism and others to see a conservative taking issue with Hugh.  And I am sorry to disappoint, but even though I am taking issue with Hugh in a particular matter I am on the same side and am in far more agreement than disagreement with him.

But Hugh has said a few things that are a good springboard for my own thoughts in this matter.  In the book "In But Not Of," Hugh encourages Christians  to be ambitious for Christ and to seek to enter spheres of public service for Christ such as politics, arts and the media, among others.  So good so far, this is a clarion call that needs to be heard.  And the rest of the book is chock full of practical advice I wish someone had told me when I was in college.  It's great stuff.

Hugh has a chapter called "Either a Pastor or a Player Be, but You Can't Be Both."  Again, there is some good stuff here.  He warns against the follies of pastors who fancy themselves experts on public policy and international politics.  Again, there is much wisdom here.  He later tells those who would be "players" in the world they need to join a church. And he gives many good and wise reasons why you should join a church.

But in all of this, it seems to me that Hugh sees pastors and the church in a support role when it comes to changing the world.  Those who change the world are those who shape public policy, fashion our entertainments, report the news, educate the masses and so on and so on.  The church and pastors have an important role to play in all of this, but it is a support role.

This is the view of many culture warriors - that they are on the front lines of service and those who are devoted to more "religious" tasks are in a support role.

One of the best examples of this is in the preface:

The effective and mass communication of the gospel depends upon the freedom to proclaim it.  Though it is possible to proclaim the gospel in the face of persecution, the unfettered freedom to proclaim it is much, much to be preferred.  There are billions of souls hwo are up for eternal grabs, so the unfettered ability to reach them with the good news is a great and wonderful thing, hard to create and difficult to defend.

The creation and defense of religious liberty requires men and women with power and influence in the world.  Such leaders helped found the colonies in America, fight for independence, and secure religious liberty via the First Amendment.  Christians today are indebted to the founding generation of this country who have made the defense of religious liberty a priority for the more than two hundred years that have followed the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

There is so much that is good and right in those words that I support wholeheartedly.  But the basic premise is wrong (IMHO).  Rather than the effective communication of the gospel being dependent on the freedom to communicate it, i suggest that freedom (and all the other civic blessings we and other societies have ennjoyed) is dependent on the mass communication of the gospel.

Freedom depends on the spread of the gospel not the other way around.  Yes, Christians today are indebted to our founding fathers who secured our religious liberties, but more importanly our founding fathers and the religious liberties they gave us were dependent on the spread of the gospel in prior generations.

In a nutshell, this is what George Grant illustrated in his book Third Time Around.  Where the gospel spread and Christian orthodoxy gained a foothold, and where Christians focused on building and strengthening churches, freedom came, oprression ceased, and lives were saved. 

Our generation has seen remarkable evidences of this.  Communism could not stop the spread of the gospel, but the gospel could stop the spread of communism.  I wonder if any nation in history has seen the mass spread of the gospel the way it has been spread in China under communist rule. 

So I agree wholeheartedly with Hugh's premise and I preach a message very similar to his often.  I encourage Christians not to get into this pietistic withdrawal syndrome, encourage them to use their gifts to advance the kingdom in their lines of work.  I preach a gospel that is an all encompassing public gospel that is not segregated off to the private sphere.

This is why I say I am in far more agreement than disagreement with Hugh and the "players" and the "culture warriors."  But I also want to be clear that it is not the "players" and the "culture warriors" who are on the front lines paving the way for the advancement of the gospel and the building of the church.  It is those whose lives are devoted to proclaiming the gospel and building the church who are on the front lines and are paving the way for them.

And I'll close by saying this is not an either/or situation.  Many of the culture warriors are being very faithful to take the gospel with them into the public sphere and many who are devoted primarily to the upbuilding of the church are being faithful to proclaim an expansive gospel which speaks not only to the private religious sphere, but also to the public sphere.

Related Tags: Religion, Politics & Society, Church, Christian, Christianity, Gospel, Pastor, Hugh Hewitt, Gospel, Evangelism, Freedom

Comments

[Barry]

David - I completely agree with your basic premise. If I had to choose between your position and Hugh's I would choose yours.

I wonder, though, if a choice is necessary? Is there not some sense in which Hugh's premise is equally true? Scriptural support for Hugh's position might be found in 1 Tim. 2.1-7, where Paul seems to imply that the unhindered freedom to live out our faith affords opportunity to spread the gospel.

Perhaps you could say that there is a circular effect, so that whether you start with freedom or whether you start with the gospel, the other cause is inevitably advanced. What do you think?

[David Wayne]

Barry - I agree completely. I tried to hint at that toward the end of the post in saying that this is not an either/or thing. I agree that Hugh and I are both right here (of course I am ever so slightly more right than he is ;-)).

And I agree with your take on I Tim 2:1-7 and I think that is where Hugh is coming from.

On the other hand, just looking at things historically I still think there is something to the notion that the progress of the gospel doesn't depend on the political freedom to proclaim it. Again, Communist Europe and China come to mind. Ancient Rome comes to mind. In those places where Christianity has been most persecuted the gospel has thrived and in places where Christianity has been given the greatest freedom it has often become corrupted.

So I don't know - maybe there is more here than we are all seeing.

[Soup]

I'm actually just finishing "In But Not Of" after reading a review and glowing recommendation in Joe Carter's archives.

While reading Hugh's book I found myself taking issue with many of his assertions, not the least of which being his intellectually dishonest portrayal of the Apostle Paul pimping his credentials (Hewitt conveniently avoids all mention of Paul's dismissal of his credentials as dung compared to obtaining Christ in the very next verse).

I don't mean to be overly harsh, and the book is certainly a worthwhile read. Hewitt usually manages to swerve back to scriptural advice after each of his self-congratulatory journeys, some of which seem a bit smarmy IMHO.

At any rate I find myself in general disagreement today with both Hugh's worldview as articulated in "In But Not Of", as well as that articulated in the entry above.

ALL CHRISTIANS are called to full-time ministry. The only difference is that some are staff who are paid by the church, and others are staff paid by the world. The bickering and division about which more important / effective / desirable is likely to bring the same rebuke the Lord levied against the apostles who jockeyed for position in the Kingdom. Sons of Thunder indeed...

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

1 Corinthians 3:8
The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.

[The Dane]

Hey Jolly, nice post. There's one thing I'd like to take issue with here: "the existence of a free and civil society is contingent on the spread of the gospel."

I think it's a nice idea but I don't think that it really bears much realation to truth or the evidence at hand. I think a free and civil society either exists or doesn't exist independent from the spread of the gospel.

I think to say otherwise is to ignore history. Among the more gospel-infiltrated cultures were places like 16th Century Britain, the early American Colonies, 15th Century Geneva, Europe from the 4th Century onward, etc. And the word "free" is one of the last words I'd use to describe such societies. The last thing American Evangelicals want is a free country. And from a wholly Christian perspective, I don't even know how compatible freedom is with a government informed by the righteousness of Yahweh.

Really, I like the idea that as Christians we have a pacifying effect on the world around us, but I'm not certain how accurate the idea is - either biblically or experientially.

[Glenn]

David,
Interesting argument. Some of this depends on how you define your terms (what do you mean by "free" and "civil society", what do you envision when you say "gospel"). I am thinking of Japan, which is highly resistant to the gospel if the 1% of the population that claims Christian faith is to be taken into account. Yet, from my time there and things I've read, the Japanese have a free and civil society. You might argue that democracy was imposed on them by Americans, who have had significant exposure to the Gospel, and that would be true. But I don't think that's how you meant it when you said a free society depends upon the gospel. Israel might be another counter-example. While living amidst terrorism does restrict certain freedoms, Israel is basically a democracy like the US and yet most Jewish people are rather opposed to the gospel. Curious to hear your response.

[David Wayne]

Glenn - well, looks like you've got me here. I was writing this mainly from the perspective of Hugh's comment and also had current American "culture wars" in mind and some of the historical examples that George Grant mentioned in his book "Third Time Around."

Maybe a better way of fashioning my argument would have been to narrow it down to a more gospel specific issue. In other words when discussing the relationship between the gospel and freedom is freedom more likely to produce conditions favorable to the spread of the gospel or is the gospel more likely to produce conditions favorable to the spread of freedom. And then I suppose I should pull back and acknowledge your point - that there are free nations (however you may want to define the term "free") that have little or no gospel witness.

However, when it comes to the specific relationship between the gospel and freedom (and whatever other things might define a civil society) I think Hugh's contention is wrong to say that the spread of the gospel depends on the freedom to proclaim it.

Clear as mud?

[Matt Powell]

Glenn,
I think the answer in the case of both Israel and Japan is just what you suggest- Their civil societies as they currently exist are massively influenced by the American system, which arises out of Christianity. Japan, pre-American influence, was not at all free. As time goes on, if that Christian influence does not continue, neither will the freedom they currently enjoy. Which is just as true for us as it is for them.

[pgepps]

I can speak to Japan, a little bit. My perception, from living here a bit under three years now (which makes me a rank beginner), is that what Americans identify as "free and civil society" would require considerable modification. Americans who tried to live in the kind of "freedom" they are accustomed to would not take long to bump--and *HARD*--into the edges of Japanese society.

Japanese social order is so relentlessly conformist that a top-down organization is very easy to set up. Japanese "democracy" remains a thing that was set up by the Emperor after the militarist thing didn't work out--and the reason we left the Emperor in place was precisely that the acceptance of "democracy" in Japan hinged upon its being implemented by orders from the top.

It is a very politely ordered society, but it is not "free" in the manner we have in mind. And while it is certainly true that no major human rights are threatened by the government, a thousand little pinches a day keep people in line--for now. There is an interesting thing afoot, as the top-down imposition of an ideology of "freedom" (to do what? why?) and "choice" (among what options?) is gaining a weird sort of traction among a young generation faced with demographic and commercial incentives to change or fall behind. So, the next 20yrs should be interesting.

In the meantime, God will build His church. We who believe, here, will do what we can. It is on this count, and this count alone, that I'm sorry to be leaving in August--and will find a way back, if and when I can.

Oh, and TAG!

Cheers,
PGE

[Darnell young]

I need your help.Truth is in hisword.amazinggraceradiotalkshow.com thank you
(GODBLESS)