Intentional Ministry of Wasted Evangelism
Finally, as we celebrate tonight, acknowledging 150 years of serving our King and of service to your community, I’d like to drive your faith toward the future and specifically your church’s intentional ministry of wasted evangelism in this community. Built on the Mark 4 parables, here’s my understanding and definition of Evangelism:
Evangelism is the result of realizing that God’s kingdom has arrived and acknowledging His right to rule and reign over all of creation, which in turn produces the deliberate and intentional spread of the kingdom’s influence through proclamation and action. (Viewed this way, social action can be a form of evangelism.)
This implies that we “evangelize” not only people—which we ought to do—but we seek to align the socio-economic structures and relationships in our community under God’s kingdom, bringing all things under the rule of heaven. As the parable of the mustard seed implies, like king Nebuchadnezzar, we are to do righteous acts that show mercy to the poor. Like the Master Farmer, we are to lavishly waste our seed of the Gospel in word and in deed (in action) so that all people (including the poor) find refuge, protection, safety, and prosperity as God’s rule extends into every nook and cranny of our community.
For most, evangelism is simply proclamation, but I think the Mark 4 parables help us see that social action can also be acts of evangelism as well, that is, addressing the needs of the poor among us (i.e., “showing mercy to the poor”) through deliberate and intentional actions, individually and as a Church congregation.
John Wesley was approached by those who wondered, “What does it avail to feed or clothe men’s bodies, if they are just dropping into everlasting fire?” Wesley responded, “Whether they will finally be lost or saved [we just don’t know what is good or bad soil], you are expressly commanded to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. If you can, and do not, whatever becomes of them, you shall go away into everlasting fire.” Thus, in Wesley’s view (really the Bible’s view) social action ministry was inseparable from the preaching of salvation by faith. Wesley continues by reminding Methodists to do “good unto all men—unto neighbors, and strangers, friends, and [even] enemies.”
Wesley’s Plain Account of the People Called Methodists (1749) was roughly divided into two halves, the first devoted to spiritual principles and practices, the second to the social. Wesley gave attention to medical care for the poor, beginning the first free clinic and dispensary in London. He sponsored a poorhouse (financing it by faith offerings), in which he housed widows, poor children, and the working-poor. He also started a school for basic education, for spiritual training, and for reaching the parents. Another intentional social action ministry was Wesley’s “lending fund,” out of which he rescued people from debtors’ prisons and set them up in honest work. He appealed for financial aid to support these actions by urging people to “Join hands with God to make a poor man live” (George Herbert).
Wesley’s most noteworthy effort of social action ministry was his lifelong campaign, first, to improve the lot of the slave, and then to banish from the earth what he called “the execrable villainy” of slavery itself. And in a letter to William Wilberforce, in 1791, he referred to slavery as “the scandal of religion… and of human nature.” For Wesley, social reform was more than proclamation. Among other things, he “agitated for prison, liquor and labor reform; set up loan funds for the poor; campaigned against the slave trade and smuggling; opened a dispensary and gave medicines to the poor; worked to solve unemployment; and personally gave away considerable sums of money to persons in need.”
Your 150 years are part of a great heritage of social action, of lavished wasted the seed of the Gospel of the kingdom of God. While celebrating tonight you also recognize that your Christian message—our Christian message—is one of many messages in our very pluralistic world. What does it mean to live in a pluralistic world for people of faith?
The rise of options, of choices for our private lives has rapidly multiplied at every level, especially at the level of faiths and beliefs. This multiplying of options—a plethora of choices—diminishes the significance what is believed and diminishes personal commitment.
I call it the junk-mail effect. So much junk mail—now junk email: We are molded by the experience of junk mail to consider all mail is less significant. And this is how it is in the world: There are so many choices presented to us from fast food to TV channels to religious faiths, which in turn makes even Christianity appear insignificant and thus Christianity—for many—loses its social significance.
Most in the Christian church have retreated in light of pluralism and have taken a defensive stance. We are good at tossing moralistic grenades over the wall of our faith, demanding change or laws to protect the Christian view of life. Although sometimes such grenades are warranted, they are mostly ineffective and, because of our own issues of self-interest, are not actually a good Christian way of changing our culture. A better and more biblical approach is to not worry so much about our pluralistic world and become more obedient in our social responsibilities, especially in our relationships to the poor among us in our communities.
Prolonging Our Prosperity (Mark 4:30-32 and Daniel 4)
So, we are imitating our Lord in wasting our evangelism, lavishly spreading the seed of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. But what does this imitation consist of? Most, if not all, take evangelism to mean proclamation, witnessing, preaching, sharing Christ verbally with the unchurched and non-believer. While I agree to the importance of providing verbal affirmation of Christ, it is significantly more than verbal testimony. Evangelism is, by the nature of the Good News of the Kingdom of God itself, any action that indicates that God is ruler over heaven and earth. Evangelism must be more than mere words. Evangelism is the action that stems from the first and second commandments: It is both loving God and loving our neighbor through both proclaiming the Good News and by activities that love our neighbors.
Now I want to look at the next parable, Mark 4:30-32, which hints at how evangelism is more than just mere words, but action—social action:
And He said, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE.”
I am often accused of seeing “the poor” behind every text of Scripture. Perhaps that’s a little exaggerated (maybe not). But perhaps, more so, I emphasize the call to Biblical Christianity through Scripture by showing others their lack of seeing the poor behind much of the text of Scripture. In fact, this time it is really there—the poor is behind the parables here. Maybe you can’t see it, but its there…the poor are behind those last verses: THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE.” Yes of course we can see that the Kingdom of God is likened to a large branchy-garden plant, where the animals can find protection. Perhaps this is the veiled reference. It is, but there is more. Jesus references specific Old Testament texts—which his first disciples and those listening to him would have been very familiar, and in the parable of the mustard seed, he reaches back to Daniel 4 and the story of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon and a frightening dream that had plagued the king.
In the context of Daniel, we have “Nebuchadnezzar the king to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language” (4:1) who is terrified by a dream that had awakened him during the night. The king summons the various court officials, querying them about the interpretation of the dream. Eventually it was apparent that his court ministers were not able to render an adequate interpretation. Finally, Daniel, of whom the king acknowledged that “a spirit of the holy gods” is in him and “no mystery baffles” him, offers an interpretation. But it is not, in the end, a good one for the king of all the nations on the earth. In the end, the vision was about the king’s undoing, his ruin. Although great and powerful, the king’s rule would come to an abrupt end. This seems never to fit into interpretations of Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed in Mark 4.
At first, all looks good. The dream indicates the king’s power, prestige, and extent of his kingdom. The affirmation is described in the vision:
“The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Its foliage was beautiful and its fruit abundant,
And in it was food for all
The beasts of the field found shade under it,
And the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches,
And all living creatures fed themselves from it.”
This is what is referred to in the parable…THE BIRDS OF THE AIR…NEST IN ITS SHADE. In other words, the kingdom—the king’s rule—provided the safety and protection needed to its citizens. This is all good—for king Nebuchadnezzar. His kingdom is described in “beautiful” terms, as if creation under his rule works as it should. But, it will come to an end, for we read in the following verses:
“I was looking in the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed, and behold, an angelic watcher, a holy one, descended from heaven.
’He shouted out and spoke as follows:
“Chop down the tree and cut off its branches,
Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit;
Let the beasts flee from under it
And the birds from its branches.”’” (Daniel 4:13-14).
We are told that the king’s reign will come to an end because he does not acknowledge the right and rule of heaven (the real Kingdom and the real ultimate King). As Daniel tells the story, the seer picks up one particularly surprising point of reference, and maybe even seemingly a little incongruent, almost out of place, namely that the king can forestall the outcome of his demise if he shows “mercy to the poor.” Daniel tells the king,
“Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity” (4:27).
What I find very interesting, of all the things Daniel could have said to help the king identify what needs to be repented of, what needs to be done in order to heed the warning of the night vision, it is the king’s relationship to the poor. The connection between the kingdom and the poor is made here and should inform us of the nature of God’s rule—and to evangelism.
The picture of the branches in which the beasts of the field and birds of the air take refuge has the connotation of how a socio-economic structure cares for, protects, and causes to prosper its citizens. (This is often the case in the Old Testament when creation is viewed as working as it should, namely that God’s redemptive action is making things right—restoring creation back to its proper place and function.) In this case the reign of the king and its socio-economic dimension is to provide a safe and thriving structure for those within its sphere. Daniel in particular makes the connection to the weakest among the citizenry, namely the poor. In fact, in order for the king to keep his kingdom, showing mercy to the poor might prolong his prosperity. In order to hear the impact of the parable of the mustard seed, one must take into consideration the connection to the poor. Once this background is incorporated into our thinking, it will be most natural to view the church’s task of evangelism, that is, spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, as it relates to our social responsibility to the least among us—the poor.
Wesley’s sermons are filled with references to the church’s responsiblity toward the poor. I also think he understood that evangelism is more than just words. Reflecting on Matthew 25, he replies to those who wonder “what does it avail to feed or clothe men’s bodies, if they are just dropping into everlasting fire?” To which he response, “whether they will finally be lost or saved, you are expressly commanded to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. If you can, and do not, whatever becomes of them, you shall go away into everlasting fire” (The Works of John Wesley, Vol 1, Sermons).
____________________________
“Wesley himself did more than just talk about social reform. Among other things, he agitated for prinson, liquor and labor reform; set up loan funds for the poor; campaigned against the slave trade and smuggling; opened a dispensary and gave medicines to the poor; worked to solve unemployment; and personally gave away considerable sums of money to persons in need” (Howard Snyder, Problem of the Wineskins: Church Renewal in Technological Age
, 172).
The nature of Wasted Evangelism (the parable of the Sower)
When we hear the word, Wasted, what comes to mind—“To no avail; useless (wasted efforts); physically or psychologically exhausted; overcome by the influence of alcohol or drugs.” The term is usually heard negatively. When we hear of the seed being spread on poor soil (in the parable), we don’t think of that seed being “wasted,” but we should. I will point out, in this case “wasted” is a good thing when applied to spreading the Gospel.
Hear in the parable we have a sower, a famer who is sowing his seed—we know some seed falls on the wayside, some seed falls among weeds that choke out growth, and some falls on rocky ground. We know the three bad or poor soils. However in the end, we hear that there are three good soils which produce crops of 30, 60, and 100-fold. Three places seed falls where there is failure; and, three places where the soil is good and produces good crops.
Most hear this parable as if the soils are individuals: you know, some who are poor soil, some who are good soil, but it is as if we are to determine (first) what kind of soil a person is before evangelizing them—you know, “Is he rocky soil, or is she weedy soil, or are they are soil that is off the field, on the road, which will never produce anything?” I contend this isn’t how we should hear this parable: We need to see that the famer—in this case the Premier Farmer, Jesus Christ—is sowing His seed lavishly, with abandonment. It is almost as if He did not know what He was doing, acting like a pitiable farmer in allowing his seed to be so lavishly sown in bad soil. That’s actually what is here in the text—our Lord, the Perfect Famer, is sowing his seed indiscriminately, lavishly, with abandonment on good and poor soil alike. He is wasting his seed. We are not commanded to figure out the soil type, but simply to sow, indeed to waste our seed. We are commanded (through imitating the Master Famer) not to limit our sowing. If anything we are to imitate the Master Farmer, lavishly sowing our seed—wasting our seed.
This seed is the Word, and here in Mark, it is the Word of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Briefly, the Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ, but it is more than just personal salvation—which thankfully it is as well—but also the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is the arrival of God’s rule and His right to reign over the realm of mankind. Thus, Jesus is seen here in this parable spreading the news that God’s kingdom has come. That’s the Marken context of the parable. Some accept it. Some do not. We are not guaranteed our sowing will be on good soil—in fact, it will often not be…but we are, nonetheless, to lavishly, indiscriminately sow the seed of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Again it seems simple—it is just an economic question—get the person or family to be a dollar above the Federal Poverty Level. For a single person if they are one dollar above $10,210, that is $10,211, he or she is “out of poverty.” And for a married couple with one child (or a family of three), just note when they are one dollar above $17,170 or $17,171. I found it fascinating that The Gameen Bank and its founder Muhammad Yunus, leaders in helping the impoverished escape poverty, did not even mention annual income (see list in previous post 1 of 2) as indicators. In fact what is listed are areas which address the causes of poverty, and thus if overcome, are indicators that the family has escaped poverty. Based on the concept from Yumus’ book, Creating A World Without Poverty
and knowing the indicators of poverty here in America, I suggest developing indicators for knowing when someone or a family is out of poverty:
You know when a family is out of poverty when…
I would also include (within the school indicator) that young children are enrolled in a quality preschool and/or the parents are reading to their young children everyday.
Of course, I don’t think ignoring economics and employment are in order as we seek to address the needs of those in poverty. Perhaps The Grameen Bank recognizes that employment and annual income are simply means that produce some of the indicators. Don’t get me wrong, I am a workforce development freak—I think the ability to work and gain employment and prosper in employment are key ingredients in helping people escape poverty. But I recognize it’s a means. In fact, it strikes me as interesting that Yunus does not include public supports—that is, attaching public supports to families in poverty—as an indicator of escaping poverty. Of course, I believe in helping families in poverty to harness every (legal) available means to escape poverty, but attaching public support is, as well, only a means, and does not constitute a measure that someone or a family is out of poverty—even if the public supports raise the annual income level above the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Until we see that it is more than economics, at best we will temporarily move people above the poverty level, but not necessarily out of poverty. Just something to think about.
First post for this thread… (
1 of 2)
“Misinformation and lack of understanding of the complex causes, effects, and solutions of social problems are another source of difficultly. It is very tempting to attribute all problems to sin, and indeed it is true that, theologically speaking, sin is the ultimate source. It is not always sin of the victims, however, that produces their sorry plight, nor do upright Christians escape being victimized by social problems. Furthermore, conversion does not automatically rescue people out of misery; words of peace do not take the place of food and clothing (James 2:14-17). The righteous man today is tempted as of old to wonder why so many wicked people prosper, while many righteous do not (Pss. 73 and 94). It is easy to say, “Sin is the cause,” and “Jesus is the answer.” But the immediate specific applications are so complex, that little practical guidance results from expressing such shibboleths. The complex issue of relationships between evangelism and social concern is but one of the numerous facets of the questions of how Jesus Christ can be or become the answer to sin and human social needs.” ~David O. Moberg in The Great Reversal: Evangelism and Social Concern
(1977)
The founder of Grameen Bank, an institution that specializes in microloans as a means to bring people out of poverty around the world, developed their own definition of poverty. They did this in order to measure their success in helping people rise out of poverty. They could have utilized a system based on money income to benchmark the outcomes and so determine if someone has moved out of poverty. This seems to be a common approach to define who is and who is not “in” poverty. How do you know it when someone is out of poverty—it is easy, you tell by their income, whether it has crossed the federal guidelines that determine poverty.
Even as a bank, specializing in banking for poor people, they felt, however, that the system of solely economic benchmarks is simply not practical for those actually in poverty. They, instead, developed a “ten-point system” that looks at the conditions of poverty, not just the economics of poverty. More a soci-economic approach. Once a family has succeeded in clearing all ten of these hurdles, then Grameen Bank consider them to have escaped from poverty.
The ten indicators were designed to define a family who is not in poverty. The reverse, or absence of the very same indicators can be used to define those who are in poverty. Adapted from the book, Creating A World Without Poverty by Muhammad Yunus (founder of Grameen Bank), the following are the ten indicators or benchmarks that describe a family that has moved out of poverty:
- The family live in a tin-roofed house or in a house worth at least 25,000 taka (roughly equivalent to $370). The family members sleep on cots or a bedstead rather than the floor.
- The family drinks pure water from tube-wells, boiled water, or arsenic-free water purified by the use of alum, purifying tablets, or pitcher filters.
- All of the member’s children who are physically and mentally fit and above the age of six either attend or have finished primary school.
- The member’s minimum weekly loan repayment installment is 200 taka (around $3).
- All family members use a hygienic and sanitary latrine.
- All family members have sufficient clothing to meet daily needs, including winter clothes, blankets, and mosquito netting.
- The family has additional sources of income, such as a vegetable garden or fruit-bearing trees, to fall back on in times of need.
- The member maintains an average annual balance of 5,000 taka (around $75) in her savings account.
- The member has the ability to feed her family three square meals a day throughout the year.
- All family members are conscious about their health, can take immediate action for proper treatment, and can pay medical expenses in the event of illness.
In a future post, I will try to set forth a set of ten indicators that might be useful within the American socio-economic setting.
The second post in this thread ...
2 of 2
A former pastor was preaching on Jonah and uttered an unusual take on the story. He referred to Jonah hiding in the hills rather than “hitting the streets.” The cliché phrase, “Hitting the streets,” was uttered and I asked myself, “Why is the church, especially the evangelical church community, reluctant to ‘hit the streets’?” I had my answer, at least partially from the very text pastor was referring to. The text in the Jonah story that scares the living day-lights out of good clean, God-fearing, Bible-believing people of faith is, “Then the people of Nineveh believed in God” (Jonah 3:5). The dirty-rotten, no-good, Israelite-hating, immoral, corrupted, but now repentant Ninevites became believers. How dare they! Listen to Jonah himself. We should be extremely surprised that God allowed this to be placed in His sacred text—how honest can we be, even showing one of God’s prophets and holy men struggling with God’s grace and despairing that His mercy was being extended to the unclean, those nasty, dirty, unbelieving goiim. Listen to the writer’s confession and Jonah’s attitude:
“But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. He prayed to the LORD and said, ‘Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity. Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life’” (Jonah 4:1-3).
Jonah would rather die than see the Ninevites repent and God shed his mercy on them. He’d rather see God fulfill His wrathful promises on these people than see them believe in God and become part of the family.
We’re moved by compassion to give for relief-work halfway-round the world—maybe. Pictures and political rhetoric move us to collect goods and send funds to the relief efforts in far away places, to famine stricken parts of the world—anywhere but next store or in nearby urban or rural areas that smack of being impoverished. We move very few fingers to relieve poverty, feed hungry children, help the undesirable to find work within the very communities that touch ours right here, right now, every day, twelve months a year. We are just not moved by the unchurched nearby, especially the poor and the urban. Hitting the streets, moving our church activity center away from our comfort zones and refocusing on the territories currently owned by the enemy, the places where the unchurched, non-believers live, work, and play would make us very uncomfortable, even maybe wishing we were dead.
“But finally Daniel came in before me, whose name is Belteshazzar according to the name of my god, and in whom is a spirit of the holy gods; and I related the dream to him, saying, ‘O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, since I know that a spirit of the holy gods is in you and no mystery baffles you, tell me the visions of my dream which I have seen, along with its interpretation. Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Its foliage was beautiful and its fruit abundant,
And in it was food for all
The beasts of the field found shade under it,
And the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches,
And all living creatures fed themselves from it.’”
_______________________________
“[T]his is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: that you be driven away from mankind and your dwelling place be with the beasts of the field, and you be given grass to eat like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven; and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes. And in that it was commanded to leave the stump with the roots of the tree, your kingdom will be assured to you after you recognize that it is Heaven that rules. Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:8-12, 24-27).
I find it fascinating that Jesus utilizes the Old Testament story in Daniel 4 to describe the arrival of the Kingdom of God and the nature of its presence. In Mark we hear Jesus ask, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God…?” and then utilizes a parable to answer the question (as He has in throughout Mark 4).
We are quite familiar with Jesus’ parable of a small seed that grows to become “larger than all the other garden plants and forms large branches.” In some camps of evangelical Christianity this parable is quickly turned into (interpreted) an illustration about how many people will be converted to Christ. The “large branches” suggest to some the missionary endeavor that reaches (branches) out further and further to encompass more and more converts. I bought this rendering for many years. Although I do not disagree with the mission aspect, that is Christianity branching out to encompass more and more of the world, I find it more missional at this point in my life then simply about missions. I do believe in the importance (and imperative) of church planting and bringing people to Christ, however, this parable is not about such limited view of evangelism. This parable is answering a question regarding the nature of the Kingdom of God, not simply a truncated view or limited definition of evangelism.
We have already read in Mark (chapter 1) that “The time is fulfilled”—making Jesus’ arrival a fulfillment of Old Testament prophetic expectation)—and that “the Kingdom of God is at hand”—making Jesus’ appearance (ministry, death, and resurrection) centered on the arrival of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). And then in Mark 4 itself we are confronted with a parable about a Sower who sows “the Word,” which speaks to the “mystery of the Kingdom of God” (4:11) and its spread and its acceptance and rejection.
Perhaps a review of the Danielic background will help us to understand the reference and parable of the Kingdom of God and, thus, discover a better definition for evangelism.
In the history and context of Daniel, we have “Nebuchadnezzar the king to all the peoples, nations, and men of every language” (4:1) who is terrified of a vision, a dream that had awakened him during the night. The king summons the various court officials, querying them about the interpretation of the dream. Eventually it was apparent that his court ministers were not able to render an adequate interpretation that the king could accept. Finally, Daniel, of whom the king acknowledged that “a spirit of the holy gods” is in him and “no mystery baffles” him, offers an interpretation. But it is not, in the end, a good one for the king of all the nations on the earth. In the end, the vision was about the king’s undoing, his ruin. Although great and powerful, the king’s rule would come to an abrupt end. This seems never to fit into interpretations of Jesus’ parable of the muster seed in Mark 4.
At first, all looks good. The king’s power, prestige, and extent of his kingdom are acknowledged. The affirmation is described in the vision:
The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Its foliage was beautiful and its fruit abundant,
And in it was food for all
The beasts of the field found shade under it,
And the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches,
And all living creatures fed themselves from it.’”
This is all good. In fact the kingdom is described in “beautiful” terms, as if creation under its rule works as it should. But, it will come to an end, for we read in the following verses:
“I was looking in the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed, and behold, an angelic watcher, a holy one, descended from heaven.
’He shouted out and spoke as follows:
“Chop down the tree and cut off its branches,
Strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit;
Let the beasts flee from under it
And the birds from its branches. (Daniel 4:13-14).
We are told that the king’s reign will come to an end because he does not acknowledge the right and rule of heaven. As Daniel tells the story, the seer picks up one particularly surprising point of reference, and maybe even seemingly a little incongruent, namely that the king can forestall the outcome of his demise if he shows “mercy to the poor.” Daniel tells the king,
“Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity” (4:27).
What I find very interesting, of all the things Daniel could have said to help the king identify what needs to be repented of, what needs to be done in order to heed the warning of the night vision, the prophet identifies the king’s relationship to the poor. The connection between the kingdom and the poor is made here and should have some force to inform us of the nature of God’s rule.
The picture of the branches in which the beasts of the field and birds of the air take refuge has the connotation of how a social-economic structure cares for, protects, and causes to prosper its citizens. In this case the reign of the king and its socio-economic dimension is to provide a safe and thriving structure for those within its sphere. Daniel in particular makes the connection to the weakest among the citizenry, namely the poor. In fact, in order for the king to keep his kingdom, showing mercy to the poor might prolong his prosperity. In order to hear the impact of the parable of the muster seed, one must take into consideration the connection to Daniel chapter 4, and thus a connection to the poor.
The first post of this thread,
Prolonging your prosperity: Evangelism is more than proclamation (1 of 3)
But finally Daniel came in before me, whose name is Belteshazzar according to the name of my god, and in whom is a spirit of the holy gods; and I related the dream to him, saying, ‘O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, since I know that a spirit of the holy gods is in you and no mystery baffles you, tell me the visions of my dream which I have seen, along with its interpretation. Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great.
The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Its foliage was beautiful and its fruit abundant,
And in it was food for all
The beasts of the field found shade under it,
And the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches,
And all living creatures fed themselves from it.’”
“[T]his is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king: that you be driven away from mankind and your dwelling place be with the beasts of the field, and you be given grass to eat like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven; and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes. And in that it was commanded to leave the stump with the roots of the tree, your kingdom will be assured to you after you recognize that it is Heaven that rules. Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:8-12, 24-27).
____________________________
And He said, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE” (Mark 4:30-32).
As I begin my research for a paper, “Wasted Evangelism,” that I hope to present at this November’s Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting, I am reviewing literature on “evangelism” and “social action.” My (preliminary) thesis is simply that we, too often, have defined
evangelism as solely a cognitive activity which involves proclamation with the hopeful result of converted souls. Seems narrow and only partially biblical to me.
Obviously, as a Christian, this activity, proclamation evangelism, I believe, is a good thing, and very much a biblical mandate. But it narrows evangelism to a verbal act, rather than seeing its etymological background in a fuller, more biblical sense, namely, the idea of “spreading the gospel” is more than conversion and has much to do about social structures as well. What I mean is, since evangelism comes from the word “gospel” and means “spreading the gospel,” I think we need to go beyond proclamation. The gospel is intimately linked to the arrival of the Kingdom of God through the appearance of the Son of God. In fact the gospel writers refer to the gospel as the gospel of the kingdom of God. So, it is not just the good news of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, but the good news that in the life, death, resurrection, and the coming of the Spirit, the reign of God has invaded planet earth. Thus, the “spread of the gospel” is indeed the spread of the reign of God. Therefore, one cannot ignore that the reign of God is also about changing, rearranging social structures, as well as converting people to Christ.
Thus far in my research, I have concluded that proclamation is not enough, however, and is only one part of the “spread” of the gospel—evangelism needs to have a social component as well as the verbal component. The gospel, as it spreads, must address the social relationships and socioeconomic structures that are webbed within communities and throughout the wider society—throughout the whole earth. Now of course, some will debate whether it is by “one converted soul at a time” that changes social structures, or whether the gospel is also to be equality applied to life itself and should confront ungodly social structures and seek necessary change (with or without individual conversions).
I am utilizing Mark 4, and in particular the parable of the Sower who sows, as the basis for my brief biblical theology on evangelism and social action. This text is often utilized to support “evangelism,” and thus I have some leg to stand on. However, I do believe the parable is misused and turned into something it is not. (Read my Rough Cut exegetical essay on the text, The parable of the Sower who sows: hearing more accurately (Mark 4).) Here, in part 1 of 3, I only make a few observations from the second of two follow-up parables in Mark 4. (Read above, vv 30-32 and the textual background in Daniel 4, verses8-12 and 24-27).
This insertion of two brief parables right after one of the two lengthiest teachings directly from Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (chapter 13 is the other) begs one to conclude that the follow-up parables (placed there by Mark) are epexegetical, or at least linked to the “parable of the Sower who sows” as a further explanation of the nature of the spreading of the seed = Word, which is the Gospel, which is the kingdom’s arrival and the ministry of the disciples. So, I find it interesting that we have these two parables to help us understand the nature of the kingdom and one of them—the second one—is directly connected to the nature of the rule and reign of God through the depiction of a large branchy plant/tree. Furthermore, there is the original Danielic background to consider as well (next post, 2 of 3).
It is interesting to note that the parable of sowing is related to the kingdom, which implies social structures. This is further highlighted and alluded to through the second of the two follow-up parables (in vv 30-32). In the second parable, the seed planted is related, not to “souls” or individuals who respond or not respond to the sown Word, but to a socio-economic entity, i.e., the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, the socio-economic nature illustrated through the “large branches” that are protection for “the birds of the air” implies that the nature of this kingdom is one of purposeful and intentional security, safety, and prosperity for taking refuge in to its shade.
This observation is enough for me to find that the “spreading of the Gospel” is to affect the socio-economic structures that surround us in order to reflect the rule and reign of God. The spread of the Gospel is the spread of the kingdom, which implies more than individuals choosing to be subjects of the kingdom. The arrival of the kingdom demands that all areas of life have been invaded (are to be invaded), and that the rule and reign of God has been unleashed upon both individual lives and, as well, the socio-economic structures that have been corrupted by sin’s reign and the powers of ungodliness.
The second follow-up parable seems to suggest that “sowing the Word” is more than just proclaiming the Gospel. The sowing is about the spread—seeding—of the Kingdom of God, the spread and increase of the rule and reign of God. There is both a declaration (i.e., verbal witness) and a socio-economic implication as well, if we understand Evangelism as the spread or advance of the Kingdom of God and not solely a passing on of knowledge through proclamation.
In the next post for this thread, I will discuss
the Danielic background of the quote in the second follow-up (
2 of 3) parable in Mark 4.
To do righteousness and justice
Is desired by the LORD more than sacrifice.
Haughty eyes and a proud heart,
The lamp of the wicked, is sin.
The plans of the diligent lead surely to advantage,
But everyone who is hasty comes surely to poverty.
The acquisition of treasures by a lying tongue
Is a fleeting vapor, the pursuit of death.
The violence of the wicked will drag them away,
Because they refuse to act with justice.
The way of a guilty man is crooked,
But as for the pure, his conduct is upright.
He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor
Will also cry himself and not be answered.
~Proverbs 21:3-8, 13
Now that I have been made aware, once again, that God does not hear the prayers of the sinner (recall postings on Isaiah 59 and Micah 3) I am now more aware of similar warnings in the Bible as I do my reading or study. In a recent post on the “Cries of the poor” I obviously noticed verse 13:
He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor
Will also cry himself and not be answered.
This being very powerful and straight forward. Why is it in almost now thirty years of hearing sermons, Christian speakers at Church, and even messages at Christian conventions, retreats, and “deeper life” services, I have never heard once that my prayers could go unheard if I do not “hear the cries of the poor”? Or that God will turn a deaf ear to my own cries (i.e., prayers) if I even shut out their cries? Implied in this verse (which I gave a little context, which indicators the cries are related to justice and doing righteously by the poor) is that the one who actively finds ways to disregard the cries of the poor, is in danger of God not paying attention to his or hers. This is a little scary. Oh, yes, scary alone that God would not hear our own prayers, but still worse that our lives might intentionally be ignoring the poor by neglect, with purposeful intention, a political view, a bias, a prejudice, a belief that “I have my rights, too, you know,” or through living and seeking the comforts of our upward mobile socioeconomic lifestyles. I might, after my research on Mark 12 and the public advocacy for the poor, would include things like the desire for personal status and the fight to suburbia (away from the City) as means that “shut” our ears to the cries of the poor.
So, in the midst of such platitudes about prayers and why God will not listen to us, let’s hear a little more about why and more specifically what the Bible actually teaches us regarding our prayer (especially our corporate ones), the church and its relationship to the poor, and our own attitudes and actions toward and for the poor.
I know I harp on this a lot. I am not sorry for this, but it is what I think about: What is the Church’s role in reducing poverty? At work I helped to develop our tag line which goes on emails, memos, letters, and most every other document of any correspondence:
Making a case for change…engaging the community to end poverty.
My work life, and really much of my outside of work life, revolves around this in some way. However, I am pulled toward my faith in regards to reducing (or ending) poverty. I have no profound thoughts on this. Nothing to add to what more articulate and creative Christian thinkers have already said. But, nonetheless I believe poverty is a Church issue. But our narrow view of salvation, that is, God’s redemptive act in Christ is narrowed down to the individual without regard to wider socioeconomic structures and habits, is a barrier to dealing with poverty. Additionally, among evangelicals, especially suburban conservative evangelical, there is a reluctance to intentionally get involved with the poor and the attending social structures associated with the poor. And in this heated political season, I have even heard more on the subject of the “rights” of the wealthy and rich from my fellow faith community. Please don’t misunderstand me—I don’t believe it is prudent to advocate taking more money from the rich and wealthy to just to transfer to the poor (in various ways). The existence of poverty is not a problem of wealth distribution. But with that said, I have never heard in the Scriptures where God, even remotely, suggests he is concerned about the “cries of the rich.” But we read over and over about His concern for the “cries of the poor.”
“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless” (Exodus 22:21-24).
“Beware that there is no base thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,’ and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry to the LORD against you, and it will be a sin in you” (Deut 15:9).
“You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you” (Deut 24:15).
“So that they caused the cry of the poor to come to Him, and that He might hear the cry of the afflicted” (Job 34:28).
“He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor; will also cry himself and not be answered” (Proverbs 21:13).
Again I ask, how are we Christians, the Christian community to address the issues of poverty and how are we to related to and care for the poor. According to some of the passages that above, our own prayers will be affected as a result of the cries of the poor. How does the community of faith “make a case for change” and thus “engage the community to end poverty”?
Many would relegate lifestyle evangelism, intentional acts of kindness, “relationship building,” and such to what is called “pre-evangelism.” These pre-evangelism concepts, for some, do comprise acts of charity, which include “ministry to the poor,” as well. Here at least the church is doing charity and helping the poor—which is a good thing. And of course, as in Moody’s case, many Christians are sincere, well intentioned, and still minister to the poor and needy, despite putting proclamation-evangelism as a priority over social action. However, I will contend that social action (i.e., ‘carrying bread in the other hand”) is evangelism, if we take evangelism (i.e., the spreading of the evangel, that is the increase and effect of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God).
The assumption that conversion is enough to change things, like ending poverty, simply is a truncated view of the Gospel and an unwarranted assumption. Conversion doesn’t always lead to such things; but often just maintains the status quo—consumer before conversion, Christian consumer afterward; conservative before conversion, Christian conservative afterward; participant in the same old social structures and social sins before conversion, a Christian participating in them afterward.
Also, a so-called two-step to fixing social sins and in particular ending poverty is a convenient fallacy to make, for it allows those who are “evangelizing” to keep their distance from both poverty and the poor, and then it conveniently places the burden on those in poverty to accept Jesus as a means of personal delivery from poverty (which it might and might not be) and once converted to help bring an end to poverty (which it probably will not). What a burden to place on the poor.
Let’s return to outcomes just for a moment in conclusion: Think in terms of outcomes first with evangelism as solely proclamation—the outcome is “persons saved” or maybe we up it, “persons saved and incorporated into the church,” or maybe even sound ultra-spiritual, “persons saved and discipled.” And now, to be Christian, we tell those in the congregation “you have to witness or you have to participate in evangelism activities because that’s the call of the Christian; this is for every Christian no matter your personality, spiritual gift, or talent.” (But I wonder—how are we to get these outcomes, is it not up to God to add “those who are being saved” to the Church as the Acts of the Apostles teaches?) The outcome of defining evangelism as proclamation is limited to individuals and not communities, social structures, etc.
Second, let’s define evangelism as activities that demonstrate that the Kingdom of God has arrived in Christ Jesus—the outcomes are changed or changing communities, helping the poor, helping people become self-sufficient, feeding the hungry, working with urban after school programs, changing legislation to be fairer to low-income wage earners, bringing to account slum-landlords, building low-income housing, developing a low-income health clinic, doing job development for the poor and working poor…I’d also include discipling Christians to be less consumer-oriented and more kingdom-centered, etc. And then, as we go into the world making disciples, teaching them of the Kingdom of God and God’s righteousness that they are to seek (Matthew 6:33) and while out in the world (i.e., the community), when asked why our community of faith does these things, we give an answer concerning the hope we have among us in Christ (1 Peter 3:15). Here we end up doing both evangelism as social action and testifying, which seems the biblically preferred order—e.g., city on a hill, doing good works so that others glorify God, you will be known by your love, love God and your neighbor, not in word, but in deed, etc. (you know the texts of which I refer). The biblical priority is social action (loving your neighbor) first, then testifying. But I submit both are still evangelism.
An unwarranted cleavage, a spurious priority, and a convenient fallacy (
1 of 3;
2 of 3)
Making the assumption that proclamation is the priority in evangelism (and to some, evangelism itself and to many more only evangelism) and disregarding social action as evangelism (or a means of evangelism) seems to reflect 1) a very narrow view of the Gospel itself, 2) a misunderstanding and somewhat limited view of the kingdom of God, and as well, 3) restrict and limit the use of gifts, talents, and personalities to those more readily used in proclamation-centered evangelism.
The first two go together in that the Gospel (from whence we get our idea and concept of evangel-ism) and the Kingdom of God are not just related, or close biblical concept, but are interrelated, in fact its biblical to say, “The Gospel of the Kingdom of God” (Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 24:14; Luke 16:16; cf. Mark 1:15). The Gospel is often truncated and shrunk down to the minimal “salvation of souls.” However, the Gospel is God’s redemptive act in history, the inauguration of His Kingdom, that is the arrival of His rule and reign. This makes the Gospel more than just about souls (which, don’t get me wrong, is very VERY important). The good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God is that His birth, death, resurrection, and the coming of the Spirit is nothing short of the over-throw of the powers of this world, its sinful and sin tainted social structures, and the arrival of the rule and reign of God in the history of man. If evangelism is to keep its biblical etymology, the definition and meaning must include these aspects of the Kingdom.
You will search in vain to find a solid base of texts commanding us to evangelize—no really, there aren’t that many in the New Testament. The idea of a cognitive-based proclaiming is a logical leap (of faith) from the concept that man is sinful and in need of God’s forgiveness and righteousness, thus we need to evangelize, i.e., make converts. This leads me to my third observation, namely a proclamation-centered understand of evangelism ends up limiting the range of gifts and talents, and even personalities within the body of Christ. We narrow down the gifts (and the gifts of the Spirit) that can be of use to evangelism when we have a proclamation-centered understanding of evangelism. This seems to me to disregard the wider range of gifts that God gives to build His body, the Church. Furthermore, when we say that evangelism is only proclamation, i.e., witnessing or preaching the Gospel, we narrow the field of those who are “gifted” to do evangelism. And worse, we make those without verbal-centered gifts and personalities given to verbal expression feel guilty if they don’t evangelize. However, after 30 years of reading and studying the Bible, I find that if evangelism is defined more along the biblical lines of the inauguration of God’s kingdom, everyone can do their part; everyone in the church can express their gifts and use their talents.
In researching my paper on evangelism and social action I ran into a quote by the famed evangelist, D.L. Moody:
“When I was at work for the City Relief Society before the fire I used to go to a poor sinner with the Bible in one hand and a loaf of bread in the other. . . . My idea was that I could open a poor man’s heart by giving him a load of wood or a ton of coal when the winter was coming on, but I soon found out that he wasn’t anymore interested in the Gospel on that account. Instead of thinking how he could come to Christ, he was thinking how long it would be before he got the load of wood. If I had the Bible in one hand and the loaf in the other the people always looked first at the loaf; and that was just the contrary of the order laid down in the Gospel.”
At this point I am not speculating on why Moody said this, nor any possible psychological or theological reasons behind his change of heart. I quote it to put it out there, almost as if it is a founding principal for making the preaching of the Word more important than and (worse) separate from acting the Word through social action (i.e., “a loaf of bread”). First, throughout Scripture the acted Word is what both the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles made clear was “the testimony” of an faith people and a declaration of God’s reign and grace. There is an unwarranted cleavage between proclamation of the Gospel and doing the Gospel (in this case I am thinking of “social action”). Second, making such a cleavage is spurious at the least for it allows the people of the community of faith to skip doing the Gospel, to lessen the biblical demand to act on behalf of the poor. And, third, it is a convenient fallacy, for the idea that if we get people converted, then we’ll take care of poverty doesn’t work out in the real life of the church or society. This is mere convenience so the church doesn’t have to get their hands dirty with ministry and social action toward the poor. Such a dichotomy placed upon proclamation (or “witnessing) verses social action is basically a way to narrow the Gospel’s scope from a world-changing, community deconstructing—reconstructing force to simply the privatized, personal changes of the individual. I will be contending that, although important to proclaim the Gospel (i.e., carrying the Bible in one hand), it is equally valid to express the presence of the Kingdom (i.e., the actual Gospel of the kingdom of God) through social action. What if “carrying a loaf of bread” in our other hand was a valid, biblical means of evangelism?
Page 12 of 17 pages « First < 10 11 12 13 14 > Last »