A Dissent to the Covenant Issued at the International Congress on World Evangelization

With deep regret, I, as a black participant of the International Congress on World Evangelization, feel that I cannot sign the Covenant. Inasmuch as I have a great deal of respect for the few leaders that I know personally, I shall share the reasons for my decision.

In a nutshell, Lausanne failed to meet the needs of the black world generally, and the poor, the powerless, and the oppressed specifically. By no means am I suggesting that no good whatsoever may accrue to these people as a result of Lausanne, but unfortunately, in my opinion, an uncertain sound has issued forth from the Congress in some crucial areas, and some historically demonic patterns have been perpetuated.

There were signs at Lausanne that true Christian concern was to have its day. The illusion derived from such statements within the Covenant as follows:

We affirm that God is both Creator and Judge of all men. We therefore should share His concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men from every kind of oppression…. We affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both a part of our Christian Duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrine of God and man, our love for our neighbor, and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression, and discrimination…. When people receive Christ they are born again into His kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit, but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.

These statements have some merit and had the clarity, honesty, and sensitivity of all that was said not fallen below these, I could rejoice that at last a significant section of the evangelical community was beginning to move in the direction of a full proclamation of the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Christ in his fullness was being upheld to a much greater degree. These were the signs pointing to a possibility of less equivocation in facing up to the demands of the Word of God upon the church, including the social demands.

This was not the case, however, for the Congress was not prepared to take such an uncompromising stand. To be explicit, firstly, part of the failing lay in the fact that the Congress in its official pronouncements refused to place ultimate human blame and responsibility where it should have. Consequently, evangelical churches, without benefit of any precise identification of past and present unfortunate participation in evil, may continue ungodly “business as usual.” After declaring we should share God’s concern for justice, reconciliation, and liberation, the Covenant goes on to say, “Because mankind is made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, colour, culture, sex, class, or age has an intrinsic dignity because of which he should be respected and served, not exploited.” The problem here is that this does not point out the responsibility of Christians, which from a black perspective is a serious failing. This could have been avoided by adding, “because of which the church, para-church organizations, and Christians must work to assure that every person is respected...” The sentence following, expressing penitence, does not go far enough in acknowledging guilt, for it is not just a matter of “neglect” on the part of evangelicals; therefore a stronger statement is in order. For example, “Here we express penitence not only for our neglect, but also for the active way we have contributed to the oppression and exploitation of our fellowman and for having, on crucial issues affecting the economic wellbeing of the dispossessed, retreated into a false dichotomy in which, to our shame, evangelism and social concern were regarded as mutually exclusive.”

Secondly, the statement contains some half truths. For, after stating that “although reconciliation with man is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation,” the other side of those points needed to be stated explicitly to give the whole truth— “There cannot be reconciliation to God without reconciliation to man” (1 John 1:5-7; 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:7, 8, 20). Any man that has been effectively evangelized can never limit that transformation to the realm of the spiritual. It must be a social transformation as well. “We affirm that in true evangelism salvation is both a spiritual and a social event. Salvation places on one political responsibilities.” Whenever a half-truth is given to represent the whole truth, then it is an untruth.

Thirdly, the statement left room for equivocation. For it says, “we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist.” To say “we should not” leaves too much room to interpret as optional what the Scriptures make mandatory (Isaiah 58:1; Jeremiah 23:21, 22; Ezekiel 33:8, 9; and 18:15). It is not that “we should not,” we must not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist!

Fourthly, there are two other issues that trouble me that have nothing to do directly with the Covenant; however, my signing of the Covenant would in my view compromise the strong protest I would like to register not only in the areas of the Covenant mentioned above, but also on these issues as well. First, I feel that the Lausanne Congress did not give the South African participants the aid and direction they needed, given their peculiar situation. The fact that they would need such aid should have been anticipated by the planners of the Congress and much prayer should have prepared them to play a more constructive part in the unfortunate chain of events. It was suggested by some of the South African participants that the contingent should agree to express their unity and brotherhood, and pledge their support for the work and spirit of Lausanne. Most of the blacks and some of the whites agreed that such should be done. The overwhelming number of whites (constituting the preponderate number of participants) refused to support these minimal expressions of Christian integrity. Here it seems to me that the whole weight of the Congress should have been brought to bear for the sake of the name of Christ. To our shame, those in the fields of athletics and politics are taking stands against the inhuman racist policies of South Africa in order not to violate the spirit or prostitute the name of good sportsmanship and decency. It is dishonoring to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and violates the Holy Spirit for men to say they have a vision from God to call a world congress on evangelization, but not the insight or boldness to deal with such dehumanizing and demonic attitudes when they show up.

The second problem that bothers me is related to the first and brings the issue closer to home. Of the 600 delegates from the U.S.A. less than 25 were black. Percentagewise, South African blacks were probably ahead of us. Of those 25 blacks the vast majority were staunch supporters of Billy Graham. Black Americans who could have made some distinct contributions to the Congress, but who do not identify with the Billy Graham style of evangelism, were conspicuous by their absence. (This may be an oversimplification of the Billy Graham philosophy of evangelism, but to many blacks it seems to be “get a decision now.” Implicit in the approach used and the content of the message is “get man properly related to God and pay little or no attention to his relationships to his fellowman.”) The following are a few black evangelicals who should have been present, but were absent: Tom Skinner, the leading black evangelist in America if not the world; Bill Pannell; Bill and Ruth Bentley (Bill has been the president of the National Black Evangelical Association for number of years, and was mentioned by Samuel Escobar in a plenary session of the Congress as head of a work that is a viable model for the church worldwide); and John Perkins of The Voice of Calvary in Mendenhall, Mississippi. The control over the selection of black participants would undoubtedly be considered by most blacks to be a classic example of “plantation politics.”

Therefore, I feel I can best serve the cause of our King, the Lord Jesus Christ, and his Kingdom by not signing a covenant that in some very crucial areas fails to speak out clearly and forthrightly and that by signing, I may give blanket approval of all practices, some of which bring shame to and muffle the voice of the Christ I am committed to proclaim. “Let the earth hear His voice!”

Rev. Clarence Hilliard was pastor at Circle Church in Chicago, Illinois when this article appeared and had been a delegate to the International Congress on World Evangelization.