Ah yes, the Lausanne Movement. This is the face of
Evangelicalism in Europe and it has its parallels in Latin America and
elsewhere. Lausanne refers to the 1974 congress organised by John Stott and
Billy Graham on the shores of Lake Geneva.
The New Evangelicalism sought to evangelise the continent of
Europe with a new type of Protestant Christianity, one engaged with culture and politics, one which
transformed the Great Commission into not just evangelism but a 'gospel' which
would transform and Christianise (or perhaps Re-Christianise) society. One of the great tasks of the New Evangelical
movement was to forge alliances with the mainstream/mainline denominations...
with a hope to 'recapture' them from theological liberalism and also to join
with Roman Catholics in fighting a social, political and ideological war
against secularism.
Though it's nowhere stated in any official document or press
release and yet is acknowledged in other capacities, one significant task of
the post-war movement was to destroy Fundamentalism and its ethos of antithesis
and separatism. This war has been waged across the globe but was particularly
focused on venues such as the United States, Great Britain and on the continent
of Europe. Before the Evangelical movement arrived the majority of conservative
Protestant congregations (in Europe) were affiliated with the Plymouth Brethren
who effectively re-evangelised the continent in the 19th century but
continued into the 20th century as small separatist congregations. The
New Evangelicalism wanted to provide an alternative and effectively destroy
their claims to being Biblical Christianity's representative in Europe.
While I'm not sure they've been quite as successful in Europe
as they have in the United States and in the United Kingdom, they have
nevertheless made a significant impact.
This is the backdrop for this interview with the head of the
European Evangelical Alliance (EEA). It's also appropriate that the picture
associated with the article includes Os Guinness. He is but one of several who
have attempted to claim the mantle of Francis Schaeffer. The late apologist played
a role in the Lausanne Congress itself but also functioned as one of the key
intellectuals for the larger Evangelical movement and certainly the nascent Christian
Right which emerged in the late 1970's and 1980's. And Schaeffer is unique in
that his legacy and influence continue both in the United States and in Europe.
Though he had some doubts about the movement over the subsequent decade and
especially in the final years leading up to his 1984 death, his legacy is
closely wed to this movement and his L'Abri remains an important component
within the larger movement.
But we've come a long way since 1974.
From the overt embrace of Roman Catholicism to the watering
down of the gospel and its redefinition in terms of cultural transformation,
the Lausanne Movement has enjoyed great success, if success is the right term.
Today, there is great confusion about the Kingdom of God and
the nature of the Gospel and 45 years later it's clear that the Evangelicalism
born of Lausanne scarcely qualifies as what was once meant by the term
'Evangelical'. The term has become largely meaningless and the movement in
seeking to transform the world has in fact succumbed to it and within another
generation will be fully entrapped by the same liberalism which eradicated old
Evangelical Protestant Christianity in the 19th century. It's hardly
a risky prediction if a sad one.
As far as the EEA, clearly its primary task is to engage in
political lobbying. The equation of the Kingdom of Christ with the culture has
in many cases transformed Kingdom building work into political and social
action. This has generated a great deal of confusion especially in the United
States as some have realised the Republican Party has gone off the rails and
does not represent Christian values... if it ever did. Others out of perceived political
necessity have moved toward ever closer affiliations with it.
In Europe the situation is a bit different but no less
perilous for the Church. Evangelicalism has been from the beginning about
compromise. They talk the talk in terms of standing for something but they
clearly don't walk the walk and it shouldn't surprise us. When cultural
relevance, impact and respectability are stated goals, compromise is inevitable
and the EEA represents this in political and bureaucratic form.
Some might find her narrative compelling and be genuinely
moved by the nature of her struggles but I think a little cynicism is in order.
The 'good people' she refers to aren't nearly as good as she thinks.
Evangelicalism's watered down understanding of the Fall has facilitated such
thinking and as far as her statements regarding financial compensation... she's
making the exact same worldly arguments made by government bureaucrats in every
sector the world over.
It comes down to this. Yes, one could make even vaster sums
of money in the private sector but believe me, they're doing well enough.
Evangelicalism (speaking in general terms) is a financial racket and most
Evangelical leaders are swindlers and many are overt criminals. A simple study
of publically disclosed IRS documents reveals that most 'ministries' are
swindles and many a ministry leader is drawing an income far in excess of even
normal middle class expectation. I don't know what this woman makes and yet
I'll say this... her statements only make sense in the context of the middle
class and its values and standards of living. In terms of that world, they may
not do as well but in terms of the larger
society, they do very well indeed.
The interview is riddled with all the normal fallacies we've
come to expect from the Evangelical activist crowd. Salt and light are appealed
to and though salt was certainly a preservative, especially in the ancient
world, that's not how Christ refers to it. He refers to its savour (or flavour
as we are more likely to say) and it needs to be understood in terms of
antithesis... just as light is to dark. That's the nature and character of his
illustration. He's drawing a contrast between the Church and the world. He's
speaking of persecution, being reviled and bearing witness. The idea that the
Church is called to work within the world system as a preservative is nowhere
in his message either in the context of the salt and light passage... or
anywhere else for that matter.
Light cannot bear witness when it has formed an alliance with
the dark, when it's part of the mechanisms that make the dark what it is.
There are other non
sequitirs on display. We're told to pray for our leaders and thus that assumes
(so we're told) that Christians are therefore called to be in politics. Given
the context of the New Testament and its doctrines regarding the Church vis-à-vis
political power this statement makes absolutely no sense at all.
But it sounds good and it's what people want to hear.
And yet the constant assumption of the New Testament is that
we're on the outside, we're pilgrims and strangers who come out of the world
and who don't entangle ourselves in the affairs of this life. We focus on
heaven and that's how we glorify Christ and build His Kingdom. The Lausanne
Movement was established to repudiate these core New Testament doctrines.
Where does Christ send us out into every facet and sphere of
society in order to transform it? Many will erroneously turn to the Great
Commission and pervert its wording in order to make Christ say that we are to Christianise the nations. But this way
of reading the passage is neither faithful to the text itself nor is it valid
in terms of exegesis. It is a classic case of eisegetical imposition, coming to
the text with a bundle of philosophical assumptions and reading them into the
text. The New Testament knows nothing of Christianisation or of Christendom.
The EEA and the Lausanne Movement in general are built on a false premise as
was the life-work of Billy Graham, the godfather of today's Evangelicalism.
Though they are certainly compromised, these folks
nevertheless do draw lines. I'm not saying they have abandoned all morality and
principle. They are not wholly sold out to the world. They do stand for
something and recognise there are limits to their compromise. But the real
discussion is avoided. How are these limits defined and determined? If they say
by Scripture, then we will heartily agree with them, so let's turn to the
Scripture and what do we find? Is there anything in the New Testament that
resonates with this mission? The answer is clear and it is a profound 'no'.
The best they can do is argue from silence and insist that
the Apostles would have become politically
and culturally engaged had the Church not been persecuted.
On the contrary the Apostles insist the Church (if faithful)
will always be persecuted, will always be on the outside. This is why political
and social power isn't even on the table. It's not just impossible in practical
terms but rather it's inconceivable.
In recent years, probably thanks to the influences of Dutch
Reformed theology, there has been a greater emphasis on the idea of
reconciliation and there are a couple of verses that can be appealed to in this
regard. On top of this foundation the Evangelical-Dominionist movement erects a
massive towering edifice of assumption and speculation. But a closer study of
the New Testament reveals the reconciliation comes through the purging fires of
the Parousia, not the Church engaged in a long term project of cultural
transformation. The reconciliation comes through proclaiming Christ and people
repenting. Those who refuse, find Christ to be no saviour but their judge.
Training lost people to behave as Christians is not reconciliation. They're as
lost as ever and probably under greater condemnation... as are the leaders who
brought them to that point via a false and compromised gospel.
The 'evangelism' of Lausanne is a corruption of the Gospel of
Christ. They have brought another gospel
which combines social and political issues with the message of salvation. Their
real goals are to end the separation of Church and State and thus return us to
some variety of Constantinian synthesis. They are often unclear as to how they
envision this. And yet ironically the New Testament assumes and even mandates
that Church and State are not only separate but antithetical. We do not look to
the state for vengeance or for justice. It's Providentially placed to keep sin
restrained but it has nothing to do with our mission. Paul's statements
regarding judgment and the courts in 1 Corinthians 5-6 assume the antithesis
and yet these people would eradicate that sin exacerbated chasm and if they had
their way, they would negate vast swathes of doctrine and ethics found in the
New Testament. This is exactly what Rome did... it erected a false counterfeit
Kingdom with a false gospel and a set of ethics at odds with Christ's Kingdom.
Is too much being made of the Lausanne movement and this
seemingly innocuous interview with one of its lobbyists? You be the judge, but
this author insists that if you grasp the issues and understand the historical
implications you will see just how dangerous this is. The interview is a
victory lap, a moment of glory. I say it marks a milestone of defeat,
compromise and shame.
The gospel of Dominionism though not known by that name was
what Lausanne brought to Europe in 1974 but it took a generation to take hold
and work itself out, something the feminist Purser acknowledges in a roundabout
way. I would argue the shift was further facilitated by the cultural
transformation taking place in the 1990's. It was an era rooted in a 'turn the
page' narrative, a time for transformation and new ways of thinking. The
post-WWII Evangelical movement though already in existence for decades was able
to make great leaps during this period.
They sought to change the world but what has changed? Not the
world, but the Church. Through subtle manipulation of Biblical concepts they
have radically reoriented Christian thinking. Are we commanded to care for the
widow and the orphan? Of course but they add a political element to this. Their
use of Old Testament norms rests on massive hermeneutical assumptions which
will not stand up to scrutiny. In the New Testament the Church has social
obligations but they are never wed to a sacral paradigm and Old Testament
Israel is not the model. Rather that model served its typological purpose and
has been fulfilled by Christ and thus has been removed, annulled and cannot
return. A major theme throughout the New Testament this is one of the main
points of the epistle to the Hebrews.
Well then, how should society be run? How should it be
ordered? Evangelicalism is obsessed by this question and yet it's not a New
Testament concern. Evangelicalism has no concept of the Church and the world.
Everything is just conceived in monolithic (even monistic) terms. This is
sacralism, the remaking of the lost world into a pseudo-church. This is what
destroys the Church and Evangelicalism has proven to be as destructive and
dangerous as Roman Catholicism was in the Middle Ages. This must be said. The
movement must be challenged. We are on the cusp of a new Dark Age in terms of
Christ's Kingdom and Gospel. The warning must be given.
And we must ask Mrs. Purser what has been accomplished since
1994? Since 1974?
Nothing. Has European society been transformed? Have any of
the forces of secularism been arrested? Have Evangelicals 'earned a seat' at
the table? Are they respected?
These are rhetorical questions of course. And yet in all
actuality they have accomplished a great deal.
They have contributed to the degradation of Biblical witness
and have corrupted the Church with the seed of worldliness and compromise. The
ethics of the New Testament have been abandoned for the sake of political
expediency. Sure, they stand for some issues but in standing for those issues
they have abandoned a dozen others.
Would she celebrate the last 25 years? Give it another 25
years and then we'll see the real harvest that she's laboured to bring forth.
Evangelicalism will no longer exist. They've already compromised with regard to
feminism and it won't be long before fornication is winked at and already the
groundwork is being laid for a future embrace of sodomy.
She laments that most Christians still think about politics
in the same way as their non-Christian neighbours... to which we can only say,
'Look in the mirror!' It's your fault and the fault of your movement. You have
sown confusion and chaos. You've done the work of the adversary even while you
thought you were serving Christ.
The appeals to successes in defending the workplace are also
examples of non sequitir and rest on
begging the question. Why are churches subject to state discrimination laws? Because
they've institutionalised and become bureaucracies and have become official
entities integrated with the governmental and financial systems. These are
problems they've made for themselves because they wanted to be respectable and
'accredited' in terms of the world and its standards.
In other words they've sold out in order to become what they
are. These are really non issues and the conflicts are not the result of
Biblical ethics but are dilemmas created by pandering to the state and allowing
it to define ecclesiastical parameters. The Church should do its work and not
worry about its status in society.
But we're supposed to be impressed by the many fine stands
organisations like the EEA are making. And yet look at how compromised they
are. Look at the watered down doctrine and ethics found in their paper on
gender issues:
What kind of stand is this? They've already acquiesced and
have accepted the parameters of the debate as defined by the lost world. What
do we find? Utilitarian arguments and feminism. This is their stand, their
defense with regard to gender issues?
Theologically this document is dead on arrival. This movement
will only result in a rotten harvest. They will score some perceived political
victories only to watch their movement disintegrate. It's built on sand. The
blight is already advanced.
Compromise and confusion. This is the legacy of Lausanne.
This is the legacy of Billy Graham. This feminist Evangelical lobbyist can
stick a feather in her cap and enjoy her shallow victories but future
generations of faithful and Biblically minded Christians will rise up and
condemn this movement. Its bankruptcy is already on display in the moral
compromise and worldliness apparent in modern Evangelicalism.
In the United States the Evangelical wave has all but inundated
and overcome the old separatist impulses at work in Fundamentalism and even in
some of the Restorationist sects. From my own observations I think it is even
making inroads within sections of the Anabaptist community.
But what of Europe? From what I can tell some of the Brethren
are still standing against the tide but from conversations, online exchanges
and my own research there's much to indicate that the old 'wall of separation'
(to borrow a phrase) is breaking down.
Lausanne may glory in their pseudo-victories but time will
expose them as a source of veritable shame.
See also:
http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2017/02/american-dominionism-and-europes.html
See also:
http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2017/02/american-dominionism-and-europes.html