The mob who laid hands on the house of Jason (Acts 17) alleged that the Christians were turning “the world upside down” (v. 7). Was that literally true? Again, it depends upon definitions. Were the Christians changing the Roman government? No. Were they revolutionizing education? No. Were they transforming art? No. Were they affecting music or literature? Not perceptibly.

Author and professor Anthony Bradley posted a provocative essay a while back arguing that church planting is insufficient for social change. He appeals to his own experience and to the history of education and Christendom. His post begs some questions and raises others. As to the former, it assumes that Christians are called to change society. Perhaps.

Did the apostolic church “change” first-century, Greco-Roman society?

It depends, I suppose, upon how we define “change.” Did the apostolic church “change” first-century, Greco-Roman society? Well, the mob who laid hands on the house of Jason (Acts 17) alleged that the Christians were turning “the world upside down” (v. 7). Was that literally true? Again, it depends upon definitions. Were the Christians changing the Roman government? No. Were they revolutionizing education? No. Were they transforming art? No. Were they affecting music or literature? Not perceptibly.

There’s no evidence that they used music in their services. They used existing literary genres and conventions in their epistles and sermons.[1] Did they overturn Greco-Roman slavery? No.[2] They were active in government service, but they worked within existing structures. They established schools, but they followed existing patterns. Further, what was it they were doing when they were accused of fomenting radical social change? Preaching and planting churches. That’s just about all the apostle Paul did. That’s all the apostle Peter did, and that’s about all the rest of the apostles did.

The apostles did seek to help poor believers.

They established a system of poverty relief among the Christians, but there’s little evidence that they set up social welfare organizations to relieve poverty beyond the visible church (e.g., Acts 11:29). One might draw inferences that lead to different conclusions, but there isn’t any unequivocal evidence to the contrary.

So, we should question the premise of the post that Christians are called, as Christians, to promote and advance social change. What sort of change? From what, to what? That may be the case, but it cannot simply be asserted. It must be demonstrated. There are good reasons to challenge the “social gospel” or grand social plans in the name of the kingdom of God. Herman Ridderbos says the coming of the kingdom

consists entirely in God’s own action and is perfectly dependent on his activity. The kingdom of God is not a state or condition, not a society created and promoted by men (the doctrine of the ‘social gospel’). It will not come through an immanent earthly evolution, nor through moral action. (Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, pp. 23-24)

If we survey the way Luke uses the expression “Kingdom of God” (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ), as I wrote earlier, there is no obvious evidence of any political or cultural agenda associated with the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” in Acts. At every point when the apostles had opportunity to “speak truth to power,” to challenge the socio-economic or political or cultural status quo, they refused. According to many modern conceptions of the Kingdom of God, the disciples failed rather badly to “bring in the kingdom” or to restore it. Instead Paul insisted on preaching the foolishness of the crucified Messiah and the foolishness of his resurrection.

Read More