Section 3.3 has already shown that the Evangelical movement has at various times made common cause with non-evangelical Christians in the furtherance of its social mission. Thomas Clarkson was not overtly or demonstrably evangelical, yet worked closely with Wilberforce on the abolition of slavery. The religious liberties work of the Evangelical Alliance in the 19th century often proceeded in co-operation with non-evangelical Christian churches and political representatives, and its support of the German Confessing Church in the 1930s linked it with theologians and leaders (e.g., Rudolph Bultmann) who would hardly have been regarded as evangelical. Likewise, the Alliance’s officially-defined stance of ‘benevolent neutrality’ towards the World Council of Churches when the latter was formed in 1948 allowed it to work in parallel with the new ecumenical body, even while it eschewed organic union.
When so-called ‘neo-Evangelicals’ like Carl Henry and Billy Graham diverged from Fundamentalists in the United States after the Second World War, one of the key points at issue was the acceptability or otherwise of partnering non-evangelicals in the social and civic sphere. In the Church of England, evangelicals have at certain times found themselves standing with traditional Anglo-Catholics against liberal innovations - on homosexuality and radical feminism, for example. Even more controversially, the past thirty years have seen evangelicals forging closer links with Roman Catholics on the social agenda. The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission (1977-1984) laid important common theological ground for this enterprise, but the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) initiative, and its practical outworking in the Christian Coalition in the United States, has seen Evangelicals and Catholics join forces in a concerted campaign against what the ECT Statement on Mission defines as the ‘culture of death’ widespread in modern secular society - that is, against abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and the like. As we have seen, in Britain similar alliances with non-evangelical Christians (and, indeed, with some non-Christian groups) have formed around the Jubilee 2000 campaign on Third World Debt, around a range of projects on disaster relief, and around present-day religious liberties.
Writing in 1970, when a new spirit of co-operation with non-evangelicals was emerging as a response to the rise of ‘godless morality’ in the public square, Francis Schaeffer coined the term which has become standard in debates about evangelical social action - ‘co-belligerence’. Schaeffer attempted to define it in the following way:
Christians must realize that there is a difference between being a co-belligerent and an ally. At times you will seem to be saying exactly the same thing as the New Left elite or the Establishment elite. If there is social injustice, say there is social injustice. If we need order, say we need order. In these cases, and at these specific points, we would be co-belligerents. But do not align yourself as though you are in either of these camps: You are an ally of neither. The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is different from either - totally different…We must say what the Bible says when it causes us to seem to be saying what others are saying, such as ‘Justice!’ or ‘Stop the meaningless bombings!’ But we must never forget that this is only a passing co-belligerency and not an alliance.[1]
In depicting evangelical social outreach in these terms, Schaeffer was echoing the conviction of Abraham Kuyper (see 3.9.2.6 above), that the operation of God’s sovereignty beyond as well as within the true Church makes engagement with possibly ‘unsound’ Christians, as well as with others who do not share Christian faith at all, a justifiable step in certain cases. Unfortunately, Schaeffer did not explain his distinction between ‘alliance’ and ‘co-belligerence’ in any great detail, and it might well be asked how such a distinction would be drawn in practice. Perhaps it is better to conceive a continuum of co-operation running between informal, contingent ‘common interest’ at one pole and formal, organic merger of resources, organisation and principles on the other. What seems clear is that the rise of pluralism and secularism in the UK, and the concomitant pressure they are likely to place on all Christians at the cultural and legislative level, will make ‘co-belligerence’ increasingly vital.
Certainly on an international basis, evangelical Christians have found themselves alongside others in pressing certain causes – often to do with human rights and religious freedom. In Malaysia, for example, Christians have made common cause with Buddhists and Hindus to counter Muslim oppression. In Japan, evangelical Christians have worked with the National Council of Churches, Roman Catholics, Buddhists and secular organisations, including the Japanese communist party, in their struggle against the nationalistic religion of Shintoism. In the United Kingdom, evangelical Christians have been working with secular humanists and the media to oppose proposed government legislation to restrict free speech. More and more inter-faith bodies are being created and being expected by governments to speak for the so-called ‘faith sector’ in engaging with the democratic processes.
Some Christians understandably question whether it is appropriate or acceptable to ‘compromise’ in such a way. They frequently appeal to Jesus’ words “He who is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12.30). Others who favour co-belligerence counter this by citing Jesus in return, “Whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9.40). However, in contemporary contexts it would seem that co-belligerence is becoming not only appropriate but necessary as weight of numbers and influence are crucial in swaying public and government opinion. Nevertheless, when Christians decide to campaign alongside others who do not share their beliefs, they enter a world of dangerous alliances and need to act both wisely and cautiously. Careful preparation is required.
Wise preparation involves clarity[2]:
-
clear beliefs
-
clear unity
-
clear principles
-
clear purpose
-
clear outcomes
-
clear language
Otherwise, serious difficulties are likely to be encountered. The dangers of engaging in co-belligerent activity need to be minimised and include awareness of
-
The danger of losing control. There is unlikely to be much trust between co-belligerents. Advantage may be taken of others for selfish rather than common goals.
-
The danger of unacceptable compromise. Established principles and beliefs normally dictate which compromises are acceptable and which are non-negotiable. It is possible to get sucked into unacceptable compromises gradually and insidiously without realising it. Syncretism is a real danger. Pressure may be encountered to sacrifice one’s own beliefs for the good of others.
-
The danger of the final result being distorted by co-belligerents. After all the effort and apparent trust between the parties in a shared exercise, it may become apparent that a party has been taken advantage of or “used”.
-
The danger of being misunderstood by one’s own constituency. Accusations may be received from supporters of ‘betraying the cause’.[3]
[1] Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), 37.
[2] Based on a paper presented to the Evangelical Alliance by John Langlois
[3] For a useful overview of evangelical thinking about co-belligerence, see Daniel Strange, ‘Co-belligerence and Common Grace: Can the Enemy of My Enemy Be My Friend?’, Cambridge Paper 14 (3) (Cambridge: Jubilee Centre, September 2005).
