American evangelical giant Carl Henry was also in favour of saying nuttin’.
In a recent article, Richard Mouw outlines five principles that Carl Henry used to drive the editorial policy of Christianity Today:
- The Bible is critically relevant to the whole of modern life and culture—the social-political arena included.
- The institutional church has no mandate, jurisdiction, or competence to endorse political legislation or military tactics or economic specifics in the name of Christ.
- The institutional church is divinely obliged to proclaim God’s entire revelation, including the standards or commandments by which men and nations are to be finally judged, and by which they ought now to live and maintain social stability.
- The political achievement of a better society is the task of all citizens, and individual Christians ought to be politically engaged to the limit of their competence and opportunity.
- The Bible limits the proper activity of both government and church for divinely stipulated objectives—the former, for the preservation of justice and order, and the latter, for the moral-spiritual task of evangelizing the earth.
Well, perhaps ‘saying nuttin’ is not the best way to put it! Henry was in favour of saying a great deal, but he was also in favour of limiting that speech to the proclaiming of “God’s entire revelation, including the standards or commandments by which men and nations are to be finally judged, and by which they ought now to live and maintain social stability”.
That’s why Christianity Today under his editorial hand didn’t take political sides, or urge churches to support particular economic policies or solutions. I have a feeling that Carl Henry would have avoided editorializing about global warming policies. And Fair Trade coffee was well.
So, if a goverment, or political party, endorse a position which does not preserve justice and order (defined in biblical terms) the church and individual Christians do point that out?
I have a feeling that Carl Henry would have avoided editorializing about global warming policies.
You may well be right, but I doubt he would have avoided editorializing about global warming.
I think this is a bit naieve, because generally to say nothing is not to remain neutral or sit on the fence, but is generally interpreted as aquiescience with current policy. Excuse the facetious example… but if you know the church building is on fire, as pastor you don’t stand there and wait for people to form their own opinions on what to do based on their own interpretation of scripture. Revelation in scripture may not speak directly as to which fire escapes your congregation should use, but you should still use your judgement and position of authority (possibly informed by scriptural principles about protecting the vulnerable etc) to get everyone out safely. Similarly if you are under the impression that our climate is changing dangerously, I think it is incumbent on you to use your position to do something about it.
Sounds like he would have said plenty!
Competence and its limits is the right issue to raise. Oliver O’Donovan used to complain that C of E bishops statements used to avoid saying anything Biblical or specifically Christian and majored on sociological claptrap – but the only thing bishops were in fact supposed to be competent to speak on was …. from the Biblical point of view.
Still, sometimes the circumstances demand we extend our competence.
Still, sometimes the circumstances demand we extend our competence.
Indeed. Or at least find and commend (or even commission) those who are competent if such competence will take too much time (not all Christians need to go and do a PhD in climatology!).
Don’t points 1 and 3 contradict point 2?
Martin, if you read Mouw’s article, you will see that the critical word in point 2 above is “endorse”. Henry (and now Mouw) thought the church could critique governmental policies, where the Scriptures led them to do so, but not to endorse specific governmental solutions.
Here’s a quote from Mouw that expresses it:
As Mouw makes clear, Henry was also willing for individual Christians to take stands on social justice issues. I think he would have them taking the stand on particular political solutions as citizens, rather than as representatives of the “Church”, albeit as citizens who did not hide their allegiance to Christ, and were informed by the Scriptures.
So I don’t think 1 & 3 contradict 2.
Thanks Sandy for the further clarification.
However, some questions/issues still remain in my mind:
1. If we limit ourselves to negative pronouncements, it seems to me that there remains some level where we are implicitly giving approval to other options. This issue becomes sharper when we move outside the relative comfort of a western democracy. In places like Zimbabwe (dictator with clearly defined opposition), this balance might be harder to strike for local Christians.
2. Surely part of useful engagement with society is to offer some constructive suggestions (within the limit of our competence, as Henry/Mouw rightly suggest). We might wear out the welcome mat if we just remain on the problem side of the hill. To this end the course of action where Christians with competence gather together to think about good solutions was a helpful suggestion made by Mouw.
3. And I “couldn’t help noticing” that the Henry/Mouw thesis is one aimed at what the institution can and can’t say. I’m baffled as to why Tony would use it to defend his right to say nothing as an individual. All the arguments would suggest that as individuals we should say something.
Re Martin’s point 3: But Tony isn’t an individual in this case—he’s the ‘Voice of the Sola Panel’. However, I agree with your other two points. To use a less controversial example, why shouldn’t Christians advocate responsible driving to reduce the road toll? Or should they merely carp that the current government response is wrong is some way?
The whole climate change issue—and I remember when it was called the Greenhouse Effect! (waves walking stick)—is very hard to get your head around. There’s the complex scientific research, the public policy decisions with their compromises, and then there’s the response of churches and Christians as individuals. For this reason, I’d prefer to see a range of articles discussing various aspects of the issue in a broad way. Tony’s opinion on the truth or otherwise of the AGW hypothesis is less interesting to me than the question of how to think Christianly on public policy in a democracy.
Sandy,
Mouw goes a little further than Henry in suggesting that individual christians can join together to tackle a social issue, not as “church” but as some sort of task force.
“In our own day, it may be especially important for the church to see to it that this ‘beyond the worshiping church’ communal discussion actually takes place. A good model is the creative outreach embodied in the very creative Center for Faith and Work, sponsored by New York’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church, where laypeople can meet to think more specifically about how to serve the Lord beyond the worshiping community’s borders.”
For example there may be some issues you would not wish to get too prescriptive about as the Dean of Wollongong. But you might support a group of christians who wish to tackle it. This after all is the Wilberforce model: he never spoke as the voice of the church per se.
Ellen: I hope to meet your need elsewhere.
Hi everyone, it’s an interesting topic. I don’t think I necessarily agree exactly with Henry or Mouw (or Tony, where I happily differ on the ESV and on Fair Trade!), but was keen to see what they were saying understood accurately.
And at a personal level, I have sometimes entered public debate on social issues, e.g. having had a letter published this week on the dangers of gambling in the local paper which included the positive suggestion that ClubsNSW should sponsor the gambling equivalent of Feb Fast or Dry July (re. alcohol), where they could encourage their punters to give up gambling for a month, and spend the money saved on reducing personal debt, or other forms of positive entertainment, or on charitable giving. I suggested calling it ‘Saving September’! When I do this I generally do not hide my role in our city.
I wonder if part of the danger which Tony is identifying is the dogmatism and stridency with which Christians and especially their institutions have sometimes advocated their solutions, which often ends up sounding like moralism and/or legalism.
Hi Tony,
I’ve entered this discussion a little late, but have been prompted to write from a comment on Byron’s blog pointing to your original article.
I’m afraid I’m still trying to get my head around the reason for your silence. If you were advocating care, caution, uncertainty, balance, etc. in speaking about environmental issues, I would understand. But silence?
I’ve often heard Christian leaders make suggestions about areas where the Bible is silent (e.g. tips for married people, tips for single people, models of church organisation), without the word “legalism” ever entering my thoughts. As a Christian leader, I’ve done the same kind of thing, and I hope I’ve avoided legalism in doing so. Is there really such an difference between speaking about these matters and speaking about matters of current social or political interest, such that I must be silent in the latter?
I would like to know what you think of Byron’s suggestion:
Do you think this is impossible?
What about another, even more cautious, possibility: What if a Christian leader outlined a bunch of different current policies on climate change (or, more generally, policies of various political parties), and then proceeded to both commend and critique particular elements of each policy on the basis of aspects of biblical teaching, without absolutely commending one over the other? Wouldn’t this be more helpful for enabling our congregation members to act as good citizens than simply silence?
Sandy suggested:
I think that is part of the danger you’re identifying. But I can’t help feeling that you’re trying to argue for something more comprehensive.
Hi Ellen,
The Sola Panel describes itself as a group of individuals with shared convictions, which kinda falls short of the type of group described by Henry/Mouw. Each post seems to fall towards the individual opinion end of the spectrum, rather than at the collective action end. Besides, Tony’s first post seems to argue for his right as an individual to remain silent.
BTW, speaking about what Tony is and isn’t arguing is now getting a little awkward, given that he is continuing his silence! Full marks for consistency.
Hi All
Thanks for carrying on such an interesting discussion (which I’ve just read back through).
Two final comments from me:
1. Any discussion about what I was and wasn’t “arguing” rather over-dignifies what I was attempting to do. Perhaps blog posts are a bit like parables in that regard. You make one short sharp point, and then leave people to talk about it. (Sorry for not being able to talk myself—it wasn’t a principled stance. Just flat-out busyness!)
2. Lionel, I like what you say. It’s very possible to (and often necessary) to talk from the pulpit about how the teaching of the Bible might apply in our particular situation, and to give practical examples—so long as you’re careful not to generalize experience or get too specific (such that you over-specify the application). My point is simply that when the issue is big and complex and mired in practicalities and politics, the advice ends up either being so general as to be useless or more specific than it should be. (Giving general tips on how to vote in the next election would a similar case, it seems to me.)
TP