A review of Professor Gary Meadors’ article: John RW Stott on Social Action:

In 1980 Gary T Meadors, professors of Greek and New Testament published the article ‘John RW Stott on Social Action’ in Grace Theological Journal. The article examined six essays in Christianity Today, in which John Stott attempted to justify his contention that social action is part of the Great Commission. Two major themes in Stott’s series of essays were, first, the Christian as a peacemaker and, second, Christian concern for economic equality.

Meadors reminds his readers of the context. At the first Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne in 1974, Stott had stressed the importance of socio-political action as an equal partner with evangelism as part of the Great Commission. Missiologist Arthur Johnson, in his book The Battle for World Evangelism, published in 1978, noted that:

‘Stott built a rather substantial superstructure on the limited foundation of his interpretation of John 20.21 and John 17.18. The influence and implications of this new theology of mission remains to be seen. Stott has dethroned evangelism as the only historical aim of mission.’[1]

Stott’s innovation of including social action in world mission was a major departure from orthodox understanding of the Great Commission.   Stott responded to Johnston in his Cornerstone Column in Christianity Today.

‘Brother Art, you say that I have “dethroned evangelism as the only historical aim of mission”; I would prefer to say that I have attempted to “enthrone love as the essential historical motivation for mission”.’[2]

The inference of Stott’s comment is that God demonstrates his love for deprived men, women and children by providing social action. Scripture declares that God demonstrates his love for sinful men, women and children in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

What is remarkable about Stott’s adamant declaration that socio-political action is an essential component of the mission of the Church, is that a decade earlier he had publically argued that ‘the mission of the Church, according to the risen Lord, is exclusively a preaching, converting and teaching mission. Indeed, I confess that I myself argued this at the World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin in 1966, when attempting to expound the three major versions of the Great Commission.’ Having studied the Scriptures, Stott concluded in 1966 that ‘the mission of the Church, according to the risen Lord, is exclusively a preaching’. But a decade later Stott had changed his mind about the Great Commission. ‘Today, however, I would express myself differently.’[3] What had changed Stott’s mind so drastically? Was it that he had a better understanding of Scripture, or was it that Stott’s political views had changed? Yet he used Scripture to justify his new found enthusiasm for socio-political action.

Stott’s new version of the Great Commission was derived from the Gospel of John. Setting aside the other three gospel accounts, Stott boldly asserted that the Johannine commission constitutes the real key to mission. He explained that Jesus’ statement, ‘as the Father hath sent me, so send I you’ (John 17:18; 20:21) is the real mission of the Church. Stott reminded the Church that Jesus came to serve and we too must serve. ‘So he gave himself in selfless service for others, and his service took a wide variety of forms according to men’s needs… he served in deed as well as in word, and it would be impossible in the ministry of Jesus to separate his works from his words. He fed hungry mouths and washed dirty feet, he healed the sick, comforted the sad and even restored the dead to life. Now he sends us, as the Father sent him. Therefore our mission, like his, is to be one of service.’[4]

Professor Gary Meadors comments: ‘Stott’s observations are only partially true. Jesus did serve, but his service was redemption oriented, not service oriented. He was the Suffering Servant of Jehovah and all of his acts of service were designed to magnify his redemptive mission. They were not designed to draw attention to themselves as acts of service but to draw attention to the Servant as the promised Messiah… From his limited view of the Johannine commission, Stott builds a structure of social action as “a partner of evangelism”… Stott’s concept of the Johannine commission constitutes a move to support his burning desire to wed evangelism and social action as equal in importance. It is the same kind of invalid hermeneutic which he employs in the articles about to be analyzed.’

 Peacemaking

In the article ‘Peacemaking is a Management Responsibility’ (Sept. 21, 1979) Stott wrote:

Social turmoil is of special concern to Christians because we are in the business of right relations. Reconciliation is at the top of our agenda because it is at the heart of our gospel. Jesus is the world’s supreme peacemaker, and he tells his followers to be peacemakers too.

Meadors comments: ‘Stott evaluates industrial justice from the perspective of 1 Kings 12. He sees in this passage the principle of “mutual service arising from mutual respect”.[5] His evaluation, however, is strongly in favour of the working class… Our argument is not with his politics and social concerns but (1) with his presentation of these ideas under the guise of biblical authority and (2) with his call to the Christian community to forsake (in emphasis if not in essence) biblical models of evangelism in favour of social models.’

Having carefully examined the meaning of peacemaking in Matthew 5.9, Meadors concludes that ‘the New Testament (NT) predominantly uses peace in a spiritual, salvific, and ecclesiastical context… There is a distinct absence of political usage. Peace in the New Testament is related to Deity and to those who have submitted to the Deity. It is not a term for the unsaved man or the secular world.’

 Stott’s peacemaker

Meadors comments on John Stott’s image of the peacemaker. ‘The reading of his present writing can only leave one with the impression that for Stott a peacemaker is a political activist in the domain of anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-arms race, U.S. and Russian relationships and all sorts of public, political dialogue.[6] While he does mention prayer and ecclesiastical peacemaking, his clear emphasis on social action reveals where his heart is. If, for the sake of argument, we should accept Stott’s concept of peacemaker, then we should find clear implications in the NT that the apostles were political activists. No such evidence exists.’ In other words, Stott has misused Scripture to present a false, political view of peacemaking.

 Economic equality

Meadors comments that Stott rises to his boldest form ‘when he deals with the universal economic equality of the world, and particularly between the Free and the Third Worlds. He sounds a loud and clear note of agreement with West German ex-chancellor Willy Brandt’s development report that “the greatest challenge to mankind for the remainder of the century” is to solve the problems of hunger, death in the Third World countries, and illiteracy.[7] These may indeed be top agenda items for politicians and world economists, but they should not be confused with the evangelistic obligation of evangelical Christians.’

Meadors identifies two principles that guide Stott’s economic thinking. The first is the principle of unity. ‘Stott endeavours to build his principle of unity upon Psalm 24: 1, Genesis 1:28, and the parable of the Good Samaritan. Referring to the Psalm and Genesis passages, Stott asserts that “the whole earth was to be developed by the whole people for the common good; all were to share in its God-given resources”.[8] Even a cursory reading of the cited texts will immediately suggest that Stott’s comment constitutes a conceptual leap of great magnitude. For example, Psalm 24:1 is a statement of the dependence and ultimate ownership of created kind by the Creator. It does not teach Stott’s concept of unity.

‘Genesis 1:28 merely affirms that man is to wisely control the earth and its creatures for his benefit. It says nothing about political or economic activism. Our larger concern is that on the basis of Christ’s finished work, the Christian church has been given a redemptive mandate in the Great Commission of the gospels. Therefore, social action detached from submission to evangelism as outlined in Christ’s redemptive mandate constitutes disobedience to the clear teaching of Scripture.

‘Luke 10:25-37 is also lifted from its biblical context and conveniently inserted into Stott’s system. He claims that the major point of this parable is “that true neighbor love ignores racial and national barriers”.[9] He culturalizes the parable in order to demand active involvement in Third World problems.

‘Stott stretches the point of the parable in using it for his purposes. While it does point out that a neighbour is anyone in need, even an enemy (cf. Leviticus 19:34; Exodus 23:4, 5; 2 Kings 6:8-23), it does not indicate that the Samaritan was in the business of traveling the world in search of such “neighbours”…

‘Stott’s use of his principle of unity well illustrates his hermeneutical practice. He takes a passage which seems to support what he wants to prove and uses it as a launching pad for his own cultural application. He often emphasizes the truth of a passage – e.g., the general concern a Christian should have for his fellow man – without balancing this with the biblical commands regarding other responsibilities and priorities. Medical care, for example, is often important in missions. But its importance is totally subordinate to the essentials of Christ’s redemptive mandate. Stott has lost sight of the revealed priorities.’

Meadors continues: ‘The second principle which Stott presents to justify Christian involvement in procuring Third World economic justice is what he terms the principle of equality. Stott summarizes his point in the following way.

At present, millions of people made in God’s image are unable to develop their human potential because of illiteracy, hunger, poverty, or disease. It is, therefore, a fundamentally Christian quest to seek for all people equality of opportunity in education (universal education is arguably the principal means to social justice), in trade (equal access to the world’s markets), and in power sharing (representation on the influential world bodies that determine international economic relations).[10]

‘Stott claims that 2 Corinthians 8:8-15 provides Christians with the principle of equality upon which the above conclusion may rest. It is best to allow the author to speak for himself at this point. He asserts that Paul:

Grounds his appeal for the poor Judean churches on the theology of the Incarnation – that is, on the gracious renunciation of Christ, who, though rich became poor so that through his poverty we might become rich (v. 9). It was a renunciation with a view to an equalization. It should be the same with the Corinthians: “Your abundance at the present time should supply their want … that there may be equality” [ellipsis is Stott’s].[11]

‘A few observations concerning 2 Corinthians 8 are in order before evaluating Stott’s use of it. First, the unsaved community is not to be read into this context. Paul is encouraging a sort of inter-Christian community credit union. At this time Paul is presenting the need of the Jerusalem Christians, but v 14 also allows for a reversal of need in the future: “that their [Jerusalem saints] abundance also may become a supply for your want”. Second, Paul’s illustration of Christ’s incarnation refers to attitude and position, not economics (cf. Philippians 2).

‘Stott takes 2 Corinthians 3 and universalizes an idea which Paul restricted, to the Christian community. Paul recommended a course of action (v 8), while Stott demands that Christians must secure equal opportunity for all the underprivileged and oppressed throughout the world.

‘Stott’s application of 2 Corinthians is theologically suspect on several counts. His view of the image of God in man is inadequate when he asserts that millions of people are not allowed to develop the imago dei in themselves because they lack the opportunity to do so. Image development takes place by confrontation with the spiritual realities of Christ and His Word (cf. Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 13), not by a bread line. The unsaved, whether hungry or full, have no capacity for image development. Stott seems to blame the environment, both physical and mental, for what should be credited to man’s bent for sin. But the environment is bad because man is bad.

‘Furthermore, Stott has made fundamental what is at best secondary. When he states that equality in education, trade and politics is a fundamental quest of the Christian church[12] without even an allusion to man’s spiritual problem, he has left the domain of biblical orthodoxy.

‘Stott’s comment that “universal education is arguably the principal means to social justice” is both naive and alarming.[13] It sounds more like liberal humanism and the philosophy of John Dewey than biblical evangelicalism. It is also impossible to reconcile this theory with the revealed means whereby the coming theocratic king will institute true social justice. Unregenerate sinful man ultimately responds to a rod, not to chalk.

‘Therefore, Stott’s use of 2 Corinthians 8 is invalid. His transition from whatever truth he has found in this passage to his statements concerning social economic action, supposedly based on this passage, is a leap of gigantic proportions.

‘Another alarming bit of exegesis by Stott is observed in his reference to Luke 16:19-31. Stott’s actual words must be considered here:

We are all tempted to use the enormous complexity of international economics as an excuse to do nothing. Yet this was the sin of Dives. There is no suggestion that Dives was responsible for the poverty of Lazarus either by robbing or by exploiting him. The reason for Dives’s guilt is that he ignored the beggar at his gate and did precisely nothing to relieve his destitution. He acquiesced in a situation of gross economic inequality, which had rendered Lazarus less than fully human and which he could have relieved. The pariah dogs that licked Lazarus’s sores showed more compassion than Dives did. Dives went to hell because of his indifference.[14]

‘Stott, therefore, interprets the main point of this story (whether real or parabolic is not of concern here, for the main theme remains the same) to be economic in nature. Dives ignored (an argument from silence), either consciously or unconsciously, an opportunity for economic equalization with a two-fold result—Lazarus was rendered less than human, and Dives went to hell because of his economic indifference…

‘Jesus introduced the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus immediately after upbraiding the Pharisees. This story contributes a significant punch line to the preceding verses, namely, disregard for the law and the prophets has grave consequences and will receive the ultimate punishment (vv 29-31). As Morris puts it, “there is an indication that the rich man’s unpleasant situation was not due to his riches (after all, Abraham had been rich), but to his neglect of Scripture and its teaching”.’[15]

Meadors concludes that ‘the principles of unity and equality as presented by Stott are a misrepresentation of the biblical text upon which they are allegedly built’.

 Stott’s practical advice

Meadors notes that Stott begins his essay ‘The Just Demands of Economic Inequality’ (May 23, 1980) with a summary statement of his view of economic justice and then launches out into four specific domains with suggestions of how we can seek ‘equal opportunity for all human beings (through education, medical care, housing, nutrition, and trade) to develop their full, God-given potential. This is the minimum that love and justice should demand.’[16]
It is a gel form of drug that needs to be considered when an individual has erectile disorder, it may be an you can try here viagra on line earlier sign associated with other serious health problems like heart disease, women also have an increased risk of a heart attack. Within the yr 1998, the Pfizer Organization effectively launched a medicine named sildenafil and it is marketed as icks.org free viagra pill. The outcomes have been how the affected individual will certainly also remember a camping holiday for a long period and also consider many free sample of viagra recollections with you well in to adulthood. The direct causal connection between the drugs and the effect of the drugs tend to last longer. tadalafil cialis from india
Meadors continues: ‘One might label this article as Stott’s missionary call to social action. It begins with a passionate appeal that,

God may well be calling more Christian people than hear and respond to his call to give their lives in the service of the poor and powerless, in practical philanthropy or Third World development, in politics, or in economics.[17]

‘He then proceeds with a four-point sermon on how to do social action: with our heart, our head, our mouth, and our pocket… He appeals first to our emotions by giving a rather narrow interpretation of Matthew 9:35-38.

When Jesus saw the multitudes, hungry and leaderless, he was moved with compassion, and then fed them or taught them or both. It was compassion that aroused and directed his action, and it is compassion that we need most. We have to feel what Jesus felt-the pangs of the hungry, the alienation of the powerless, and the indignities of the wretched of the earth.[18]

‘Stott has conveniently omitted the first item mentioned by Matthew. Jesus went about “teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom”. Jesus’ compassion was for a world that was spiritually adrift, not for people without a UNICEF program.

‘This methodology well illustrates Stott’s use of the Bible. We do not disagree that we should have compassion for starving people and for those who suffer from social injustice. We are all confronted with worldly inequalities constantly. But how do we attack these problems? How will we change our world? Our only hope is to follow the example of the apostles: be truth tellers in conjunction with the great commission of our Lord…

‘After Stott corrects our heart, he proceeds to work on our heads. We need, he asserts, increased awareness of the Third World needs. The Third World is like Lazarus at the gate and we affluent Christians are acting like Dives. If we are truly aware we will know what trade agreements are in force and how they affect the Third World economy; we will pressure the news media to increase Third World coverage and we will make pilgrimages to the Third World for personal contact with their needs.

‘The next logical step, the third point in his sermon, is to be a witness. We should spread the bad news. People are starving and the Christian world is unconcerned. If one should ask, “How, Dr. Stott, can I be a witness?” We would expect the answer, “Engage in political agitation! Join pressure groups! Outdo the humanists in showing concern! Ask informed and embarrassing questions to the right people!”

‘The final step is an appeal to put our money where our mouths are; “Most of us (for I include myself) ought to give more generously to aid and development, as well as to world evangelization.”[19] We might be encouraged by a glimmer of light when the word “evangelism” is mentioned. However, as we meditate upon the words “as well as”, our hope begins to fade. These words place social responsibility on a par-of-equality with evangelism. Yet, after reading the Cornerstone articles, one wonders whether the use of the term “evangelism” is not simply a semantic dressing for the sake of enhancing orthodox appearance.’

Meadors concludes: ‘It is impossible to evade the impression that the present burden of John R. W. Stott is more social than evangelistic. Evangelicals should be saddened by the fact that Stott has decided to emphasize social action even more than evangelism. His vigorous role of leadership in evangelical missions over the past several years has gained him a place of prominence and respect in both Europe and America. If his new message is followed, evangelism in the Third World will suffer a devastating blow… The allegation of Arthur Johnston that “Stott has dethroned evangelism as the only historical aim for mission” is more evident today than in 1978.[20] The present writings of Stott confirm Johnston’s observation beyond question. Unless Stott and the Lausanne trend are checked, the true biblical missionary will become a very small remnant.’

Three decades after Meadors’ seminal article the Centenary World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh (2010), affirmed holistic mission to be the new orthodoxy. The true biblical missionary, as Meadors predicted, has become a very small remnant. To regain a biblical understanding of the Great Commission the Church needs to take heed of Meadors prophetic warning.

[1] Arthur Johnson, The Battle for World Evangelism, 1978, pp302-303

[2] Christianity Today, John Stott, ‘The Biblical Scope of the Christian Mission’, (January 4 1980), 34-35.

[3] John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, Inter Varsity Press, 1975, p25

[4] Ibid. pp26-27

[5] Christianity Today, John Stott, ‘Peacemaking is a Management Responsibility’, (Sept. 21, 1979)

[6] Christianity Today, John Stott, ‘Calling for Peacemakers in a Nuclear Age, Part I’ (Feb. 8, 1980) 44-45; ‘Calling for Peacemakers in a Nuclear Age, Part II’ (March 7, 1980)

[7] Christianity Today, John Stott, ‘Economic Equality Among Nations: A Christian Concern?’ (May 2, 1980)

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Christianity Today, John Stott, ‘The Just Demands of Economic Inequality’ (May 23, 1980)

[14] Ibid.

[15] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (1975) 254.

[16] ‘The Just Demands of Economic Inequality’ (May 23, 1980)

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Arthur Johnson, The Battle for World Evangelism, 1978, p303