A Purpose-Driven Nation?

A Purpose-Driven Nation?

This is an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal written by Alan Wolfe about Rick Warren's efforts to save Rwanda. Wolfe comments:

"My single greatest fear is that Mr. Warren and his followers will draw huge and enthusiastic crowds to their rallies, convert numerous souls to Christ and then leave when they discover that, for all their efforts, a country like Rwanda faces political and social problems beyond the reach of even the most earnest and popular humanitarian efforts. In short, there is a limit to the good that can be done until such countries alter the basic structure of their societies, eliminating corruption, curbing the abuse of power, setting up an independent judiciary and allowing a free press."

The ever-present blind spot for Evangelicals is the power of social structures. Yet I agree that altering social structures alone will not lead to lasting change. I hope Warren's efforts have an impact for good, but I too share Wolfe's concerns.

Comments

[will spotts]

"The ever present blind spot for Evangelicals is the power of social structures."

This is a blind spot I tend to share.

Personal opinion, of course, but I tend to think the benefits of modifications to social structions are over-rated. For example, in the quote you provide, eliminating corruption and curbing the abuse of power are prominently featured. I regard these as moral problems -- even the BEST social structures are subject to weakness in these regards because they represent flawed human natures. PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS find a way around laws, rules, policies -- i.e. social structures. I can see this in the US -- which had one of the best "social structures" ever conceived in the Constitution. It is also arguably present in the Presbyterian Church -- again, fantastic social structure in theory. Yet so many levels are vulnerable to abuse -- if someone was minded to abuse them.

This is not to say that improved social structures wouldn't make positive changes (either in the political or church realms), but only that the results are limited by the moral character of those who end up "in power".

I also tend to resist the necessary "group" emphasis that tends to go along with efforts to change social structures. I don't believe groups can be said to behave morally -- I tend more toward the school of thought that the group is just the moral aggregate of the individuals within it, and to some degree the group allows individuals to ignore our moral responsibilities. Sort of like people cleaning up trash in parks -- A lot of people won't clean up even messes they have made -- because they view it as something that is not their responsibility.

[Michael Kruse]

You bring a good balance to the equation. My point isn't that personal transformation is unimportant. I think that true personal transformation is seamless with social transformation.

Martin Luther King addressed social injustice but he wasn't just about securing rights for an oppressed group. He was about transforming the oppressor. Through non-violent protest, the oppressor is forced to confront him or herself and ask why he or she is so angry? That self-examination is the beginning of personal transformation that ultimately leads social transformation and it was all initiated by social action. It is hard to draw a line between where personal transformation ends social transformation ends. I think it requires both and I think there is strong evidence for both in the Bible.

Also, some Evangelicals say social action isn't important we just need to evangelize one person at a time. How about anti-abortion laws? Anti-pron laws? Prohibition of same-sex marriage? I don't think it is either or.