18 August 2019

Lausanne's Unequivocal Dominionism: The Legacy of Billy Graham (Part 1)


Building on ideas and relationships that had been growing for more than a decade, the Lausanne Movement finds its official origin in the 1974 conference held on the shores of Lake Geneva. Dominated by John Stott and Billy Graham, the conference launched a movement bringing American style Evangelicalism to Europe. This was (at least in part) to compete with and overcome the separatist impulses and Fundamentalism that had more or less dominated Free Church Protestantism on the continent since the 19th century.


Dominionism is a loaded term and one not popularly used back in 1974. The theology, a variant of the medieval Christendom model was crafted to express the sacral impulse in a post-Enlightenment pluralist world. Retaining the post-Constantinian view of the Kingdom as being a composite of both the Church and the culture which includes everything from politics to the arts to legislation and the mechanisms of war, Dominionism is a modern expression and formulation of the Magisterial Reformation and grew in parallel with many aspects of Catholic Social Teaching as Rome sought to reckon with the realities of the 19th century and its loss of direct political power.
Born of Dutch Reformed theologians such as Abraham Kuyper, the term Dominionism in reality represents a spectrum. From figures like Kuyper to Rushdoony to Francis Schaeffer and of course Stott, Graham, Colson and others the theology has had many incarnations and there are variants in both its scope and potency and certainly with regard to its goals.
But in all cases, the Kingdom is defined as encompassing and sanctifying the culture and the Gospel is defined in terms of not just Evangelism and witness but in terms of cultural influence and transformation. This ultimately is what Lausanne was all about. This is what Graham, Stott and others were bringing first to the European continent and eventually to the globe.
While Dominionism has become the Protestant Orthodoxy of our day and is at the very heart of what modern or post-war Evangelicalism is, there are still many who eschew the term. They are always able to point to another faction and say, "Oh, we're not the Dominionists. That's those folks over there."
In truth, the other folks they're talking about might just represent a more extreme (or even more consistent) school of thought but in almost all cases despite their attempts to divorce themselves from the term and some of its connotations, they have already accepted the key tenets and main concepts.
Despite whatever protests might exist, Lausanne is a movement rooted in Dominionist theology.
For example:
The very first line is a Dominionist indictment of separatism. Now this may no longer be controversial and they may not believe their arguments represent a specific theology but rather are just simple common sense historical and Biblical understandings of the Church's relation to culture. However this is not the case.
Contrary to the meaning of the passage in the Sermon on the Mount, salt and light are cast in Dominionist terms. Christ clearly is not referring to salt's preservative properties as is so often argued. He wasn't talking about having a sanctifying influence on culture. Rather he's referring to salt as a flavour which stands out, which is unique and that if it loses this quality it becomes good for nothing. This is in keeping with the theme of antithesis and worldly opposition that is replete throughout the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that they don't shy away from words like 'transformation' because indeed there are many Dominionists who hold to the same ideas but resist some of the terms and thus are able to obscure the goals of their programme. It's also noteworthy just how much the Movement as a whole has 'moved on' from some of the restrained language of the original 1974 covenant.
And like most modern Evangelicals there's some revisionism on display. The history of slavery is re-written as is that of Martin Luther King Jr. The Evangelicals of his era opposed him as a communist, social agitator and accused him of being anti-patriotic. Of course there were also racial elements to their dislike of him but given that the criteria for such claims and historical interpretations are necessarily subjective, they and their descendants continue to deny this and re-write the history. And many Evangelical and even Confessional leaders who know better have decided to call white-black and black-white and do all they can to propagate this historical lie.
King was not a communist but he was a theological liberal and his personal conduct was shameful and unworthy of one who professed Christ. That said, we don't have a right to revise the history and pretend that Evangelicals somehow stood with him... because they didn't. In fact they largely denounced him either on the basis of his platform and ideas or at the very least because he was dividing the country. Some viewed him as a communist and of course he was viciously opposed once he came out against the Vietnam War in 1967.
Additionally the invocation of Eidenbenz struck me as strange given that Right-wing forces, including professing Christians were involved in 'social activism' during the Spanish Civil War. But they were more likely to support Franco. This is certainly true of the American Right and many of the corporate leaders who supported Franco in the 1930's were a decade later supporting the burgeoning post-war Evangelical movement. But I'm not sure Eidenbenz's work classifies as the sort of 'transformation' they're looking for anyway. Her commendable work was humanitarian but in terms of cultural impact it was rather divorced from the questions of the day.
Praising the Christian element within the Hong Kong Protests, the Lausanne affiliated publication seems blind to the larger political realities and how the equation of Christianity with a dissident political movement not only pollutes the Gospel message but puts mainland Christians in danger and marks them as a potential Fifth Column. In addition the fact that the US government is also supporting the protestors and has begun to issue threats to Beijing doesn't help and only adds to the confusion.
Leaving aside the statements regarding Central Europe, the Evangelical movement continues to exhibit a growing influence in Latin American politics and by meeting with groups such as the OAS, Lausanne and the larger Evangelical movement once again demonstrates a willingness to collaborate with American political and regional interests. For many theologically compromised American Evangelicals this is how it should be but the message sent out to the wider world presents Evangelicalism not as a martyr-witness movement testifying to Christ's Kingdom and warning of the Judgment to come but as activist stooges for the Western powers and specifically the American Empire. Such statements confuse most American Evangelicals because they are largely ignorant of their own nation's history and certainly its history with regard to foreign affairs. The American legacy is one of theft, threat, manipulation, war and outright murder. And sadly in the minds of many, American Evangelicalism often serves as something of an advance movement, the tip of the spear as it were.
Statements regarding the environment are largely empty as Evangelical political parties and Western allies from Honduras to Guatemala to Brazil have demonstrated a clear disregard for environmental concerns and in some cases express the Dominionist ethos of 'subduing' the earth (a misapplication of Genesis 1) through exploitation of resources. 
As is often the case when it comes to political Christianity, Scriptures such as the passage in Luke 4/Isaiah 61are twisted and abused. Their redemptive-historical context is replaced by socio-political frameworks and thus (ironically) Dominionism even while being critical of theological liberalism, in the end finds commonality in both cause and method. The means and some of the goals are politically and socially different but they're traveling by the same roads, seek a similar destination and even embrace the same general Kingdom ideology. Whether Catholic or Evangelical, Left or Right, Classically Liberal or rank Throne and Altar, these various movements seek to bring about a Christian social order.
Of course as has been repeatedly pointed out, the idea of a Christian nation, Christian culture or even a Christian business all require redefining the term Christian. The New Testament knows nothing of these concepts and to apply the term 'Christian' to entities outside the Church requires a different conceptualisation of the gospel, a different definition of sanctification and a re-tooling of the covenant concept.
The article concludes with talk of 'spheres' and an amplification of Kuyper's famous dictum regarding 'every square inch' belonging to Christ.... a rejection of the covenantal distinction made in the New Testament between Christ's lordship over the world (which is an evil age marked for destruction and to be replaced with a new heavens and new earth) and his covenantal headship over the Church. An expression of over-realised eschatology the dictum also conveniently ignores dozens of verses and passages in the New Testament which indicate the Church (and thus Kingdom) is in a state of permanent opposition and antithesis to the world.
Clearly the Lausanne Movement is devoted to the cause of Dominionism. There can be no doubts.
Another example followed by a response:
There are terrible labour abuses in the world and one cannot help but feel pity for the plight of many of these workers. Right wing forces in the West focus on demonising labour movements and yet do little to hold Christian employers accountable. Contrary to the Scriptures, the market, its impulses, tolerances and demands reign supreme in many cases. Market Capitalism has been blended with Christianity and in many cases now dominates and re-writes the New Testament's teaching with regard to money and the ethics of money.
Looking at the eschatological character of work ethics is a right response for Christians to make in light of worldly troubles. Indeed our hope is in the New Heavens and New Earth.
But sadly the article goes on to render such statements meaningless when it speaks wistfully of the era of Christendom...and in Spain of all places! These folks need to revisit their history for then they would realise that unfortunately it was not theologically conservative Christians that challenged the labour status quo but in many cases it was people of a socialist and activist bent. To speak of Christendom is to reject the eschatological character of ethics and to find Christian morality in the power of the state and the fulfillment of the Kingdom in a cultural and political order.
Ignoring for the present, the latent but ubiquitous feminism at work in Lausanne and modern Evangelicalism, the article mistakenly invokes Daniel as an example of taking risks. But Daniel's situation as a Babylonian captive is hardly analogous to our own. Daniel was compelled to office in a way we're not. Additionally the life of Daniel is best understood in Redemptive-Historical terms. He is a prophet, a type of Christ and his sufferings are to be understood in that light... not as mere moralistic examples for us to follow.
Seeking the good of the city in which we live is not the same as seeking transformation. The Babylonian exiles never sought to covenantalise Babylon. What they wanted was to get home and interestingly so many had compromised themselves with the worldly cultures of Mesopotamia that when the opportunity came, large numbers of them effectively apostatised and chose to remain. Inglorious, less than impressive Israel was no competition for the charms the world had to offer. History it would seem repeats itself as the pseudo-Zion of Christendom and the hope of earthly triumph clearly holds more appeal to many professing Christians than does the image of a heavenly Zion sought by pilgrims following the way of the cross.
It is a great mistake to think that fighting evil goes hand in hand with transformation. All too often it is the people of God who end up being transformed. And in that case such transformation goes by another name... apostasy.
And what about the Lausanne Movement in Manila? For indeed, the movement has gone global and overlaps with other American Evangelical efforts. Manila was the site of the Second Lausanne Congress in 1989. This was followed by South Africa in 2010 and now plans are being laid for a 2024 meeting. It will be interesting to see just how much is embraced in just five years from now. Feminism is already a given. What's next?
The 1974 Covenant paid lip service to the Scripture but at the same time denied its sufficiency, thus rendering its authority meaningless. Forty-five years later we can see the fruit it has produced. We see vast numbers committed to a largely false gospel under the banner of a false concept of the Church and Kingdom. Their ethics and ecclesiology are far removed from the patterns revealed in the New Testament. The seeds of apostasy have already been planted. Their mighty fortress will in the end prove to be little more than painted rust.

Continue Reading Part 2