A Review of the Seoul Statement of the Fourth Lausanne Congress (2024), Part Four (The Human Person)

 Section IV of the Seoul Statement of the fourth Lausanne Congress (September, 2024) is titled, ‘The Human Person: The Image of God Created and Restored’.  It consists of paragraphs 48-70.  From paragraph 56, the section has to do with human sexuality.  My review of this section follows.

A theological understanding of the 'image of God' underpins what is said in this section.  While what is meant by the 'image of God' has received a vast amount of attention from Biblical scholars and theologians, the statement does not engage with them.  (It would be difficult to do so in a statement such as this, but this difficulty should not allow us to pin theology or ethics that we derive from elsewhere onto this concept instead of arguing our case from the Biblical text.)  The statement affirms that humanity created in God’s image makes us unique, ‘includes stewardship roles and responsibilities’, and involves ‘inherent dignity, equality, and worth’ (paragraph 48).  Also, the sttement avers that a human being is an integrated unity of body and spirit (paragraph 49)—a reasonable enough claim for a creation theology, but one that raises unexplored implications.  Is this a rejection of physicalism (including the non-reductive physicalism of Nancey Murphy[1] of Fuller Theological Seminary) or of asceticism or of forming one’s identity around sexual orientations? 

Nor does the statement identify one of the elephants in the room about human existence: the status of the foetus and the widespread rejection of abortion by Evangelicals.  Why not concretise the claims of a Christian theology of humanity by rejecting the notion that a fertilized egg is just a mass of tissue, a non-human, and affirm the sanctity of life in the womb from the moment of conception?  The chairman of the board at a once flagship Evangelical seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary—Bishop Claude Alexander—is a major advocate for American presidential candidate Kamala Harris, whose uncertain and changing political platform has at least one clear position: the availability of abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.[2]  (The seminary authorities have also championed the culture’s values of diversity, equity, and inclusion—values originating not out of a creation theology and the image of God but out of a postmodern worldview.)  Evangelicals need to state what they believe more clearly.

Paragraph 50 drops the other shoe in the creation story: and humans have sinned, do not ‘fully represent the image of God’, and sometimes do not treat others as image bearers.  While only briefly noted, this is an important point.  Mainline denominations have a very weak doctrine of sin and therefore a very weak doctrine of salvation.  This is one of the points that distinguishes orthodox Christians and Evangelicals from them.

Paragraphs 51-56 provide a brief soteriology covering the restoration of the image of God through Jesus Christ, the image of God, as Spirit-transformed believers increasingly partake of the divine nature (paragraph 51).  The Church is the new humanity (paragraph 52) and ‘endowed with gifts and ministries in order to serve the common good of the church and bring glory to God in the world’ (paragraph 52).  Negatively, the statement notes that there are ‘false gospels’ and un-Christlike ministries (‘prosperity and fame-based ministries are mentioned) (paragraphs 54-55).  While these are serious concerns facing the Church, including Evangelical institutions and ministries, one might hope for more than such a general theological statement.  On the one hand, what does the Church offer believers and the world if not prosperity?  Is there healing, are there miracles, is there social restoration—in fact, is Satan being overcome?  And when fame-based ministries are denigrated, why are Evangelicals so often calling ministry ‘leadership’ since the 1980s?  (The entire ‘leadership’ paradigm is not compatible with a Christian theology of ministry, I would contend.)  Paragraph 56 provides an eschatological reserve to the theology of restored humanity: ‘we await the resurrection of the body and the consummation of the new creation’.

The other elephant in the room is human sexuality, and the rest of this section of the statement is on this issue.  While noting a technical distinction between biological sex and gender, the statement clearly affirms that male and female gender are biologically determined (paragraph 57).  A note about the exceptional circumstances of intersex persons and eunuchs is offered in paragraph 58—the aberrations are not introduced to confuse our understanding of the relationship of biological sex and gender.  Marriage is defined: it is between a man and a woman (paragraph 59).  ‘Covenant marriage is the only legitimate context for sexual intercourse’ (paragraph 60).  In case there is any confusion, paragraph 61 laments (why not condemns?) the contention of some ‘Christian denominations and local congregations’ that same-sex partnerships can be treated (‘consecrated’) as marriage.  Given that this issue has led to Evangelicals separating from such denominations, I would have appreciated more than ‘lament’ at this point.  These denominations are, in my view and that of many others, no longer Christian but heretical distortions of the faith.

Marriage as defined is the context for nurturing children (paragraph 62).  This seemingly obvious statement might actually cost a Christian his or her employment or remove eligibility for adoption or fostering in some countries.  One wonders if such a statement—really an affirmation of what the Church has historically taught—might be used to define religion in those countries.  Would denying a Christian employment or adoption because of his or her statement on marriage and family be a case of religious persecution from a legal standpoint?

Paragraph 63 addresses the relationship between marriage, sex, and procreation—over against, say, recreational sex, which devalues children and increases abortion globally.  Protestants, including Evangelicals, have held wider views on this topic than Roman Catholics, and the issue comes down to a discussion of contraception.  Yet an Evangelical consensus does seem to exist about the intrauterine device (IUD) being unacceptable.[3]  Evangelicals ought to agree with Catholics that in vitro fertilisation, allowing the destruction of fertilised eggs, should be rejected and called sinful.  Pornography plagues Evangelical churches in a digital age.  A statement that hopes to be a ‘statement’ and not just a systematic theology in brief might be expected to address such current and specific issues facing Evangelicals.

The good of marriage (and therefore the need to work at good marriage) and of singleness are mentioned in paragraphs 64 and 65, respectively.  The role of churches in supporting both—and families—is identified in paragraph 66.  Given the increasing commonness of divorce and cohabitation in Evangelical churches in some parts of the world, this statement once again falls to repeating standardized teaching rather than addressing issues facing Evangelicals today.

Paragraphs 67-70 conclude section four by addressing what we might call the ‘bull elephant’ in the room: same-sex sexual relations.  That is, this is the big issue that has brought widespread schism in our time between Evangelicals and mainline denominations. The statement first hones in on six of the relevant passages in Scripture (excluding Jude 7-8 and 2 Peter 2, unfortunately): Genesis 19.1-3; Leviticus 18.20; 20.13; Romans 1.24-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; 1 Timothy 1.9-11.  Only one term for homosexuality is noted in 1 Corinthians 6.9 (arsenokoitai), not the other one (malakoi).  Be this as it may, the statement offers the orthodox teaching of the Church in Scripture and tradition: homosexuality is a sin (paragraph 68).  Importantly, this paragraph also affirms that God provides forgiveness and restoration of fellowship through confession, repentance, and trust in Christ.  While revisionist interpretations of these texts (attempting to dismiss them with new, exegetical insight) has failed, and while dismissal of them with the rest of Scriptural authority has failed for orthodox Christians, a new attempt has been mustered along Marcionite lines: the God of Law is not the God of Mercy (allegedly, He keeps changing His mind in the direction of mercy).[4]  That this argument comes from a professor at Fuller Seminary, a once flagship Evangelical seminary, the importance of paragraph 68 should be noted.  Will this false teaching be affirmed or rejected?

What, then, is to be said about persons struggling with same-sex attraction (I would prefer the Roman Catholic moral theological language of ‘internal disorder’)?  Here the statement fails, in my view.  On the positive side, it calls for believers to resist temptation and maintain sexual holiness in desire and behaviour (paragraph 69).  Yet it stops the pastoral care at showing understanding, friendship, and love toward people struggling with sin (paragraphs 69-70).  This seems to be the default position of many Evangelicals who feel culture’s pressure to welcome and include and not strive for holiness and purity, as though the latter is legalistic and judgemental.  An entire list of spiritual disciplines, a doctrine of the local church, and a theology of pastoral care stand waiting to say more on this issue. 

Finally, these paragraphs leave open the possibility of ordaining same-sex attracted persons to ministry in the church.  This is currently a major issue facing Evangelicals and one that might have been directly addressed with greater clarity.  In my view, Evangelicals are divided between a theology of grace that is merely forgiving grace and a theology of grace that is both forgiving and transforming.  Is the Gospel ‘good news’ that our sins are no longer accounted, or is it ‘good news’ because it is not just news but a power at work within us to prepare us to be a pure bride for Christ’s return?  Are ministers to be understood as representatives of God’s forgiving grace or also called to higher standards of holiness and purity (as in Leviticus 21; 1 Timothy 3)?  Yet, the next section of the statement is ‘Discipleship: Our Calling to Holiness and Mission’, and more is yet to come.

 

For the Seoul Statement, click here.  For my earlier review articles:

Section One: Preamble and the Gospel, click here.

Section Two: Scripture, click here.

Section Three: The Church, click here.

---

[1] Nancey Murphy, Bodies and souls, or spirited bodies? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

[2] Cf. Denny Burk, ‘Evangelicals for Harris: Here’s What You Need to Know’, World (14 August, 2024); online at: https://wng.org/opinions/evangelicals-for-harris-1723629490 (accessed 31 October, 2024).

^[3] Cf. Rollin G. Grams, ‘The Intrauterine Device (IUD) for Contraception and Christian Moral Considerations,’ Bible and Mission Blog (25 August, 2024); online at: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-intrauterine-device-iud-for.html.

[4] Christopher Hays and Richard Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy; Sexuality within the Biblical Story (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2024).

What is Fascism--and Do We Need to Worry about This in the American Presidential Election?

 Introduction

In the final phase of the 2024 Presidential election in the United States of America, various Democrats in politics and media reporters have pressed the idea that the Republican candidate is a fascist.  People my age know what fascism is in particular in light of what it stood for and how it was implemented in Nazi Germany in 1920s-1945.  I'm not so sure people in their 20s know this very well.  Some may have a grasp of what it was in Italy as well.  A few of us will have lived during Apartheid under the Nationalist government in South Africa and recall how it was a milder but still very nasty version of German and Italian fascism.  All of us today withdraw in horror that fascism might be back in some form or another.

This essay provides an answer to the question, ‘What is fascism?’, and one hopes that the reader will see that the charge of fascism against Republicans today is merely a political ruse to garner votes by today’s left-leaning and socialist Democrat Party.  In this essay, I intend to define fascism, explain it in some historical detail, and return in the conclusion to the present, political accusation in the American election.

Defining Fascism

Fascism is a national socialism grounded in eugenics.  (I will define these terms below.)  Like Communism, it is a form of extreme socialism.  Both are also totalitarian and have proven to be brutal and genocidal.  Fascism derives its name from ‘fasci’, an Italian word for ‘bundles’ of sticks.  The image is a metaphor for social strength as opposed to individual strength—or, more accurately, individual rights.  The Italian origin of the term draws attention to the fact that the origin of the ideology was in Italy, with Benito Mussolini, following the First World War.  The German form of fascism developed as Nazism, initially termed ‘National Socialism’, under Adolf Hitler. It developed in the 1920s and 1930s, culminating in the Second World War (1939-1945).

Eugenics

Fascists advanced the notion of social Darwinism and racial hygiene politically.  The state, they believed, could and needed to help in the progressive evolution of the allegedly stronger race, dominate and enslave inferior races, and eliminate any race that undermined this progress.  While for Italian fascists, Ethiopians were the population to dominate in their brutal imperial expansion in northeast Africa, for Germans, the Jews were the race to eliminate in Europe. 

The term ‘eugenics’ (‘good stock’) was introduced in 1883 by Francis Galton, a brilliant polymath and half-cousin to Charles Darwin.  He was interested in studying of hereditary characteristics of humans in order to explore the ‘practicability of supplanting inefficient human stock by better strains’.[1]  defined it as a system designed to advance for ‘the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable’.[2]  His studies led him to advocate ‘eugenic marriages’.

In 1895, Alfred Ploetz wrote Grundlinien einer Rassenhygiene (Racial Hygiene Basics), introducing the language of ‘racial hygiene’. German eugenic practices were systematically implemented in the German colony of South West Africa (Namibia), with tens of thousands of Herero and Nama enslaved, incarcerated, brutalized, and executed in a genocidal programme between 1904 and 1908.[3]  Eugenics featured in this brutality.  The German doctor, Eugen Fischer, examined traits (hair colour, skin colour, and skulls) of mixed-race individuals in Rehoboth, South West Africa.  He also conducted painful experiments on Africans in the concentration camp, measuring skulls (many being sent to Germany for further study), removing body parts, injecting them with arsenic, opium, and other substances, and sterilizing women.[4]  With such ‘scientific’ studies as ‘proof’, Fischer promoted racial purity and opposed intermarriage among races.  Germany outlawed interracial marriage in its colonies from 1912.  (This was also a lasting policy of the Nationalist government’s Apartheid policies in South Africa.)

This concern for racial health led to the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases.[5]  (The state’s control or heavy-handed involvement in health is still defended in varying degrees in different countries: national control of health insurance that funds abortion of children with Downs Syndrome, transgender surgeries, euthanasia, government control of the population during the Covid pandemic, etc.)  The Swiss psychiatrist, Ernst Rüdin, guided the writing of the 1933 law.  He was the director of the Psychiatric Research Institute of Munich and later, in 1935, the director of the German Society of Neurology and Psychiatry in 1935.[6] This law permitted sterilization for:

1. congenital mental deficiency, 2. schizophrenia, 3. manic-depression, 4. hereditary epilepsy, 5. hereditary St. Vitus dance (Huntington’s chorea), 6. hereditary blindness, 7. hereditary deafness, 8. serious hereditary physical deformity. [9] ... chronic alcoholism (paragraph 2).

The individual, a legal representative, the state physician, or heads of hospitals, nursing homes, and penal institutions could apply to the eugenics court for the sterilization in these cases.  The state physician and police were required to proceed with the court’s decision of sterilization, even against the individual’s will, and were allowed to use force (paragraph 12).  The law was signed by Adolf Hitler, Germany’s Nazi dictator.  Its initial purpose was to sterilize 50,000 Germans per year.  In 1939, Hitler signed permission for a programme that came to be called Aktion T4, which lasted through 1945 (the end of World War II).  T4 authorised the killing of asylum inmates with mental or physical abnormalities.

The concern for racial purity was particularly directed against the Jews in Europe’s political and social turmoil after World War I.  The Nuremburg Laws of 1935 forbade sex and marriage between Jews and Germans and employment of Jewish women under the age of 45 (the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour) and restricted citizenship to Germans and those of related blood (the Reich Citizenship Law). Dr. Gerhard Wagner proposed sterilization of the Jews.  In a short time, the Nazi regime adopted the ‘final solution’ policy of the Holocaust, the genocide against the Jews.  The work of eugenicists went hand in hand with that of the Nazi’s military, paramilitary, and police forces.  Dr. Otmar von Verschauer, head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin-Dahlem, and Dr. Josef Mengele (the ‘butcher of Auschwitz) collaborated in the study of race, and the latter experimented on, maimed, and killed prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp.  Mengele sent eyeballs, heads, and blood samples to von Verschauer.  Dr. Sigmund Rascher performed his own experiments on prisoners at the Daschau concentration camp.  He would expose prisoners to freezing temperatures and then try to revive them.

Adolf Hitler makes his argument for national socialism in his autobiographical manifesto, Mein Kampf, published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926.[7]  In his chapter on ‘People and Race’, his argument begins with the assumed science of eugenics advocated by academics, researchers, and institutes.  Importantly, his argument appeals to ‘Nature’ instead of Communism’s utopian ideals, even though his national socialism is, in fact, a eugenically defined utopia, an Aryan state.

First, he notes, animals mate with their own species.  Any cross-breeding results in an inferior animal.[8]  Second, Nature allows struggle so that the species improves, as the weaker specimens do not survive.  If this did not happen, the worst would outnumber the best.  Moreover, Nature opposes the mating of a higher with a lower race.  Whereas Hitler initially had different species in mind, his thoughts have by this time migrated to consideration of different human races.  This was part of the eugenics research, as we have noted, from the beginning.  He says that any mingling of the superior, Aryan race with others results in the end or inferiority of the civilization.  The superior races’ level of evolution is depressed; it retrogresses physically and intellectually.  He rejects any idea that man or ideas can conquer Nature.  He attributes the erroneous view, which he calls pacifist, to the Jews.  Rather, everything admirable (‘science and art, industry and invention) is the result of ‘a few peoples, and perhaps originally of one race’.[9]  He says, ‘The great civilizations of the past have all been destroyed simply because the originally creative race died out through blood-poisoning.’[10]  He realizes that Japan appears to be an exception, but he claims what is Japanese is only the outward dress of European scientific and technological achievement.  Hitler takes a further step: the superior, Aryan race needed to use lower races to advance; it required the subjugation of other races.  This was also for the good of the conquered, since the superior masters preserved and encouraged civilization.

National Socialism

To implement a eugenics programme for society, the government needs to assume powers associated with socialism.  Just as communism (extreme socialism) requires a strong, militaristic, centralized, one party, dictatorial, and totalitarian government to implement its economic reforms, fascism (extreme nationalism) requires the same for its goal of racial health.  Ideology of either sort justifies centralized power and the use of brutal force.  Freedom of speech is rejected and replaced with ideological propaganda.  The government uses military and police force to enforce its will on the people.  Over against liberal democracy, government’s purpose is not held to be to defend the individual against the group, including the government, in matters of speech, ideas, private property.  It is rather to implement policies of social reengineering.  In the case of national socialism, these policies are formed, allegedly, for the protection of the nation, and in a eugenic national socialism, the state protects the superior race.  In the case of the Nazis, this was the so-called Aryan race.

Nationalism and socialism arose in Europe as a rejection of monarchies by the population.  With the American and French Revolutions in hindsight, Europe experienced numerous revolutions in 1848-1849.  The United States formed more of a federal republic made up of states, whereas in France a more nationalistic movement emerged.  The United States developed as a nation under God whose rights were said to be God-given, whereas in France, rights were approved by the nation state.  Nationalism identified the nation with the state government, and so a nation might be made up of various ethnicities —as empires had been—but what held them together were their borders, citizenship, language, culture, and laws.  Initial rebellion by the people against the monarchies of Europe was in the interest of greater freedom, better living conditions, economic improvements, and so forth--concerns more associated with liberal democracy.  Yet nationalism also developed as a means to assure these rights and meet these concerns.

Nationalism developed in various regions of Europe.  Following the American and French responses to monarchy at the end of the 18th century, Romanticism contributed significantly to the rise of nationalism throughout Europe.  People developed a love of the fatherland, their history and heritage, the soil from which they sprang, and their native languages.  A political motivation for nationalism was a natural response to a people's domination by another country (as we have recently seen in the break-away of states from Serbia in former Yugoslavia or now in Ukraine under attack from Russia).  German nationalism developed as a reaction to Napoleon's empirical overreach throughout Europe, including Germanic territories.  Poland had Russia squeezing it to its east and Germany to its West, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau encouraged Poland to stimulate a nationalist identity in response.  Italy's separate states, often under foreign control, felt the need to unify as a nation.  A pan-Slavic movement also gained interest in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. 

Toward the end of the 1800s, German nationalism developed under the guidance of Otto von Bismarck, who wanted to unite the various German kingdoms or duchies (such as Schleswig-Holstein).  This strengthened the ‘nation’ and tended toward an ethnic and cultural national identity.  The political effort toward this end required a stronger, national government.  The significant alternative to such nationalism lay in the development of communism during the same period.  While  nationalism, socialism, and communism emphasised a strong government to attain social reengineering, communism envisioned this in terms of a Marxist, economic reform.  German nationalism first took the form of social democracy.  After the First World War, it took its next steps toward fascism.  It moved step-by-step in the 1920s and 1930s toward a eugenic national socialism as Hitler rose to power.  In each aspect of this, it was fully opposed to Christianity, replacing devotion to God with devotion to the state.

In his ‘People and Race’ chapter in Mein Kampf, Hitler claims that the Aryan’s greatest quality is not in intellect as such but in ‘his readiness to devote all his abilities to the service of the community’.[11]  We have here the combined notions of a superior race and its superior social qualities.  Labour for the community, even at the expense of one’s own happiness, is the first step toward building a truly human culture.  The murderous concentration camps were presented as labour camps; over the entrance to Auschwitz were the words, ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ (Labour Makes Free).

An even higher ideal, Hitler claimed, is sacrificing one’s life for the community.  This ideal is called Pfichterfellung, the performance of duty in service of the community over against self-satisfaction.  While we might think that this is unnatural—is not self-preservation a basic instinct?—Hitler relates this back to Nature.  Nature ‘recognizes the primacy of power and strength’.[12]  Applied to the evolution or development of a great culture, the individual sacrifices his work and his life for the community.  The pacifist’s idealism—and he has in mind particularly the Jews—is unnatural.  Hitler then enters on a lengthy tirade against the Jew as the opposite of the Aryan in this chapter.  Among his many assertions, the Jew is accused of supporting Marxism.  (It is true that Marxists attempts at governing in European countries after World War I included a notable element of Jews.  Hitler was reflecting on recent political turmoil in Europe that, in the minds of some, supported anti-Semitism.)  One might note in Hitler’s argument, then, that, while fascism claims to follow a naturalistic form of idealism (resulting in ethnic nationalism), Marxism follows an unnatural (manmade) idealism (resulting in an economic, international movement).  His rant against the Jews included the fanciful notion that there was a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world.

Conclusion

The Republican Party, and its presidential candidate, Donald Trump, are clearly not proponents of national socialism, let alone a racially defined citizenship based on some faulty science from over a century ago.  America is the land of immigrants, freedom, and—historically—devotion to God.  The Republican Party is hardly fascist for

·       affirming a nation under God,

·       wanting law and order,

·       wanting legal and orderly immigration,

·       protecting citizens’ rights over non-citizens,

·       protecting individual rights over group identities,

·       protecting the weak and vulnerable (whether the unborn from abortion, the elderly and the sick from euthanasia, and women in sports and locker rooms from confused or predatory males),

·       protecting religious rights over state authority, promoting small government and states’ rights from a big, centralised government,

·       insisting that government is of and by the people and serves the people rather than the people serving it,

·       understanding government’s purpose as to protect freedom rather than control citizens,

·       believing that the courts must not be used to impoverish or harass citizens but protect them,

·       wanting free speech,

·       breaking the back of state funded education used to indoctrinate children,

·       undermining a media that proliferates propaganda and supports a political party instead of reporting the news,

·       valuing the family and its independence from the state,

·       wanting a strong military for national defense rather than for engagement in foreign wars, imperialism (fascist Italy), or ethnic solidarity (fascist Germany),

·       wanting to strengthen the nation’s economy—

All of these policies (as policies or in their definitions) oppose socialist ideologies, whether fascist or communist.  Instead, they reach back to the aims of America’s founding fathers and intend to protect the Constitution and laws of the land.  As Christians, we have reasons to criticize the Republican Party of today and its presidential candidate, but of one thing we can be sure: this is not an anti-Christian, atheist, socialist, and eugenic political party.  The Democrat Party is also not fascist, but it is increasingly anti-Christian, non-religious, and socialist.  The most prominent version of American  eugenics from the early 20th century was abortion and Mary Sanger's Planned Parenthood, which is also a fundamental platform of the Democrats.

Related Post: The Wild Misuse of 'Fascism' by American Socialists and Its Threat for Christianity

---

[1] Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (Frankfurt am Main: Outlook Verlag, 2020; orig. pub. 1883), p. 2.

[2] Ibid., p. 17.

[3] Jeremy Sarkin, Germany’s Genocide of the Herero: Kaiser Wilhelm II, His General, His Settlers, His Soldiers (Cape Town, SA: UCT Press, 2011).

[4] Uzonne Anele, ‘Eugen Fischer: The German Doctor Who Conducted Human Experiments on Herero and Namaqua People in Namibia in 1904-1908,’ Talk Africana (27 April, 2023); online at https://talkafricana.com/eugen-fischer-the-german-doctor-who-conducted-human-experiments-on-herero-and-namaqua-people-in-namibia-from-1904-1908/ (accessed 27 October, 2024).

[5] Online: https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/law-for-the-prevention-of-offspring-with-hereditary-diseases-july-14-1933.pdf (accessed 29 October, 2024).

[6] Cf. William E. Seidelman, ‘Mengele Medicus: Medicine’s Nazi Heritage,’ The Milbank Quarterly 66.2 (1988), pp. 221-239.

[7] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (New York: Stackpole and Sons, 1939; originally published 1925 and 1926 in two volumes).

[8] We might think of a mule, which cannot reproduce, but he gives no examples.  Galton and Plank’s work had advanced this point through their various experiments.

[9] Ibid., p. 281.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., p. 289.

[12] Ibid., p. 291.

A Review of the Seoul Statement of the Fourth Lausanne Congress (2024), Part Three (The Church)

In this post, I will continue to review the Seoul Statement of the fourth Lausanne Congress that met in September, 2024.  Section three of the statement is on the Church.  It begins with an introductory paragraph outlining how our understanding of the ‘Church’ is in crisis and that little attention has been given to the matter.  Twenty-two paragraphs follow to address the issue.  I will present this material in my own, fourteen points and add comments on occasion.  [For Part Two of my review of this statement (on Scripture), click here.  For the Seoul Statement, click here.]

First, ‘the church is not our doing; it is God’s gift’ (4.25).  Second, its unity is in Christ (4.26).  Third, it is a universal church and continuous through the centuries (4.27).  Related to all three of these points, 4.28 points out that the Church is the people of God the Father, one body of Christ, and one temple of the Holy Spirit.  Without pointing out how this description of the Church excludes certain groups claiming to be the Church, it does exclude cults just as much as it affirms the unity Evangelicals with the Church: Evangelicals are not a sect but claim a central position in what the Church is and has been since its inception.

The section continues with its definition of the Church.  Thus, fifth, it is ‘called to Christlike holiness’ (4.29).  Further, it is not restrictive of ‘ethnicity, gender, region, status, or ability’.  In case someone reading this from the culture’s confusion over gender in our day, the statement explains that gender means ‘women and men’ (4.30). 

Moreover, seventh, no culture has preeminence over another in the Church (4.31).  This affirmation is, no doubt, intended to offer a critique of colonialism—particularly, a Western version of Christianity.  This point is, perhaps, still worth making these sixty years after the end of colonialism.  Yet additional concerns have arisen that need to be addressed.  First, one might ask what the role of culture is in any context rather than simply negate Western culture.  Some, eager to affirm culture in postcolonial contexts, end up offering the same mistake the West made: cultural Christianity.  Second, affirmation of culture in an abstract sense has led to the idea that all cultures are equal.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as the Old Testament claimed about Canaanite culture.  Third, the statement that no culture has preeminence over another in the Church (a negative statement) is also stated in a positive way in 4.31: ‘God unites us together to declare and display his glory in all our diversity’.  This is simply unbiblical.  God’s glory is not dependent on human identities; God’s glory is shown in a people who testify to His mercy (Romans 9.23).

As pointed out in the first part of my review of the document, Scripture simply does not celebrate cultural diversity.  What Scripture does is make diversity irrelevant, not celebrate it.  Today’s multicultural diversity ideology slips into a description of the Church’s universality.  When it does, people begin to promote race, looking for diversity in races rather than in gifts of the Spirit.  When Paul speaks of the diversity of the Church, he does so negatively, not positively: being male or female, rich or poor, slave or master, Jew or Gentile is a matter of indifference, not something the Church promotes as a value in itself (Galatians 3.28; Colossians 3.10).  In the Old Testament, Israel's special status is not the result of racial superiority but of God's election. Because of God's election, its develops a superior moral culture by obeying (if it obeys) God's Law.  Consistently, then, Paul says not that our unity is a feature of our own, cultural or multicultural identity but of the Spirit’s baptizing us all into one body (1 Corinthians 12.12-13).  There is no celebration of our human identities but of God's work for and in us.  An often misrepresented text these days by those advocating the multicultural church is Revelation 7.9’s vision of a countless multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language.  Yet, the vision continues: this diverse multitude has all made their garments white in the blood of the Lamb (7.14).  The curse of ethnic and linguistic diversity introduced at Babel (Genesis 11) is reversed as all find new identity in Christ and His salvation.[1]  The universality of the Church must point us to God's glory in the whole earth and not to ourselves.

Eight, the statement affirms the apostolicity of the Church (4.32).  This anchors the Church in apostolic teaching and authority.  Such a statement, long affirmed in the Nicene Creed, has an important role to play today.  First, all the mainline denominations in the West have courted unorthodox teaching on doctrine and ethics.  Second, the direction of Evangelicalism in the past forty years has been toward independent churches, although some new denominations have formed.  Apostolic authority is one way to maintain orthodoxy.

Ninth, the statement affirms the Church’s ultimate triumph despite persecution and spiritual warfare (4.33).  Tenth, it does not resist its opponents with armaments of the world (4.34).  In light of the increase of persecution of the Church in various parts of the world, including martyrdom, such a statement is significant.  Also, in light of criticism of the Church a millennium ago for engaging in the crusades, such a statement comes as a correction to the history of the Church.  It also distinguishes the Church from militant Islam.  

Eleventh, the statement rejects the Church succumbing to ‘the allure of political power, of cultural approval and the world’s pleasure’ (4.35).  In this, the statement, I would suggest, rejects the Progressivism of some and the Nationalism of others.  It calls for a correction by remaining devoted to and focussed on Christ and the cross.

Twelfth, the statement affirms in several paragraphs gathering together regularly for worship (4.36-39).  Paragraph 40 offers a very general affirmation of spiritual gifts of ministry and service in the church and in society.  The communal and counter-cultural aspect of the local church is also identified as important, and that this can also be done digitally is affirmed (4.41).  While the local church may meet in different ways, it also may express worship in various ways (4.42).

Thirteenth, the mission of the Church is addressed in paragraphs 43-46.  It affirms the mission of the Church in four ways: the Great Commission of making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28.18-20), the Church’s role in the world to be salt and light (Matthew 5.13), the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 10.17), and the Church’s witness through practice (Matthew 5.16).  (Other Biblical texts are noted as well.)  The final paragraph adds a fourteenth point abou the Church: it awaits the return of Christ (4.47).

---

^[1] One possible, though not necessary, extension of the diversity ideology has been replacing the Church’s evangelistic mission with interfaith coexistence.  In some Church of England churches, this has further led to affirmation of other faiths by, e.g., inviting an imam to read the Koran in the church.  Recently, the pope has stated his support the idea that all religions lead to God.  (Cf. my ‘'Is the Pope Catholic?' A Response to the Universalism of Pope Francis,’ Bible and Mission Blog (15 September, 2024); online at 'Is the Pope Catholic?' A Response to the Universalism of Pope Francis; online at https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/09/is-pope-catholic-response-to.html. In Evangelical circles, the direction this has taken has been Progressivism’s acceptance of the postmodern values of diversity, equity, and inclusion and uncritical acceptance of ‘social justice’ interpretations offered by the media and culture.

A Review of the Seoul Statement of the Fourth Lausanne Congress (2024), Part Two (Scripture)

In this post, I will continue my commentary on the Seoul Lausanne Statement of September, 2024 by examining its section on Scripture.[1]  (See my first post on the Preamble and Section One.)[2]  This second section offers eight points on Scripture.  It intends to develop Lausanne’s high view of Scripture by focussing on issues of interpretation. 

In the first paragraph (2.17), just what is meant by Scripture is stated.  Its inspiration is affirmed: it is ‘God’s word written, a divinely inspired, God-breathed collection of writings’.  Its canonical extent is noted: 66 books.  Its diversity through human authorship and unity in its testimony are noted. 

Second, the statement advocates reading Scripture with the hermeneutical lens of the Gospel (2.18).  The Gospel is defined as ‘the gospel of the kingdom of God, the proclamation of Jesus’ incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and return, which is the fulfilment of God’s promise to bless all peoples through the seed of Abraham’.  One might appreciate highlighting the evangelical (Gospel), kingdom, and Christological emphases, but one must be warry of using such a statement reductively—as Martin Luther did by finding Scripture’s centre in justification and then disparaging the epistle of James.  Evangelicals’ ‘biblicism’ affirms the entire authority of Scripture.

Third, it claims, ‘God speaks in the Bible for the purpose of generating and governing the people of God’ (2.19).  While two rather general sentences follow this, I am not sure what it is supposed to mean specifically.  If it is saying that the Church is only the Church when it is Biblically grounded and that Scripture is the Church’s rule of faith, well and good.  I might note that the former, liberal archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, held that Scripture was generative in a different sense.  For him, Scripture was not to be treated as God’s revelation to be interpreted by a Church being faithful to its authority.  For Williams, Scripture were the Church’s early writings that generated the ongoing Church’s exploration of its own faith.

Fourth, the statement calls for exegetical and canonical reading of Scripture (2.20).  I would say that this is a welcome emphasis at the time in light of contrary uses of Scripture in popular, pastoral, and academic settings.  We live in a time when the role of the ‘teacher’ in churches is diminished and people are encouraged to ‘share’ their thoughts on the Bible in communal Bible studies.  Popular speakers touting life advice with slight reference to Scripture have often replaced the expository sermon.  In many academic institutions, ministry courses are unassociated with Bible courses, as though they are two different disciplines.  So-called ‘Practical Theology’ or ‘Applied Theology’ is increasingly beholden to the social sciences, with Scripture functioning as illustrations of points developed in business (‘leadership studies’), psychology (‘counselling’), cross-cultural studies (‘missions’).  Liberation and contextual theologies have gained a foothold in academia for the majority world, such that theology has little to do with either the Bible or historical theology.  None of these points are spelled out—or even hinted at—in the statement, so all I can say is that the point is important and needs to be expanded in light of the realities facing the Church today from within and without.

Two further matters that Evangelicals would do well to consider have to do with translations and the curriculum in theological colleges and seminaries.  The flippancy with which parishioners and pastors sometimes use Scripture in translation is concerning.  After affirming a high view of Scripture as inspired by God, too many pick up paraphrases as though they are Bibles (The Message, e.g.).  Someone sits in a Bible study with a 'Parallel Bible' to choose the translation or paraphrase she likes for this or that verse.  A pastor says in his sermon, 'I like the way that this translation or paraphrase puts it'.  I am concerned about the looseness of some translations as well, including some of the translation work that is ongoing.  Sadly, in some Evangelical circles, the New King James Bible has been promoted, but it rests on an outdated use of inferior manuscripts.  As a broad movement, Evangelicalism will have to live with some of this diversity, but a high view of Scripture should lead to greater care on these matters.  My second point is that seminary education is at times weak in Bible, especially when voices for 'contextual relevance' and pastoral care oust space in the curriculum for Biblical literacy and interpretation.  When I was a doctoral student in the 1980s, I worked a few semesters as a professor's assistant at a United Methodist seminary.  Out of three years of study for a Master's of Divinity degree, students were required to take only 2 Bible courses--and these were the very boring, academic, 'introduction' courses to the Old and New Testaments.  Yet Evangelical seminaries also struggle to teach enough Bible, having to compete with a variety of other required courses in the curriculum.  As someone involved in this whole process for years on three continents, I would say that Evangelical seminaries do not turn out graduates who have been adequately taught and shaped by Scripture.

Fifth, the statement notes that the Spirit inspired Scripture and guides the Church in its interpretation (2.21).  What is said in this paragraph is a thoroughly orthodox view of the Spirit and of Scripture.  Yet one needs to note that the Spirit is appealed to by some Pentecostals to find extra-Biblical guidance in spiritual warfare and by unorthodox Churches to find new or developed meanings apart from and even against Scripture.  Just what this paragraph intends as a word to the Evangelical world today, but it is somewhat assuring that it affirms Scripture’s ‘authenticity, reliability, sufficiency and credibility’.  This should counter faulty appeals to the Spirit for the introduction of error.

Sixth, the statement affirms the role of historical theology in interpretation (2.22).  This is extremely important.  Practical Theology and Contextual Theology proceed as though Church history belongs to some other field of study.  Rather, the problem is that these theological areas of study have been misshapen methodologically.  They ought, like missiology, to have a strong historical content (let alone Biblical content).  As the Church grows in the majority world, there is sometimes a tendency to dismiss historical theology as a feature of Western theology.  Evangelicals need to reject this and own their own theological heritage.  Also, Evangelicals too often discuss theology and ethics as though nothing is worth noting between the Bible and the contemporary Bible study.  In a day when the West is committing cultural suicide and becoming post-Christian, and in a day when the Church is growing in contexts that value their own indigenous, post-colonial cultures and development, the need for historical theology is dire.

Seventh, however, the statement affirms the value of ‘cultural contexts for the faithful reading of the Bible’ (2.23).  This seems to be a claim that is meant to affirm cultural diversity and locality.  As already noted, this claim resonates in the West and the majority world at this time.  However, I fail to see a compelling reason to make this claim from either a Biblical or historical standpoint.  At the very least, those saying such things need to explain themselves further as heresies have often slipped into the Church through this door.  This is perhaps the most disturbing point in Section Two.

Eighth, the statement calls for Biblical literacy in the Church, adding that the reading of Scripture needs the interpretation of the faith through ancient creeds, confessions, and ecclesiastical traditions (2.24).  I might add that Scriptural literacy decreased in the incoming class of students to seminary in my years as a seminary professor in America.  The Baptist seminary where I taught in Central Europe decided to discard its Biblical studies degree.  Church meetings in many countries have decreased from three a week to one, that one service has been shortened to about one hour, and the sermon itself has shifted away from exposition.  People living busy lives and seeking evening entertainment find reading Scripture a challenge, let alone setting aside an evening for a Bible study.  The small groups of large churches replace the educated pastor of smaller churches with someone who has not received a theological education.  All the mainline denominations in the West have strayed far from Biblical orthodoxy.  Biblical illiteracy is a serious matter.

[For Part Three (the Church), click here]

---

[1] See online: https://lausanne.org/statement/the-seoul-statement.

[2] https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-review-of-seoul-statement-of-fourth.html.