Words'nTone

I was cautious even to know what to call this post. Nothing unfair. My goals in this blog doesn’t include bashing other religions or provoking unnecessary tension between rival religious groups. But I was intrigued and a bit surprised at the mention of African Christians in a recent NYPost opinion column. Over the years, I have read in numerous books and articles on the growth of the African Christian church, often mentioining that Christians and church plants outpace every other religious group and sect in Africa. Usually the comparison is made to the pace of church planting in America vs. the church planting in Africa—Africa wins out every time. But the facts of African Christianity never seem to make it into the main stream press or the “evening news.” I have read articles by respected journalists on African religions, but without one word on the massive church growth among Christian denominations all throughout the continent. And then there it was in a recent print news commentary I read about the growing tenision between African Christians and radical Islamist (NYPost 7/18/10).

Ralph Peters, the columnists, writes: “The Islamist have it wrong: Islam isn’t the world’s fastest-growing religion. By birth numbers and convert tallies, it’s Christianity.” Now of course I don’t believe someone is a Christian by birth (it must be by choice and allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour) and I can’t say what’s in the heart of Mr. Peters, but I take “by birth count” to mean Christian families giving birth to children being raised in a Christian home. Nonetheless, the mention of Christianity in this way in a nationally recognize news outlet was startling to me. Perhaps it’s only the historical value and an attempt at being fair, Peters seems to be contrasting the militant raise of extreme Islam and the, at present, raise of peaceful, joyful Christianity in a country—Africa—usually know for tribal religion and the spread of Islam.

Peters’ writes about the violence and vengeful attacks on African Christians. But that didn’t surprise me. It was the other outcome related observations that stunned me—stunned because it was in the main stream press. He contrasted the “backward and listless” Muslim community, one that is “[c]ondemned to poverty by poor educations.” But, Peters writes, “Christianity blazed” [his emphasis]. He continues, “Mega-churches co’t contain all those who’d accepted Jesus as their Saviour: City parks were packed with ecstatic worshippers every Sunday.” Peters point out that certainly Muslims are converting (being baptized) in Islam, but Christians are not converting to Islam. “Wahhabi Islam’s rejection of joy just does’t speak to Africans—who even in misfortune seem incomparably alive.” In Christianity, the Islamist extremists confront their potential converts with a death-cult, not a faith, “while the vibrant Christianity of Africa pulses with life.”

The second, Peters makes a haunting observation: “Of course, a Christian crusade in response to jihad would be just fine with many Saudis and Gulf Arabs. They don’t care about the suffering of inividual Muslims—only about Islam” [his emphasis]. He references the building of mosques, in particular in places where there are few Muslims (such as “eastern Tennessee”). “Every mosque helps stake a claim for the dar ul-Islam” (that is under the influence of Islam, under the household of Islam) in order to extend its boundaries. Peters doesn’t go into detail on this, but the contrast between Christianity and Islam (especially militant Islam) is made clear by this: namely, while both religions are indeed God-centric, it is Christianity that marks its territory, not by buildings (although one might get that impression by our church-growth fantasies) or forced submission or death, but by loving one’s neighbor. I am reminded that the best apologetic for the Christian faith isn’t a large church congregation or a large building or budget, but the Christian community’s existence for the sake of others.  Again, another reason Christians should be in the forefront on the issues of poverty and social justice.

African Christians hopefully will not be militantly crusading against its militant Islamic neighbors any time soon (which Peters seems to think is drawing to a head). But these faithful Christians in a country known for poverty, oppression, and the ever present tension and reality of clashing with their Islamic neighbors, now, are an example of Christ on the planet. The contrast between Christianity and other religious expressions glares at us through this lens. My observations and the references from Peters are not meant to comment on Islam as much as they are to highlight what it means to be “followers of the Way,” the way of Christ in the world.

“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money” (1 Timothy 3:1-3).

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth…” (2 Tim 2:24-25).

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:5-9).

Something my mentor and Crown College theology professor, Dr. Don Alexander, once said has stuck with me all these years, etched in my memory. It came first in the form of a question: “By what means does the New Testament teach that a church grows? Through spiritual gifts or leadership?” He went on to explain and concluded the answer lies in “leadership.” Throughout my Christian life, now over thirty years, we’ve been have, ad nauseam, heard about the importance of spiritual gifts, finding our spiritual gifts (I always thought the NT taught they were given, not sought—and the only ones we are to pursue are faith, hope and love), using our spiritual gifts, etc., etc., etc. And as far back as I can remember, there have been some voices on leadership, but most of them just mimic of the business world or some new trend. I think about this every time we “vote” and “elect” new leaders for our churches—how is leadership really defined and characterized in the NT descriptions. This is not a critique of my church’s process (necessarily) or of any church’s—in fact the men and women leaders and the ones to be elected are usually very good people, active in our church, and faithful. One area, however (and there is always a however with me), over the years of my Christian life, I have found to be minimized and made marginal, but is a loud part of biblical leadership, namely can the leader teach? And more specifically, can leadership teach the foundations of the Christian faith as passed on by the apostles? A church leader, at least deacons and elders, ought to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute unsound doctrine. When the NT writer uses “teach” (didaskoo), it carries the weight of “apostolic teaching.” In other words, church leaders need to be able to teach the apostolic truth of the Gospel to their generation of believers in order to keep the church strong, faithful, and alive. They are to guard the church in this way. Size doesn’t matter. It didn’t in the NT—and as far as I can tell, the canon hasn’t been reopen and there isn’t a new redemptive era upon us with more revelation to be included in the canon on church growth and church leadership. Size doesn’t mean the church is being faithful to Scripture or to its Lord—in fact, the opposite seems more true…the larger the church, the more like the world is becomes. What matters is, can leaders teach? Can they guard the Gospel? That’s the legacy of leadership. That’s how a church grows.

Finally, some concluding thoughts. Please remember these are first thoughts. I am hoping to work on a paper, maybe to present, but certainly as a chapter in my hopeful book on evangelism and Social Action: “Significance Before Application: Proclaiming, Casting, and Evangelistic Social Action Outcomes.” But for now, these concluding remarks are very rough draft. My concern in this thread was to attempt some thoughts and a preliminary answer to the question, “How is casting out demons = to social action.” I have suggested below in the posts to this thread that it is not that casting = social action, but that the significance of the fulfillment of the promise to become fishers (Mark 1:17), that is, the significance of the commission to announce the arrival of the kingdom and the activity of casting out of demons (Mark 3:14-15), ought to have social action applications—I’d rather say, they can have social action outcomes.

First as briefly discussed above, I believe part of the impasse, the barrier, to seeing how social action outcomes are a legitimate evangelistic outcome is that we start with application and move back to the text. We start with witnessing and other verbal forms of evangelism and we read back into the Gospel story that is what Jesus must have meant in saying you will become fishers of men. Second, we have a problem with moving from proclaiming the gospel to anything other than “the four spiritual laws,” or “Jesus died on the cross for your sins.” And third, we make no application regarding the significance of the fisher activity of “casting out demons” other than literal exorcism. So we stop and assume we know what the text says because we’ve already figured out how to apply it. So the text (i.e., “fishers of men” in Mark 1:17) must mean what we already think it means, namely, we are to verbally communicate that Jesus saves and fish, catch people for Christ, i.e., get them to convert, be saved, become a Christian. This however is our doing, not the text’s inference, and certainly not what is presented even throughout the whole of the New Testament.

I’d like to return for a moment to Mark 1:14-15, Jesus’ first summary of His ministry and Mark’s primary summary text of the content of what the Jesus-ministry-mission is.

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Let me borrow from Joel Markus’ thought on this passage from his commentary on Mark 1-8. We read this as two statements, but we do not read them as two parallel statements that explain or correspond to each other, which would not have been so far-fetched given the Hebrew thinking of the one who said it (Jesus) and the one who wrote it (Mark). Let’s just say it’s a structure that smacks of Hebrew parallelism.

The time is fulfilled   and   the kingdom of God is at hand
Repent                  and    believe in the Gospel

The significance of the parallelism is that the time of the old age, or this present evil age with all its anti-YHWH aspects, has come to an end; that time (the καιρὸς) has come to its eschatological end, for the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated. The old age of Satan’s rule over mankind has come to its eschatological end, albeit in a “now and not yet” form. And, the time of God’s dominion, His right to rule over the realms of mankind, has come—His Kingdom has been inaugurated in the appearance of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). (Also in the “appearance” are the other inaugurators as well—John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit, and the fishers of men.) The first imperative is to repent, which corresponds to the first indicative that the Kingdom has come. The second imperative is to believe, which corresponds to the second indicative that the hearers are to turn to belief/faith in (loyalty to) the good news that the new age of God’s dominion has dawned.

The fisher-promise, which comes right after this ministry-mission summary, pulls those who follow this King Jesus, the Messiah, to mirror this ministry-mission. As Jesus begins his ministry in the following verses through chapter 3, consisting of proclamation and casting (and healing), so now in Mark 3:14ff the followers are commissioned to mirror the same. The content of the Kingdom is drawn from Old Testament covenant texts, land-stipulations, and prophetic judgments—all of which contain issues related to the economically vulnerable (as I have already demonstrated and written and posted even on this site). Why shouldn’t we think that both the proclaiming and the casting interventions are related to bringing about the values, laws, and regulations that mirror the rule and reign of the arrived King? One certainly explains it; the other certainly demonstrates it. The proclaiming in the Gospel isn’t about “Jesus saves” (although one of the outcomes associated with the presence of the Kingdom for sure), but about the time when God’s Kingdom has arrived and all of creation is to realign itself with this Kingdom, and all people are to reorient themselves to the demands and values of this Kingdom.

Those who say “fishers of men = verbal communication of the Gospel as evangelism” forget there is a second part, “casting out of demons.” Of course there are those who believe casting is a miracle for today—this is not the debate here, although I have no problem with that assumption. What I am driving at here is, “Do we cast as well as preach, witness, and proclaim?” Few do. So how do those who disagree with me “cast out demons?” Or, do we take literally the fisher commission to proclaim (and narrow it down to only individual salvation) and “spiritualize” or do away with the commission to “cast”? Or perhaps we should see the significance of the Gospel of Mark’s commission and the two interventions of preaching and casting, that is interventions that are to reorient ourselves to God’s inaugurated Kingdom and that God’s Kingdom is “aggressively” taking over the realms of Satan, the present evil age, which has distanced itself through private actions of individuals, through structure sin (intended and unintended), and through both intended and unintended consequences of the choices and social structures we live within? Long sentence, but it makes my point.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out elsewhere, even the casting in Mark’s Gospel, particularly in the lengthy section of chapter 5, is actually about God’s stronger man invading the realms of mankind in order to bring about God’s rule and reign. More on this in a future thread. For now, I believe we should see the significance of the commission to proclaim and cast as interventions that are to move the realms of mankind away from the present evil age that has come to its end and move the realms of mankind—individually and corporately, things of the private sphere and things of the public sphere—toward the outcomes that are to be associated with the arrival of God’s Kingdom.

Yes, proclaiming the presence of the Kingdom and the casting out of demons are to be understood as including social action outcomes that address the needs and conditions of those who live in poverty. Social Action Outcomes can be biblical evangelism.

Let me give a slight preamble disclaimer here—these following thoughts are just that, thoughts. Not that they do not reflect what I believe the Bible is telling us--these words do. It is just that I haven’t fine tuned them, honed them…in other words, these are the first I have put out in public what I am thinking about concerning social action outcomes and the fisher-activities of proclaiming the Gospel and of casting out demons. But, nonetheless, here I go…

Now what, as agents of God’s inaugural Kingdom, are we to make of these things in the previous two posts in this thread? This process, that is the last post on thinking through from Goals to Interventions/Activities to Outcomes to Indicators, helps move us toward what outcomes we want to see happen in light of the One Big Goal of establishing or making apparent the presence of God’s Kingdom. Of course I don’t think we “make” the Kingdom appear—it has appeared; that is God’s doing. We are the agents God uses to show the Kingdom has appeared. We join in and are “revealors,” eschatological agents of His Kingdom. The goal of those who are fishers, in the Marken context, is to be God’s agent in bringing about (actualizing—I like this word, actually) through proclaiming the Gospel and through casting out demons the realization that the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated through the Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah, Son of God (Mk 1:1). The One Big Goal is the realization that God’s Kingdom has appeared. Again as Mark’s narrative world displays it, the interventions are the proclaiming and casting (and heal if we count Mark 6’s second commission story). And, so how do social action outcomes fit, or how are they equally appropriate to outcomes of belief and decisions for Christ outcomes?

Here’s my initial thought…be ready for it…I think the problem, or at least one of them lies with what we make of “proclaiming the Gospel.” I think we should not necessarily see two separate interventions or actions in the sent ones’ commission—the first proclaiming and the second casting. But two that point to one main intervention, namely actions that indicate the Kingdom’s presence.

First, we make proclaiming the Gospel narrow—decisions for Christ is, really, but one outcome possible for proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom. It is we who have narrowed the outcome of proclaiming the Gospel to one thing—a decision to accept Jesus as Savior. This is not the biblical model. It is we who have made Christianity a cogitative-based system. Why isn’t proclaiming the Gospel also about bringing people to repentance about other things concerning the Kingdom--justice for example, racism, or even economic stability, or generational poverty? And dare might I have, about workforce development?We’ve narrowed the “proclaiming” category to one thing--decisions for Christ. Certainly, the Bible hasn’t and in particular, the Gospels do not.

Second, we already, right now and throughout Church History, see “proclaiming” as an action, not in its narrow sense of standing on a hillside preaching to small crowds of villagers, but a wide range of possibilities. We’ve felt the freedom to expand what “proclaiming” is from handing out tracks, to one-on-one witnessing, to sharing a testimony, to mass crusades. In fact, Jesus does one thing as He presents the model of proclaiming: He tells, lectures, teaches, and preaches what the Kingdom is like. And later as the disciples pick up the commission, we don’t even know exactly what they said to fulfill the “proclaiming” component of the commission, other than they taught something about the Kingdom (Mk 6:30). We only know what they tried to do—cast out demons and heal (Mk 6:13, but also thinking of all the Gospels in this observation). We’ve expanded and filled in the silence on this matter. But, we assume (interpreted and applied) what one outcome is in mind, namely decisions for Christ. We read the Mark commissions and infer that what Jesus meant was proclaim the Gospel with this one outcome in mind, “Jesus saves, repent and believe this.” This, however, is not what Mark nor any other the Gospels present—it can be included, but not necessarily narrowed down. The proclaiming of the Gospel, as presented by Mark, includes both the Christ appearance, event, and the presence of the Kingdom, which in itself includes a wide range of potential desired outcomes. These outcomes are generally related to that One Big Thing: What does it mean to have God’s Kingdom appear in the realms of humankind.

Before I go any further, please be assured that I believe Christians are to bear witness and seek ways to lead others to Christ. No doubt about it. But with that said, haven’t you ever wondered why we don’t read instructions or admonitions or hear commands to share your faith, to lead others to Christ. Even in the Book of Acts, it is almost exclusively the apostles and church leadership that are “proclaiming” who Christ is and its meaning, who are seen preaching (apologetically and through OT exposition by the way!), and not so much the laity—by which I mean the average, everyday, believer and church person. And in the Gospels, the proclamation is centered on simply what is said in Mark 1:14-15, that the Kingdom has arrived—not so much in our terms of “Jesus is Savior, repent and believe Jesus died for your sins and you will be saved.” All true, but not so much.

The activity of the “sent ones,” the original fishers, also included casting out of demons and healing (attempts anyway), not so much individual witnessing. Don’t get me wrong, such observations do not imply that such activities as witnessing and such outcomes as decisions for Christ are not biblical—they are just narrow and, even, if ultimately important for the individual, only one of the possibilities, and have actually the least biblical support. What we do see is that the proclamation of the Gospel, which is according to Mark (and the rest of the Gospels), the announcing of the presence of the Kingdom; it is this that is to be believed after repenting of whatever is contrary to the Kingdom. And in the Casting Out of Demons, we see that the presence of the King removes the Demonic or anti-God influence both personally and geographically. The question is, what do we do with these observations? Or, at least what do I do?

Yesterday’s Northeastern regional conference of the Evangelical Theological society was both challenging and encouraging.  So many gracious people of faith gathered in one place to listen and learn about a wide range of topics that are meant to intrigue, inspire, and sometime challenge previously help assumptions about interpretations and applications of the Christian faith.  Lisa, my wife, even pumped into the Pastor of the Church where she gave her life to Christ when she was eight years old.  Of course, he has moved on and is living and ministering elsewhere, but the unexpected meet was a blessing.  The ten or some people who joined to listen to my paper were also as gracious, encouraging, and still challenging.  The questions were all great.  I am glad for them, even the ones that called into question some of my conclusions or comments on the topic of Mark 1:17 and the “fishers of men.” Of course you can read my thoughts on this in some of the previous threads posted on the draft and thoughts that found their way into the paper, Designed for Discipleship: Fishers as God’s Agents of Judgment (Mark 1:17).

Two thoughts, mostly based on the questions that arose from my presentation is worth me musing about for a few lines.  First, am I downplaying the role of verbal witness in how I communicate my conclusion that evangelism can be social action?  I certainly hope not.  My pursuit in these studies is not to eliminate what is an obvious biblical evangelistic activity—witnessing, proclaiming.  But it is my desire to clearly indicate that evangelistic activities that seek to produce social action outcomes are as legitimate for the Christian and the local church communities.  Perhaps I need to do better at explaining this—which I think I will do over the next few posts.  The outcome of personal decisions for Christ is, of course, a desired and fully biblical evangelistic outcome.  Verbal or cognitive-based evangelism is the activity—not the outcome.  A decision for Christ is the outcome.  My stress has been on the potential of social action outcomes (outcomes that address the needs of the poor and the issues of poverty) as legitimate evangelistic outcomes.  Seeking to change something in society that reduces or eliminates the incidences of poverty or meeting the needs of the poor, and I’d include, as well, doing something that stops generational poverty are not the outcome—these are the activities, the evangelistic activities, as is verbal witnessing or proclaiming the Gospel is the evangelistic activity.  The change is the evangelistic outcome.  The activity is an evangelistic activity.  Hopefully I’ll make that clearer in future posts and writing.

The second one will take a longer time, perhaps even a paper.  The two apparent evangelistic activities of those who’d be made fishers (Mark 1:17 and 3:14ff) are heralding the Good News and casting out demons (later in Mark 6, the activity of healing is added).  I was asked is casting out of demons is social action (which was doubtful by the one asking the question).  This I knew would need a longer explanation, but I said yes anyway.  But, I’d really wanted to say that both heralding the Good News and casting out of demons in Mark can be translated into evangelistic activities that promote social action outcomes.  In this, I see a future paper arising…just need to think out I demonstrate this exegetically as well as theologically, and then in what everyone wants it seems, application.

All in all, I truly appreciated the discussion.  It was both gracious and challenging as it ought to be.  I look forward to living up to the challenges I met at this conference and look forward to being at next year’s conference.

My fisher posting that precedes this one expands a Rough Cut on Mark 1:17 that I had written back in 2006. But now in order to give full disclosure on the matter, the expanded paper here now reflects my goal in producing a defense that Social Action can indeed be Evangelism. It is we who have narrowed evangelism down to proclamation. Oh, of course we say Social Action, that is helping the poor and doing other acts of kindness, can be “pre-evangelism,” but not truly an act of evangelism. But, this is to dismiss how the Gospel is actually presented in the New Testament, and in particular how it is built on Old Testament referents and contexts that speak clearly to God’s concern for the economically vulnerable. My previous three papers on the subject also provide a foundation for this view I hold. My first on Mark 12 and the “Poor Widow” is posted here on the site. The foundational essay on Mark 4 can be found in various draft postings here (and also in these posts, 1, 2), but the full article, “Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): The Task of Evangelism and Social Action Outcomes,” can be found in the Africanus Journal (Vol 1. No. 2, November 2009, pp. 39-58). My recent ETS paper on the biblical juxtaposition of idolatry and poverty is posted in draft form on this site as well. And there are other posts on Mark 3, the Beelzubul conflict, as well, that offers even more argumentation regarding the link between evangelism and social action.

One of the difficulties in positing a different interpretation of a popular text is making application changes. In fact, sometimes Christians are apt to forget good exegesis, forgo sound contextual and biblical theological considerations, and jump directly to application. In this case for many, application is interpretation. It goes like this with the “fisher of men” texts in Mark 1 and Matthew 4: Since evangelism is like fishing in that I am catching people for Christ, that’s what Jesus meant when he says “You will become fishers of men.” But this is backwards; we start with application to explain what a text means—and this makes it all the more difficult in presenting and convincing others of a sound, new to them, interpretation of a popular and fond text to many Evangelicals. One problem with application is that is can narrow one’s view of a text from which the application is linked--How else are we going to apply it, if the text doesn’t say what I thought it used to say? and But, if that text doesn’t mean what I thought it meant, then we’ll stop doing the application (in this case “witnessing” and “evangelising”) and that isn’t right. Linking fishing for men simply to verbal communication and individualised acts of salvation creates barriers to hearing the text and then seeing its significance for a whole other range of potential application.

Over the next few posts, I’d like to muse on the significance of my understanding of “fishers of men” as God’s agents of judgment, and then reluctantly make some application.

Back in 2006 US News & World Report had a blurb (in ‘Washington Whispers’) that the republicans, according to Ed Gillespie, the former GOP Party chair, expect to increase their minority and in particular its black vote. Gillespie indicated that they will see double or triple their usual share by courting “black veterans, entrepreneurs, and churchgoers.” This doesn’t come as a surprise to me. First off—both parties target groups and then figure out ways to draw them or keep them into the political fold. But, in this particular article, it was his comment that followed that struck my interest: “We will not get the votes of the … upper-middle-class African-American voters in the suburbs … until we demonstrate our commitment to poor African-Americans in the inner cities.” First thing that came to mind was: I wish I could help the GOP see how this can happen and what measures of support would both increase such commitment and actual—really help—to have good, positive, and sustaining outcomes for the urban vulnerable so that the commitment would not just be a show. And then I thought, isn’t this also so true as a basic principle for the church? Not that I am speaking—or thinking—here of just wanting to increase adherents among Africa-Americans (which would in and of itself be a good thing), but in general. We (evangelicals) want people do believe our message of the Gospel and we will not see an increase in that among the population until we demonstrate our commitment to the poor and vulnerable in the inner cities (and of course elsewhere). My studies in the book of Mark and in particular my recent one on Idolatry and Poverty and my essay on the Mark 12 “Widow vs. Scribes” passage has revealed more clearly that there is an eschewing of the evangelical voice in public affairs on issues of poverty. This has made me more acutely aware that it is our deeds and attitudes concerning the less fortunate and vulnerable that are a weak-link in our apologetic and public voice. My papers haven’t necessarily been about institutional advocacy, it is actually a developing thesis that such commitment to the vulnerable needs to be our evangelism, congregation-by-congregation—actual church people believing and acting in roles of doers and advocates for the poor who will, as Jesus said, will always be among us.

My paper on Evangelism and Social Action, which I presented at the 2008 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Providence, RI, has been published in the Africanus Journal’s recent edition. I am honored and humbled by their kindness in asking for and publishing this paper as an article. You can obtain both the article and the Journal online through the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary website, the Boston Campus.

     A number of years ago my pastor had a great idea to get people to come to church. One Sunday morning he asked us to list on the 3 x 5 card in our bulletin topics that our friends would like to hear. He was planning a “relevant and practical” sermon series during the evening services. The pastor hoped the topics would interest our non-churched friends if there were some “practical” value to them. This was a no-brainer for me, so, without hesitation, I wrote down “workforce development” and “poverty,” topics that would interest my friends. Some weeks later, I asked the pastor if he had seen my 3 x 5 card. He acknowledged he saw my topics and then made this comment, “That’s your area.” For sure, these areas are mine in the sense that I work within the social service world, and, in particular, a Community Action Agency, whose mission is to alleviate the causes of poverty and move families toward self-sufficiency. At that moment, I realized I needed to develop my own “theory of evangelism” as it relates to the Christian faith and issues like “workforce development” and “poverty.”
     The pastor’s comment was in line with a history of dissonance over the Church’s social responsibilities and how the Bible speaks to issues of poverty…click here for the full article...and scroll down…

I am going to get in trouble here, but that’s the way it goes.  Shouldn’t surprise regular readers of Words’nTone.  You can search the New Testament high and low and you will not find the Gospel writers (Luke, James, Peter, or John, even Paul) dwelling on the subject of evangelism.  I know to speak against or downplay evangelism (that is, contemporary, individualistic, personal evangelism) is like committing sacrilege—and it certainly would not make one a popular candidate for a pastoral position in today’s modern church.  (Maybe that’s one reason the a pastoral position continues to allude me.) I have been a student of the Bible for over 31 years, not just over three decades.  I have a Masters in New Testament Theology (with a Greek concentration).  I have been a New Testament and Greek Professor at a Bible College and Graduate school, and have pastored churches for about ten years.  And I still get strange looks and condemning comments when I ask where are the commands to evangelize.  Of course I appreciate the passion of those who are committed “verbal witnesses,” who make it part of their daily lives to share Christ with others.  I am moved by the commitment of those who weekly participate in programs like Evangelism Explosion and witnessing teams.  But as a formal command to share the Gospel or for a church to develop and plan for evangelism (and to tell people in the pews it is their job, their responsibility to do the work of evangelism), there is a lack in New Testament scripture of such a perspective and application.

Go make disciples (Matthew 28:19), of course.  The general call to preach the gospel to all creation (Mark 16:15), this is there, too.  The promise of being Christ’s witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), yes, indeed that is there as well.  Some will think these are enough to suggest each individual Christian is responsible to evangelize.  My issue, however, is we all too often attach “witnessing” and “evangelism” to growing my church, our individual local congregation.  There is that expectation, as if the burden to bring “in the numbers” is a people-of-the-pew responsibility.  But go ahead, read each New Testament Letter and find me one place where Paul, James, Peter or John (or Luke for that matter) commands those individual churches to get busy evangelizing, or calls for individual Christians among the congregations to go out and bring people in.

Why I am even bringing this up?  Don’t I care about people going to hell?  Why wouldn’t I emphasize evangelism?  What’s wrong with me?  I think this cognitive approach to spreading the Gospel is an excuse for actually not doing the work of the Kingdom.  I believe church leadership uses this “place-the-burden-on-the-pew” approach to evangelism to replace their responsibility for fulfilling true leadership and the call of pastoring.  New Testament writers seems to be more concerned about expanding the influence of Jesus, His kingdom and His righteousness than making a series of individualistic, building-centered church bodies just increase their body-count (i.e., attendance numbers).  I’d like to see more biblical theology on church growth (and not just social trends and sociological studies—all good and could be useful, but not just for numerical church growth).  The church is called to be an expanding temple of Christ—moving outward, expanding outward to encompass more territory demographically and geographically.  As we seek to develop plans for evangelism, church leadership is to, well, lead (and that means do, people, do, not just talk or preach), and whole congregations should implement ways to expand the kingdom, which includes it social dimensions, not just its personal application.  It seems to me that the New Testament writers spent their writing time disciplining and assisting the local church communities to be better “Cities” on their respective “hills” and evoking the church’s leadership to lead in developing in this type of evangelism, that is, the growth and advance of the kingdom of God and God’s righteousness.

If you have read through this blog, you know I have often complained about the contemporary church’s building-centered church life.  Not only does this make the non-churched to seek out the church (the opposite of “go into all the world”!), it creates habits—structural and social—that make the church inwardly focused.  As Rusaw and Swanson open in their book, The Externally Focused Churchthere are two groups that the church ought be externally focused upon: The first, those who live on the margins of society, especially the poor.  Perhaps this isn’t good for a church budget or a pastor’s salary, but the church should be reaching out to its neighboring poor—and not just the overseas poor!

Referring to the founder of the Circle Urban Ministries in Chicago, Glen Kehrein, the authors point out that when a church evaluates whether it is a “Healthy Church,” what is normally looked at?  Does the church have dynamic worship [whatever that means]?  Are small groups a vital part of the church?  Does the church demonstrate evangelistic vitality?  Kehrein wondered why there is rarely any mention of caring about those on the margins of society as a part of evaluating a church’s health?  I think he is right on!  He asked, “How can you have a healthy church that has no concern for the poor?” James, the New Testament writer, would have concurred, for he mentions that the health of the church is affected by how the poor are treated.  In fact, he had to remind the church what pure religion must have, namely a concern for the poor (James 1:27).  In fact, we know that even the apostle Paul, deep in the midst of church planting and discipling mentions that he was eager to minister to the poor (Galatians 2:10).

The second group is the central-city in general, i.e., the church is to have the welfare of the city in mind.  I appreciate that the authors, Rusaw and Swanson, point out how the church’s rhetoric (and I might add, often its very actions and non-actions as well) “reinforces the idea of being at war with the city” rather than showing the church’s concern for its welfare.  This book is offers a great primer for being externally focused as a church; very thought provoking, and builds a good base of scripture to support the concept that the church is to be externally focused.

Over the years I have rarely taken chances on books with cliché titles, particularly those written about the church. But in this case I couldn’t help it: The title itself is a good summary of what I have been thinking for some time now, and after three papers on the Gospel of Mark (“Widows in Our” courts on Mark 12; “Wasted Evangelism” on Mark 4; and most recently “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Public vs. the Private Isn’t Enough,” which examines Mark’s use of the Old Testament juxtaposition of Idolatry and Poverty) that conclude that social action can indeed be evangelism, I can say that there is truth in the cliché “externally focused church.” In fact, I did but the book and was very much intrigued with The Externally Focused Church by Rick Rusaw and Eric Swanson. I was not disappointed. At the start, they summarize the marks of an outward, externally focused church:

• They are inwardly strong but outwardly focused.



• They integrate good deeds and good news into the life of the church.



• They value impact and influence in the community more than attendance.



• They seek to be salt, light, and leaven in the community.



• They see themselves as the “soul” of the community.



• They would be greatly missed by the community if they left (p 12).

Later they write:

“These churches look for ways to be useful to their communities, to be a part of their hopes and dreams. They build bridges to their communities instead of walls around themselves. They don’t shout at the dirty stream; they get in the water and begin cleaning it up. They determine their effectiveness not only by internal measures—such as attendance, worship, teaching, and small groups—but also by external measures: the spiritual and societal effects they are having on the communities around them. Externally focused churches measure not only what can be counted but also what matters most—the impact they are having outside the four walls of the church” (p 17).

This book heads the church in the right direction. Intriguing. And, this book is at least one that will help churches form that alternative community that seeks justice and mercy.

The following are a number of quotes from my recent paper, “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Private vs. Public Isn’t Enough.” Section II of the paper, which is a review of Marken texts and his use of the idolatry-poverty OT juxtaposition, I will post in the next thread.  Although a repeat of drafts posted earlier, the final version is worth re-reading (I think, anyway).  For now, various quotes from the other sections of the paper are posted here:

• Issues of poverty are almost automatically, by default, arranged in private vs. public dichotomies, arguments, and responsibilities, which sets up a defective social construction of reality for the Christian.



• Then, the banal posture of many non-poor Christians to the poor can lead to the “bystander effect,” leaving many Christians out of any active role in addressing the causes of poverty or assisting those affected by poverty.



• It seems we do have a programmatic approach for discussing poverty that actually focuses application down to, not what the government or charitable individuals think or do, but how the Christian and the Christian community define themselves and how they are associated with the poor.



• There is a fascinating range of Old Testament contexts that Mark draws upon throughout his narrative that refer and allude to contexts that juxtapose both idolatry and the economically vulnerable.



• The Gospel is associated programmatically with the issue of idolatry and to those affected by poverty, which ought to, then, (re)form our understanding of Christian discipleship and evangelism.



• What is of particular interest is that the defense of the poor was “seen as a virtue of gods, kings, and judges,” essentially a policy of virtue that proved the piety and character of a ruler, monarch, or god.



• In light of antecedent ANE concerns for the poor, the uniqueness for the Israelite is that everything narrows down to one God who is alone righteous, who brings about justice for the poor.



• Peoples of the ANE all had social regulations that were part of royal legislation and subject to the state’s administration of justice.  Thus, enter the biblical concentration on land-management stipulations related to the economically vulnerable.  This is where the significance resides: The protection and advocacy for the poor were polemical, an apologetic for God against the false gods and their image-bearers.



• The prohibition against images and idols has a slight twist to it, namely there is a religious logic at play: It was understood that a pagan deity was present in its image and the human monarchs or sovereigns were considered to be image-bearers of their deity.



• This is particularly important in regards to the ethical stipulations where God demonstrates His righteous virtues in protecting and caring for the poor: As the work of God’s hands, Israel—His image-bearer—was to reflect His righteousness.  And, as the present Spirit-image-bearers, so now believers and the Church are to reflect such righteousness.



• The people’s relationship to the land was to reflect the virtues of God in contrast to surrounding deities and their image-bearers.  There was an apologetic to be demonstrated through the people’s relationship to the land.



• Fulfilling land-management stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable and the poor is set within a God vs. the gods polemic, actually raising justice for the poor to the level of apologetics and evangelism.  As the one true God, if He does not demonstrate care, provide for, and protect the economically vulnerable, then He is no God at all—at most, just one god among other gods.  Furthermore, when the people who are to reflect His image do not provide a profile and outcomes reflecting such concern and advocacy, not only does this diminish His glory, but also negates the witness and proclamation of His name among outsiders.



• With the inauguration of the Kingdom and the Church and believers as His image-bearers, there remains the same apologetic concerning God’s righteous acts on behalf of the poor, and thus demand relevant evangelistic outcomes related to the protection, care, and advocacy for the economically vulnerable.



• L. T. Johnson reminds us that “Idolatry comes naturally to us, not only because of the societal symbols and structures we ingest from them, but also because it is the easiest way for our freedom to dispose itself.”



• It is not necessarily how Old Testament ethical texts apply to our modern social-location (although important), but how the apologetic nature of the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition relates to those who are to be formed by the Gospel, then, how that significance dissuades Christians from conforming to any private vs. public dichotomous response to poverty.



• Although much of the Old Testament ethical content is similar to surrounding ANE religions, this is one of the most striking contrasts to Israel’s neighbors, namely the religion of Israel prohibited idolatry and, very importantly, in how idolatry formed social relationships.



• It is the body of knowledge that accompanies the object and service of worship and, then, the social and cultural habits that follow, developing an everyday world with meaning and definitions for relationships (repeated action, mundane habits) that objectifies reality and maintains plausibility, significance, and security (its symbols and corresponding institutions).



• As far as biblical revelation is concerned, “Idolatry [is] the Big Lie about reality” (Johnson).



• Applying the significance of a Gospel embedded with texts regarding idolatry and, as well, texts indicating relationships and social action toward the economically vulnerable, it is important to understand how the social-location experienced by many non-poor Christians was formed and its implications for their participation in the outcomes of this social-location.



• Over time new symbols and signs (lawns, yards, gated communities, commutes and highways, social status, shopping malls, upward mobility, the market, double-entry accounting, etc.) that permeate the social-location the modern non-poor Christian experiences as everyday life compete with religious or biblical symbols (e.g., the words of God, the redemptive-historical acts of God in history).



• After decades of political alignment and religious justification, for the most part, the non-poor Christian living in the suburbs now feel at home.



• Without a sociological imagination, many non-poor Christians are not fully aware of their own socially constructed exurban reality, nor how it has been formed, which can lead to duplicitous, self-righteous double standards toward the poor.



• Often arguments rest, not on biblical grounds, but realities constructed by everyday life outside concentrated areas of poverty, namely, the ability of the non-poor who have taken the “opportunities” presented in our socio-economic system to develop wealth and prosperity.  The poor in the cities only need to do the same.  Equal opportunity, not equal distribution of wealth is justice. But this is not a fair picture, for the so-called “opportunity” has had a history and an opportunity that has been largely absent from social-locations with the most concentrated poverty, a consequence that is more akin to the injustice described by the prophets than simply the results of a good, honest Christian work ethic and the invisible hand of the market.



• The invisible hand had and continues to get help—sometimes through Federal, State, and municipal efforts; sometimes through creative marketing; sometimes through celebrity-trend makers; sometimes by politically empowered zoning codes.



• It is an empirical fact, the system and its mediating institutions ignored its central-cities and promoted life in the burbs as the ultimate goal of prosperity, all for the gods of growth, progress, and the new.



• On the one hand, the non-poor’s social construction of reality which they now experience as everyday life allows them to benefit from past actions of government, not just the market, that laid much of the groundwork for continued prosperity. On the other hand, the concentration of poverty in central-cities is not simply about laziness, slothfulness, or even personal sin.  (I assume the non-poor who benefit from the current structure and mediating institutions are just as much “sinners” as those living in geographic areas of concentrated poverty.)



• The fact of poverty and the reality of those affected by it in the central-cities couldn’t have happened any more affectively if it were actually planned and implemented with malice.



• The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life that are incorporated into his or her belief system—validating the plausibility of personal faith.



• The non-poor accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.”



• For the Christian and Christian community it is, Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship.

In the first post of this thread, closing my conclusions on my ETS paper, I offered a rewrite on the conclusion of my paper (Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship). As most of my regular readers know I am working and finishing up a paper that I will present at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society that meets in New Orleans this month. The paper, “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Public vs. the Private Isn’t Enough,” draft of which I have post on this site. I went into this project thinking I knew the outcome; already knowing what I expected to find out. After a year of research, having read and reviewed countless articles and books, I didn’t find exactly what I thought I’d find; I ended up discovering something slightly different.

In Rhode Island last year, I explained to my Evangelical Theological Society study group, “Other Voices,” that I feel, often, alone in any room. No matter where I go, I find I am almost always alone in the room, among colleagues, at church, among friends, at political activities. Don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of friends and family, and people are generally nice to me and often agree with parts of my thinking. So this isn’t about people as much as it is about what I believe to be important and true. I can be in a room of my professional peers and I’d, almost always, be alone; or in a room of friends or workmates, and again, be pretty much alone as a conservative, who believes in the original intent of the constitution, who works in the social service world on behalf of the poor. I am a conservative, “right wing” evangelical, a hawk regarding the military, a strong advocate of reasonable military preemptive action, low-taxes with minimal government, strong on business and the free market, who also believes that the issues of poverty are of national interest and deserve action at all levels of society, including government. Dealing with the issues of poverty is more than individual charity, for there is personal as well as structural sin, quality of life doesn’t mean just suburban life, but is a matter of well-being and economic self-sufficiency (or at least as much self-sufficiency as possible for individuals and families).

And particularly for the non-poor, conservative Christian there needs to be a different framework for thinking about poverty; one which is neither right nor left (although I am not that naïve to think one can totally be non-political or without a tinge from blue-red); one that doesn’t simply finds its basis in a political allegiance or socio-economic social location.

While writing my paper on “Wasted Evangelism” and Mark 4 for the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in 2008, I discovered that virtually every single reference in the Old Testament regarding the poor, the economically vulnerable, or the issue of poverty was juxtaposed with texts about idolatry. Vertically every Pentateuchal or Prophetic text dealing with the poor also, in the immediate context or flow of thought, had a reference to idolatry in some form or another—there is an idolatry-poverty juxtaposition that is consistent throughout the Old Testament. This intrigued me to do some further investigation. Here are a few things I learned and discovered along the way and in doing this paper:

• Because of the references to the poor and poverty in the Old Testament have as their basis the prohibition against idolatry, particularly the idea of God vs. the gods, the issue of poverty for the Christian is raised to the level of apologetics, placing it directly into the very nature discipleship and evangelism.



• The non-poor Christian living in the suburbs didn’t do it on their own as they claim—they had help over the years, particularly in Government aid, policy, and regulations.



• As long as there are zoning codes and laws supported by political conservatives, I will not believe those same conservatives actually believe in the free market—they believe in a controlled free market with rules and regulations that support their social location and place and property as they see fit (not as the market sees fit).



• The original Ten-Words, often referred to as the Ten-Commandments, have more to do with the issues of poverty than simply the piety of those who claim adherence to their so-called original intent.



• Political alignment is a faulty framework for thinking and dealing with the issues of poverty, and for the non-poor Christian in particular, it is a faulting and idolatrous construction of reality.



• Social action isn’t an option for the evangelistic efforts and life of the church community; it is by definition of the Gospel as presented by Mark, part of it—so much so that not to provide social action as a believing community is to be disobedient to the Gospel.



• Those living in and enjoying the benefits of exurban life have stolen and are “stealing” (as the original 8th commandment is to be read) from those who live in urban centers and are guilty of the original intent of the 10th commandment to not covet.



• This private vs. public dichotomy where the choice is between individual charity and government or public is a faulty framework for Christians to think about poverty, which supports both the idolatry of individualism and idolatry of the state rather than truly addressing the issues of poverty.



• And one wild and crazy thought—imagine thousands and millions of suburban, non-poor evangelical Christians moving out of their exurban comfort-zone and into urban–centers all across this nation. Imagine. Do you know what kind of impact that would have on urban centers, on urban school districts, on municipal, State, and Federal politics—and zoning laws? Imagine.

Last week at Sunday morning worship, we prayed for and reviewed the persecuted church throughout the world. We reviewed the countries which cause the most persecution of Christians and then we concentrated on two countries on the top ten list: North Korea topped the list (“There is no other country in the world where Christians are being persecuted in such a horrible and relentless way”). When I lived in South Korea back in ’79-’80, I had heard the stories first hand how the church in the Korean peninsula had suffered. Now South Korea is home to five of the largest church congregations in the world. We learned of Eritrea, where persecution of Christians is daily. Have you even heard of Eritrea? I certainly haven’t. It is a small a country in the Horn of Africa. These are the two countries we paused to pray for. Also on the list was the Maldives, an island country in the Indian Ocean, sometimes known as the paradise islands, and is a pure Islamic State.

As we were praying for the Christians and Pastors in North Korea and Eritrea, my heart became heavy, saddened, and wandered to a current movie that just hit the theaters: The Box. This movie is about a small wooden box that shows up on the doorstep of a married couple where they have been instructed that if they open the box, they’d receive $1,000,000. The catch: they have to kill someone they don’t know. Open the box for the million bucks and someone has to die.

Now why in the world did that weird movie come to mind? The connection most likely started when I saw the Maldives on the list of the top ten countries where the church is most persecuted. Back in the mid-1990s my daughter’s mother, Peggy and I were at Teen Mission Boot Camp on Merritt Island, FL as guests, speaking about Prairie Bible Institute to potential future students. One session we were asked to do was on a people-group. We chose the Maldives since Peggy had done some research and even wrote a play about the Islamic State. There is no known church in the Maldives. Christians are in the handful, if that. Mission sending agencies cannot send “missionaries” per se. So they are creative (e.g., wind surfing instructors for the resorts, IT people for the hotels, etc.). But at one point I said to the small band of listening teens sitting on logs and rocks and on the ground, “To really see the church start and grow in the Maldives, where its illegal to be a Christian and Christians are killed out right, what do you think has to happen?” One of the teens said without hesitation, “Someone has to die.”

Wow, right on the mark. I thought I was going to be cleaver; but they got it right away. A Maldivian convert to Christianity most likely would have to die, have to suffer and be killed in order for others to come to Christ. I referred to the early church father saying, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” The teens understood. Do we?

This is where my mind went. We were asked to pray and I felt it was like that Box had shown up on my doorstep. Open it (that is pray) and someone has to die. We were asked to pray for the Christians and pastors facing persecution in North Korea and in Eritrea, and I couldn’t help but think my prayer—with all things being equal and typical in God’s economy and way in the world—would actually mean someone would have to die. Then I thought, how safe we are here in this nice church building, in our nice clothes, singing beautiful worship songs to the various instruments in the worship band, and praying for those whose lives are at stake every second. And, I thought, my prayer might actually be answered and that could very well mean some North Korean or Eritrean Christian could die.

No wonder my heart was heavy. I am at ease. They are suffering. And here I was, in essence, actually praying for their death for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

After re-reading my last paragraph, I needed to reverse something...here is the ending re-written with a better twist reflecting on the Emil Brunner quote in light of my paper’s assertions regarding the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition:

Emil Brunner famously remarked, “For every civilization, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’” For the Christian and Christian community it is, Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship.  The reality of everyday life, the acceptance that Suburban life and its enablers, the free market and human acts of power, are often at odds with the Gospel, especially a Gospel that has been formed by the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition.  For the non-poor Christian this is an idolatrous mode of living and does not offer a biblically defensible apologetic for the God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ