So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. Galatians 6:10
Introduction
While compassion and assistance towards those less privileged in society should be of concern to all who are blessed with an excess of material goods, Is the mission of the Church that of being the defender and voice of the poor and re-distributor of resources? Are Christians commissioned by God to take up these causes? Will the believer stand in judgment and be condemned by Christ for failing to be socially responsible? And what about the Christian's involvement in politics, participation in the common defense of his nation or directing other public policy?
In answer to all these questions, it is noteworthy that Scripture has very little to say about the Christian's social responsibility to unbelievers. While some would argue that Galatians 6:10, has clear application to this issue, it does so only in a secondary manner as of first concern is the welfare of other believers. Additionally, while the Old Testament prophets, and Jesus too (cf., Matthew 5:7), made constant pleas for justice, their pleadings were, for the most part, on behalf of Israelites who were being oppressed by fellow Israelites; in defiance of the Law of God that He gave to the sons of Jacob through Moses.
Where Most Stand
Historically, the manner in which professed Christians viewed their place in culture and its responsibility to society can be divided into five positions:
1). Roman Catholicism teaches that their fellowship was established by Christ through Peter as the first visible head of the Church, a position that is passed down to each succeeding Pope; that it is the Kingdom of God on earth; that union with the Roman Church is essential to salvation as it alone is the repository of all truth; that the Pope is endowed with all authority on earth, over all society and its material and spiritual needs; and historically it has considered its self as the arbiter of all justice and therefore has power and responsibility to make war on any that would threaten its unparalleled place. However, in recent years the Roman Church has taken a less aggressive stance in exerting its self-proclaimed supremacy. Not surprisingly, Roman Catholicism has evolved into a socially “minded” institution and is also the leading voice calling for ecumenicalism, not only of all professed Christians, but of all religions.
2). Lutherans intrude redemptively into the culture that surrounds them, but only to evangelize and disciple converts while letting God providentially retard the spread of evil through civil governments.
3). The Anabaptists chose to shun society, its cultures and all others—be they Christian or not—of differing beliefs from their own; believing that all culture outside of their own is hopelessly contaminated by sin.
4). Christian Liberalism has historically conformed to socialism and therefore believes that wealth and property must be redistributed for the benefit of all. It has been noted by many that so-called Christian liberalism suffered an irreversibly demise with the advent of World War I. However, though liberalism has by-and-large run its course through the churches and been exposed as heresy, many of its teaching are once again influencing a mixture of professed Christian fellowships.
Chief among these teachings is the idea that all of mankind, its societies and cultures falls under the jurisdiction of Christians in the sense that believers are required to work for the common welfare of all. The Liberal forms this thesis by errantly presuming that the world is good because God is in the world—everywhere and in everything—and especially in humanity. According to this view, creation may be perverted, sinful, broken, but it is not evil, because God made it and He maintains it. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, due to the scope of God's immanence there exists a universal responsibility to our “neighbor,” which supersedes (and according to many Liberals, completely trumps) all immaterial values such as Bible-inerrancy, Christ's deity, mankind's depravity and the absolute need for Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice. In fact, many within the fold of liberalism would deny that any of these values hold any relevance.
Christian liberalism, due to its denial of orthodox Christian beliefs, is “Christian” in name only. It places heavy emphasis in equalizing the social-economic welfare of all members of society, but rejects the unconditional truth of the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God (among other key Christian teachings). Their “social gospel” seeks to bring about Utopia through human efforts and categorically denies the need of Divine intervention in order for righteousness, peace and justice to reign on Earth.
Closely aligned with this position is Neo-evangelism and Neo-orthodoxy. While maintaining that personal regeneration is necessary for individual salvation these theological positions believe that the Church has neglected the social implications of the Gospel.
5). Finally, there is the Reformed position, which believes that society must be forcibly restructure so as to transform it into meeting their ideals of a biblical standard.
Naturally, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Reformed position on culture had failed—you cannot force Christian virtues upon either believers or unbelievers (cf., Revelation 3:20)—as even the Puritans fell first into sinfulness and eventually settled into Unitarianism. Moreover, by this time the idea of a cultural/societal conquest had lost much of its momentum as an insurmountable hurdle in the form of ever increasing “discoveries” of culturally diverse peoples throughout the continents and islands of the sea, all of whom were without the Gospel, confounded Reformed thinking. Also, the growing uneasiness over the seemingly high antiquity of man and the world (i.e., evolutionary theory), the shock of revolutionary horrors in France and bloody Civil War in “Christian” America eroded all hope of those in the Reformed camp of being able to dominate society and bend it to its standard.
The massive influx of the knowledge of newly discovered pagan cultures and civilizations and the question of, how Christ was to transform these non-Christian cultures, was perplexing in its self. This topic, though poignant and hotly debated within the Reformed churches, was becoming less important than the more basic question of, how Christians themselves could retain any real sense of attachment to Christ while so-called Christian cultures were engage in salvage bloodshed amongst each other. Finally, the rise of rationalism and the theory of evolution served to stymie and corrupted the Reformed position, leaving it with no answer to the question of how the Church of God is related to the culture/society that surrounds it.
Neo-fundamentalism holds like beliefs with the Reformed, whereby they believe that activism on the part of believers is necessary in bringing about conformity to Christian ideals. Unlike Neo-evangelism, Neo-fundamentalism has maintained scriptural orthodoxy—to some degree—however, of serious concern is its tendency to slip into legalism, to separate its self from other Christians and its rejection of intellectualism.
As demonstrated, none of these positions neither can nor ever will be able to answer the question of the Christian's responsibility to the culture/society in which they live, because all of these positions are not based on Scripture. Therefore, the question of the scope of Christian responsibility remains. And believers must seek out and find the biblically based answer as we do in fact have a God-appointed responsibility in and to the world.
Where I Stand
Conservative Christians (those who affirm the authority of Scripture) have always placed heavy emphasis on individual salvation and personal evangelism: i.e., the biblical mandated necessity of Christians telling the message of salvation by God’s grace through belief in the finished work of the Cross (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8), without regard to the cultural, economic or social status of those who are lost and dead in sin. And without regard to the structure of government under which any particular culture is ruled.
But it is this prominence of Gospel preaching within conservative circles that vexes liberalism—and to some degree the other four positions—above all else. They would argue, with their “heads in the clouds” conservatives in general, particularly those who believe in the literal biblical teaching of a pretribulational rapture and premillennial return of Christ, fail to take action against the injustices that surrounds them. Even those of the Reformed and Neo-fundamentalist viewpoint tend agree with this criticism.
In fact, the biblical belief in pretribulationalism and premillennialism (aka, dispensationalism) has been widely blamed for the supposed cultural retreat of Christians over the last century. There has literally been a barrage of continuing criticism of dispensationalism in this regard and an interesting question has been raised, which goes beyond whether or not Christians are to exercise activism regarding societal concerns: Does dispensationalism have a distorted view of how to best serve our fellow man?
In answering this key question it is of first importance to recognize that the Lordship of Christ over all creation and its creatures—encompassing every area of life—is the essential rule of dispensational theology. Furthermore, this theology is derived directly from the Scripture—“dispensationalist follow a consistently literal method of interpretation…the term literal…should be understood as the normal, customary approach to any literature” (Paul Enns, Moody Book or Theology, pg., 520). This method of biblical interpretation is the basis of dispensational doctrines, which are formed without a need for synthesizing help from non-Christian thought and without the need to either spiritualize or allegorize Scripture so as to suit ones “private interpretation.”
Conclusion
The dispensational view of culture is formed and works within the limitations of God’s plan for history and is sensitive to the timing of His progressive unfolding of both revelation and history. A dispensational view of culture does provide for cultural impact, mainly through indirect means as individuals develop and display the character of Christ. Finally, a dispensational view of culture believes in victory inside history, but not in the present Church age. While limited progress is currently possible, final victory awaits Christ’s return, the resurrection and His Adamic curse reversing decree, whereby all of mankind will eventually live in an equitable state of dignity and material blessing.
