"And as Wallis points out in his book (which is actually a revised and updated edition of his 1981 classic), our personal religious beliefs and experiences alone can’t save us, nor do they make us followers of Jesus. The gospel message is not about personal salvation, which most evangelical ministers preach, but about a wholeness that’s possible only in the realization of a new, radically egalitarian social order, a.k.a. the kingdom of God—“the integrating and central core of the gospel.”
Our only hope, Wallis says, is to convert—to change every aspect of our lives and commit ourselves unreservedly to the values of the kingdom of God, recognizing that it’s the sin rooted in our social institutions, as much as it is any personal sin, that “destroys others’ lives and eats away at our own humanity.”
What do y'all think? Does sin reside in our social institutions (and culture) similarly to our personal lives? How does this affect our approach to public life in general?
You asked for comment on that quote, so I'll give it a shot ;)
ReplyDelete"And as Wallis points out in his book (which is actually a revised and updated edition of his 1981 classic), our personal religious beliefs and experiences alone can’t save us"
VERY TRUE! Many modern evangelicals err on this part. Our personal religious beliefs do not save us, neither do our experiences. Our beliefs and experiences are only the means coming to know what actually saves us, the finished work of Christ.
"The gospel message is not about personal salvation, which most evangelical ministers preach, but about a wholeness that’s possible only in the realization of a new, radically egalitarian social order, a.k.a. the kingdom of God"
I would say that the effect of the gospel message does transcend to things beyond personal salvation, but to say it "is not about personal salvation" is
a figurative "smack in the face" to the Apostles preaching, if there ever was such a thing.
"Our only hope, Wallis says, is to convert—to change every aspect of our lives and commit ourselves unreservedly to the values of the kingdom of God"
No, our hope does not lie in us changing anything, it stands in Christ and His finished work. The gospel speaks to the whole of life, but it doesn't not consist of the whole of life.
"recognizing that it’s the sin rooted in our social institutions, as much as it is any personal sin, that 'destroys others’ lives and eats away at our own humanity.'"
Yes, to some degree we must adderss social sin also, but ultimately social sin has no bearing or relevance until the issue of personal sin is addressed.
I've noticed 4 main distinct positions (with a whole array of varations in between) that Christainity tends to take when it comes to social reform: Three types of fundamentalism (Anabaptist-style withdrawl, aggressive reconstructionism, and Evangelical "Participationionism") and one type of Modern Liberalism ("Liberal Social Reformism").
Each of these 4 positions have positive points, but also negative effects. Apart from the good points..
Anabaptist-style withdrawl, in my opinion, has a tendency to create too strong of a religion/society antithesis. It sees its hope in separation.
Aggressive Reconstructionism is self destructive in that it relealistically attempts to eliminate the antithesis between religion and society entirely. It sees its hope in aggressive change (an apparently impossible one at that).
"Evangelical Participationionism" tends to teeter somewhere between Anabaptist-style withdrawl and Aggressive Reconstructionism. It tends to be dictated by circumstance rather than necessarily principle, making it very open to corruptive influences. It sees its hope in consensus and change.
"Liberal Social Reformism" attempts to eliminate the antithesis between religion and society entirely, but in a much softer, less disciplined way than reconstructionism. Unlike reconstructionism, it eliminates the antithesis by essentially eliminating the core of religion. It sees its hope in action and change.
So the answer must lie somewhere in between. I don't have an answer, but I see the quote you have posted as possibly espousing to one of the most flawed position out of the one I listed ("Liberal Social Reformism").
Those are my two cents, Canadian currency. Btw. I find your blog interesting!!