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
Continue Reading Part 2