Welcome Pages

29 March 2019

The Lausanne Harvest (1974-2019)


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