Free at Last? The Gospel of Freedom in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
“The Gospel of Freedom”: Christ’s Twofold Ministry of Liberation
In March of 1968, a month before the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an article by Rev. Francis D. Breisch, pastor of Bethel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Wheaton, Illinois, was published in the Presbyterian Guardian titled “The Gospel of Freedom.”*
What is most striking about the article is the fact that Breisch, a minister in the predominantly White Orthodox Presbyterian Church denomination, recognizes and affirms elements of the work of Christ that have historically been marginalized or denied amongst his peers and forebears. Throughout the article, Breisch explains how the liberation of Christ impacts both the internal and the external:
“Jesus came to free men inwardly and outwardly, to destroy both sin and its results. He came to proclaim the acceptable year of the lord, the year in which God comes down to man and makes ail things new.”
Breisch remarks that many churches in his day have wrongly separated the internal and external aspects of the freedom found in Christ. While “progressive” Christians have tended to limit “the work of Jesus Christ and of the church to alleviating outward misery,” “conservative” Christians that have swung to the other side of the pendulum are those who
“…limit the work of Jesus Christ to the forgiveness of sins, who declare that Jesus is interested in regenerating men, not in reforming society. They would preach a gospel that has nothing to do with housing, with the pollution of air and water for profit, with the dreadful tragedy of war. This view is also wrong.”
There is a twofold nature to Christ’s ministry, and separating one part at the expense of the other ultimately results in a truncated gospel and an impoverished witness. In many ways, Breisch’s arguments are not much different from the integral mission movement that would come only a few years later in the 1970s amongst Latin American Protestants, nor are they any different from the Lausanne Covenant of 1974, which stated the necessary linkage between faithful evangelism and faithful presence in social good.
Those familiar with global Christian history will also recognize that Breisch is not arguing for something novel. Freedom and liberation in Christ understood in this twofold ministry has a longstanding tradition of interpretation in the church from various corners of the Body of Christ. Historically marginalized Christians have especially been adept at seeing the twofold ministry as two arms of the embrace of their Savior.
Christ’s Twofold Freedom Has Sharp Applications
Breisch’s article is direct, poignant, and superbly relevant, especially when one is aware of the fact that the Presbyterian Guardian’s readership is mainly members or those of close affiliation with the theologically conservative, predominantly White Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster Theological Seminary. The freedom that Jesus purchased for all peoples, Breisch argues, places Jesus “in the position of a man proclaiming in a Ku Klux Klan klavern that Negroes are equal to whites.” Indeed, to Breisch, the ministry of Christ is not limited to an internal recognition of the forgiveness of one’s sins, but also includes the external impact on systems and institutions that undergird society as a whole:
“This speaks also to the establishment, to the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and to our whole nation, because it calls for a surrender of all bastions of privilege. It means that the white middle-class man must say to the ghetto Negro, “I was born with opportunities galore; you were born in the midst of deprivation. I and my parents and their parents before them have contributed to your deprivation. Now I have a responsibility to lift you to where you can compete with me and maybe even win.”
Breisch recognized that those within his own theologically conservative circles would have a hard time affirming both sides of Christ’s ministry and that, most likely, they would truncate the gospel by only affirming the internal ministry at the expense of the internal.
“The man who speaks like that is going to be rejected by many good Christian people who want a gospel that doesn’t demand anything, that will allow them to stay quietly and comfortably within their privileged position. That’s why Jesus Christ was rejected at Nazareth. He was rejected because the freedom that he brought was a freedom which struck at the pride and at the possessions of men.”
The liberation of Christ means that “the Western nations of the world must say to the underdeveloped nations, ‘We robbed you in the past. We made you slaves and servants. We took your gold and your goods. Now we must help you. We must help you, not simply to become puppets dancing to our tune, but to become independent nations with a right even to spurn us.’” Slavery, colonization, systemic oppression, and even patronizing forms of foreign assistance are all in the purview of being fundamentally contrary to the arc of Christ’s liberative mission. Honesty about these systemic sins and evils are part-and-parcel of what it means for the church to be centered on the gospel of Christ.
“Spiritualizing” Critiques of Christ’s Twofold Mission
Three months after the publication of Breisch’s article, the Presbyterian Guardian, per their normal practice, published a handful of letters to the editor that were written in response to Breisch and the idea that Christ’s mission of liberation is twofold.**
First, there are some encouraging responses by some of these readers of the publication. For example, a reader named Barbara Essig from Hacienda Heights, California writes,
“I was very impressed by Francis Breisch’s article. Are our pastors afraid to preach this gospel for fear of it sounding social? I suggest it incurs a responsibility that few of us want to accept and a love that only Christ can give. Thank God Mr. Breisch said what he did — perhaps he should have said more!”
Likewise, Phyllis H. Reif from Glenside, Pennsylvania writes in favor of Breisch’s article,
“The article by Frank Breisch and the editorial, “Christians, Society, and the Gospel,” are a godsend. They clearly define what it means to be “in the world” though “not of this world.” There’s no credibility gap here between action and the Word!”
Yet, for every one of these pithy letters commending Breisch’s article, there are two lengthy and scathing critiques. What’s important to note is how these responses ultimately prove Breisch’s point in his original article — when Christians fail to affirm one part of the twofold ministry of Christ, they end up with a truncated gospel. In this instance, this truncated gospel ends up being a “spiritualized” gospel that (mis)interprets mind-blowing passages about Christ’s ministry to the poor, oppressed, and vulnerable.
Albert G. Bender from Bellevue, Washington writes, “…it is plain that the ‘poor’ to whom Christ came were the ‘poor in spirit,’ precisely the elect. Their civil status and material possessions, or lack of them, were simply not relevant.” According to Bender, Jesus never really ministered to the literal poor, but truly only to the spiritual poor who are exclusively synonymous with the elect. Bender goes on to talk about how Breisch’s tone is more in line with “liberal and apostate church leaders and organizations” and is “fed and fanned by the international Communist movement.”
Edward L. Kellogg from San Diego, California strongly remarks,
“The modern civil rights movement is as much the antithesis of the practice of Jesus as modernism’s social gospel is the antithesis of the gospel of the grace of God. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church was born in opposition to modernism’s social gospel; let’s not abandon the very reason for our existence.”
The specter of (White) Modernism and Walter Rauschenbusch’s (White) Social Gospel is often used as a foil for what those with “spiritualizing” tendencies deem to be pure, unadulterated “gospel of the grace of God.” Exactly as Breisch argued in his original article, Kellogg is unable to see the unbreakable link between the two parts of the twofold mission of Christ and ends up internalizing and “spiritualizing” the gospel. Those like Kellogg were right to oppose the (White) Social Gospel movement as a truncated gospel. They were wrong to believe that the other end of the pendulum swing was the safe place to land.
An Amen to the Twofold Ministry of Christ Today?
From what I have researched, Rev. Breisch served in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from 1952–1969, only a year after this article was published in the Presbyterian Guardian. He went on to serve for several decades in the Christian Reformed Church. Yet, though his tenure in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church only lasted for another year after he published this article, I’m encouraged by several things.
First, I’m encouraged that he, a minister in good standing in a theologically conservative, predominantly White denomination was able to say what he said as early as the 1960s when it was more than common for his peers to either affirm segregationist policies or simply “go with the flow” with systemic injustices.
Second, I’m encouraged that the Presbyterian Guardian was willing to publish his article in the midst of one of the most difficult times in our nation’s history. At this time, there were many other more “safe” voices that the Presbyterian Guardian could have published that would have provided overly optimistic and abstract ideas of racial unity. But, the fact that they published Breisch, who was thoroughly direct to his predominantly White audience about White privilege and the systemic injustices that Western Christians had created and propagated, is remarkable.
Third, I’m encouraged to see letters to the editor affirming Breisch’s article. Again, in the context of the late 1960s when White supremacist ideas and ideals were the norm in theologically conservative Christian circles, these affirming voices speak loudly.
But, here, in 2019, I have a question that is yet to be answered after reading Breisch’s article: do theologically conservative, predominantly White Christians — like those in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church — now give a hearty amen to the twofold mission of Christ? Or, have we not made as much progress as we should have in this regard? Is the “spiritualizing” critique still alive and well in these circles, alongside accusations of Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and the (White) Social Gospel?
The fact that the real Martin Luther King, Jr. — the radical King — is still a controversial figure in these circles forces me to temper my expectations of progress. Even in 2019, the idea of being “Free at Last” in its fullest expression receives strong pushback. Maybe that’s a sign that Breisch’s words from 1968 are still meant for us in 2019.
* Francis D. Breisch, “The Gospel of Freedom,” Presbyterian Guardian 37, no. 3 (March 1968): 27–29.
** “Editor’s Mail Box”, Presbyterian Guardian 37, no. 6 (June 1968): 67–68.
