SHOULD CHURCHES DEVELOP A SOCIAL THEOLOGY?

SHOULD CHURCHES DEVELOP A SOCIAL THEOLOGY?

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 1998. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites without express permission from the author. The articles cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional. OUR PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, tell us who you are and where you are located, and request to be placed on the list. Also include your postal address and the name of the church of which you are a member. Please note that we take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and you will be expected to participate. Some of these articles are from the "Digging in the Walls" section of O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 15th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. The Way of Life web site is http://www.wayoflife.org/.]

December 28, 1998 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - In an article entitled "Christianity and Culture," Pastor James Singleton of Tri-City Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, claims that it is the church’s job to deal with sin in the social realm. Note the following excerpt:

"Fundamentalists must again affirm strongly that while salvation is personal and individual, it is not individualistic. Our thinking must not dwell exclusively on our personal relationship to God while we forget the corporate aspects of sin and salvation. Sin is personal, but it is also social. The task of the Christian is to deal with sin in both realms.

"FUNDAMENTALISTS MUST NOT LEAVE THE PROBLEMS OF THE POOR AND UNDERPRIVILEGED IN COUNTRIES SUCH AS LATIN AMERICA TO LIBERATION THEOLOGY. While liberation theology is neither good theology nor does it lead to liberation, people in these countries are looking for answers to complex social problems. The Fundamentalist response must be more than a condemnation of the false, but an apologetic that can deal Scripturally with the problems faced by emerging Third World nations. Sometimes we seem more comfortable in reacting to false views by condemnation than in articulating our own Biblical response to issues and problems.

"Fundamentalism has correct views of God, man, and the world (the foundation is correct), but it needs to work out the implications of its theology for a comprehensive world-and-life view" (James Singleton, "Christianity and Culture," The Whetstone, Tri-City Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona, August 1998).

This is unscriptural thinking. Though it is obvious that sin is social, the New Testament Scripture gives no instruction or pattern that Christians are "to deal with sin in both realms." To prove his argument that Christians need to develop a social theology, Pastor Singleton cites the Old Testament prophets, John Wesley, and Charles Finney. Wesley and Finney could be cited as authority for any number of unscriptural things, and to attempt to build a social theology upon the example of such men is ludicrous. To apply the Old Testament prophets directly to church theology is the same error as that committed by Pentecostals and Reconstructionists. It is dispensational confusion. The Old Testament prophets were speaking to the nation Israel in the context of its unique theocracy. Though there is instruction to be gleaned from the prophets, they cannot be applied directly to the church age. The only New Testament Scriptures cited by Singleton are Matthew 22:34-40 and James 1:27, neither of which instruct churches to seek to change society at large through socio-political thinking and programs. It is true that it is God’s will that the Christian is to love his neighbor as himself. That does not we are to construct a social theology. THE FACT IS THAT THE APOSTLES AND PREACHERS IN THE FIRST CHURCHES MADE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT TO CHANGE THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN A SOCIETAL SENSE. THEY DID NOT INSTRUCT THE CHURCHES TO DEVELOP A "SOCIAL THEOLOGY." They dedicated themselves exclusively to preaching the Gospel and building churches throughout the world. That is what we call the Great Commission. There is no New Testament authority for the type of thing Pastor Singleton is calling for.

Singleton says the problem of the poor in Latin America is at least partly the responsibility of fundamentalists. I don’t believe this for a minute. The problem of the poor in Latin America is largely a religious and spiritual problem, not an economic one. How is this problem to be solved? It can only be solved with a change in hearts. The only solution the Bible-believing church can offer is to preach the blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ in truth and power and pray earnestly that God will regenerate the souls of men and women in Latin America. That, and that alone, will have a lasting impact upon the societal problems there or in any other part of the world. The Bible-believing churches do far more to help society by minding their business of preaching the Gospel and discipling converts and being the pillar and ground of the truth than they could ever accomplish by attempting to fight society’s ills directly.

It is precisely this type of faulty thinking that produced the New Evangelical movement of the 1950s. The term "New Evangelicalism" was coined by the late Harold Ockenga to define a new type of evangelicalism and to distinguish it from those who had heretofore born that label. In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the position of New Evangelicalism:

"Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address REPUDIATED its ecclesiology and ITS SOCIAL THEORY. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the SUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT received a hearty response from many evangelicals. ... IT HAD A NEW EMPHASIS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC AREAS OF LIFE."

Observe that one of the keynotes of New Evangelicalism has been a summons to social involvement and a new emphasis upon the application of the Gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.

Another New Evangelical leader, Carl Henry, made the same call. He claimed that Christians have the task of transforming culture to bring it more in conformity with God’s law and will, and he charged Fundamentalists with developing a disastrous isolation (George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, pp. 76,77).

Pastor Singleton is following in the steps of John Ockenga and Carl Henry, two of the key founders of New Evangelicalism. I don't know where Pastor Singleton wants to go with his social theology, but he is already on the wrong road and he cannot therefore arrive at the right destination.

Dr. Singleton is involved with the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship and operates the International Baptist College and International Baptist Missions in Tempe, Arizona.

For a follow-up to this article see "Did I Sin Against Dr. Singleton?"