Evangelism and the religious right

Jump to Comments

A couple of weeks ago I read in the alt.obituaries newsgroup that D. James Kennedy, who developed the Evangelism Explosion method of evangelism training, had died.

I was quite surprised to read that Kennedy was associated with the “religious right”, as I had seen nothing in the Evangelism Explosion materials to suggest this., and commented in another newsgroup that if I had known that I would have been more wary of the Evangelism Explosion materials. Another participant there eventually gave me some links that showed that D. James Kennedy was indeed involved with the religious right, including this one by Skipp Porteous. Another article, with several quotations from D. James Kennedy, made it even clearer.

What made it clear was the similarity of D. James Kennedy’s utterances with those of a well-known member of the religious right in South Africa, Mr Francis Grim, the founder of South African Action for World Evangelization (SAAWE).

Mr Grim had published and distributed a booklet, An ideology for South Africa which, from a Christian point of view, was both idolatrous and blasphemous. The basic message was “Seek ye first the political kingdom”, and specifically the kingdom of anti-communism. Grim’s grim message was that gospel of Jesus Christ was merely a tool to be used in promoting a political agenda. And his message was a none-too-subtle propaganda ploy to gain the support of white South Africans who feared losing their racial privileges, implying that supporting his “ideology” would help to preserve those privileges from things that threatened them, especially “communism”.

And, sadly, it appears that D. James Kennedy took a similar line.

But, as I have said, there was nothing to suggest this in the Evangelism Explosion materials themselves. The Evangelism Explosion method of training people in evanglism was widely used in many parts of the world, and though it was developed in an upper-middle-class suburb in the USA, I was quite surprised to see it work in a working-class shebeen in Soshanguve township near Pretoria. I had (and still have) theological reservations about its Presbyterian presuppositions, but saw no connection between it and right-wing politics. It seemed to me that it could be used by the religious right, the religious left and the religious apolitical alike.

But the articles about Kennedy that I was referred to raise a number of other questions. Take, for example, the one by Skipp Porteous, who says:

These diners are the disciples of the Rev. D. James Kennedy. Kennedy is a leader in the radical religious right’s least talked about plan for Christianizing America — converting people, one at a time, until there are enough to make “very dramatic” changes in our society. The chances are, whether you live in a big city or a small town, his Christian missionaries are active nearby.Christian evangelism offends many, yet, it is perfectly legal. For Kennedy — and thousands of his ardent followers — it is the means by which Christians can take over the country.

“You cannot force a Christian ethic on a non-Christian culture,” Kennedy said. “There is something very obvious _ though Christianity is growing in this country, it is still far from being the controlling force. “I am sure that only a Christian-controlled country is going to be able to stand up to the impending threat and avert the approaching disaster that our nation is facing.”

I find that I agree with some of what Kennedy says, but find the spirit in which it is said quite alien. You see, a lot of what Kennedy said, perhaps with the religious right and its goals in mind, could equally well have been said by the religious left during the apartheid period in South Africa. I’m known in the South African blogosphere as being one of the religious left, and was also known as such by the Security Police during the apartheid period, when I was Enemy of the State Number 1628, so I think I can speak for the religious left on this matter.

When Kennedy said “You cannot force a Christian ethic on a non-Christian culture”, I would agree, to a certain extent. You cannot expect someone who doesn’t believe in God to confess racism as a sin. But the apartheid government often claimed to be defending “western Christian civilization”, and since they sometimes claimed that they had a Christian conscience, one could appeal to it. But I agree with Kennedy on the point that there’s no good in Christians moralising to unbelievers; they should rather evangelise.

Where I find rich irony in Kennedy’s words, however, is where he says, “I am sure that only a Christian-controlled country is going to be able to stand up to the impending threat and avert the approaching disaster that our nation is facing.” The irony is that there seems to be evidence that many Christians in America supported George Bush, and therefore by implication supported the disaster he was bringing and has brought, not only on America, but on many other parts of the world.

Christians do not have a monopoly of political wisdom, and in many cases do not have any political wisdom at all. We are weak, foolish and sinful, and are just as capable of making wrong choices as right ones. Where Kennedy goes off the rails is in presenting evangelism as a political tool, a means to a political end: gaining political control. Rather than heed Kennedy, it would be better at this point to pay attention to G.K. Chesterton, who said:

Much vague and sentimental journalism has been poured out to the effect that Christianity is akin to democracy, and most of it is scarcely strong or clear enough to refute the fact that the two things have often quarrelled. The real ground upon which Christianity and democracy are one is very much deeper. The one specially and peculiarly un-Christian idea is the idea of Carlyle–the idea that the man should rule who feels that he can rule. Whatever else is Christian, this is heathen. If our faith comments on government at all, its comment must be this– that the man should rule who does NOT think that he can rule. Carlyle’s hero may say, “I will be king”; but the Christian saint must say “Nolo episcopari.” If the great paradox of Christianity means anything, it means this–that we must take the crown in our hands, and go hunting in dry places and dark corners of the earth until we find the one man who feels himself unfit to wear it. Carlyle was quite wrong; we have not got to crown the exceptional man who knows he can rule. Rather we must crown the much more exceptional man who knows he can’t.

But if some of the things said by D. James Kennedy are disturbing, some of the things that Skipp Porteous are just as disturbing. “Christian evangelism offends many, yet, it is perfectly legal,” says Porteous. And that statement of his offends many, yet it is perfectly legal.

D. James Kennedy and Francis Grim both made the same mistake: they were prepared to prostitute Christian evangelism to serve an extraneous cause. In this they were similar to Karl Marx when he said that the end justified the means — in the case of Kennedy and Grim, the end, anti-communism, justified the means — Christian evangelism.

Perhaps one can hardly blame writers like Skipp Porteous for buying the lie, since it was being peddled by such prominent evangelists. Nevertheless, it remains a lie. It can only be refuted by Christians renouncing any attempt to prostitute evangelism to serve another cause, no matter what that cause may be.

4 Comments

Filed under Christianity, religion

Tags: D. James Kennedy, EE III, Evangelism Explosion, Francis Grim, religious right, SAAWE