Words'nTone

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.

---

“Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4):
The Task of Evangelism and Social Action Outcomes
Chip M Anderson

     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.

These are is just some of the things I was taught in doing this paper on poverty and idolatry. We’ll see if I have learned anything as time goes on.

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

.

I again apologize for not being very “postee” these days. I am feverishly working on my paper for New Orleans in mid-Nov. But after working on a section on “Idolatry, a Defective Construction of Social Reality,” I couldn’t help pass on a paragraph from another paper (I am referencing in this paper) on the subject of Evangelical Interest in the public square. For what it’s worth:

Raymond Knighton, in his report on the “Social Responsibility of Evangelization” to the 1974 Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism, alluded to what Colin Morris wrote in Include Me Out, “If the church turns a blind eye to the injustices around it, the world will turn a deaf ear to everything else the church tries to say.” Knighton concluded his report, “Social action is simply obedience to the command of God” and is part of the evangelizing task of the church. Os Guinness, in his report to the same committee on “Social Responsibility,” rebuffed the church’s tendency to concentrate on minor and private issues to the “virtual ignoring of major principles and issues” related to justice, mercy, violence, race, and poverty. Elsewhere Guinness writes that the “highest American good is more than the struggle over who gets what, when, and how.” Not a bad comment for the church to absorb. Often involvement in politics for the church is limited to issues that threaten its existence or its status quo. Being convinced that Christ is Lord over every part of life, including the public square, should draw the church outward. However, on the other hand, there is a tendency to think of faith and the Christian experience exclusively in individualistic terms (e.g., as a ‘personal’ relationship with Jesus Christ). From this perspective, church-life, including discipleship, becomes vague and privatized, and society at large becomes invisible. The rise in political interests and public square activities among conservative churches does not necessarily reflect “a shift from a protective goal to a redemptive goal but an increase in the perceived level of threat.” Renewed attention by the evangelical church to the public square can represent, actually, an increased desire to protect the status-quo of the church in American life. The injustices in the public square that are of interest to conservative churches are those that are perceived as threats to the adherents’ lifestyles, economic comfort, and theological plausibility. In other words injustices that are “not personally threatening” receive “much less of their attention.” In fact, there might be a threat to the church’s and the Christian’s socio-economic comfort if the poor are “in their midst” or if the church-goer’s taxes, let alone “tithes,” are utilized to advocate and care for the poor.

The concert was slightly out of my preference range. Three bands, one of them a headlining alternative metal, (oops) I mean alternative Christian metal rock band, Disciple. Yes, I know, but still it seems we have to justify for some that there is a category for Christian anything rock and roll, let alone for alternative Christian metal or Christian heavy metal. For many the two words and concepts just don’t go together—Christian and alternative metal or rock’n roll.

My family was actually there to support the family who managed the evening event and whose son was playing the drums in the opening band. Like I said, this was not a preference in the style of music, but support for a family committed to reaching out to young people who will never set inside a church building, let alone a “Christian” concert of churchy-music.

There was even a mosh pit. Now that even crossed my own cultural barrier. For those who don’t know, “Moshing” or as some refer to it “slamming,” refers to when audience members at concert or live performance “aggressively push or slam into each other.” I watched them—the kids, some ranging up into the early 20’s, actually did this and enjoyed the experience.

Now, what was truly amazing to me was the presence of a few, perhaps a half a dozen, “older folks.” Now I am not here to judge age, but they were definitely not the moshers, or groupees, and well beyond the possible 30-somethings obviously enjoying the concert. Most that I am identifying here had grey hair—and yes even I have a little grey, so let’s go with an older-than-fifty-group beyond myself. When I saw the first senior citizen (you know, anyone now old enough to enroll in ARRP, which I am a member!) came through the ticket line, I stood there amazed. No way they were in the right place. But there they were. Now, that began the worship and ministry for me. None walked out, so they knew they were in the right place at the right time and on purpose. I was impressed—Christians far removed from both the style of music and the youth culture that enjoys it, but there they were, supporting a small, but loud expression of outreach to a rather narrow, but growing part of our cultural make-up. I believe I saw Jesus walk in too, to a place where hearts sought him to reach out to younger people, fringed by society and the Christian community, where alternative rockers gave solid testimonies of their faith in Christ, and where a Disciple opened His word and shared how even those with alterative music preferences and who enjoy moshing can have hope and find forgiveness.

---

Check out DID Entertainment’s myspace page…

“Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16).

The English word “you” implying the singular you and our contemporary western concept of individualism moves us to interpret verses addressed to “you” (like 1 Corinthians 3:16) as meaning “me.” We don’t bother looking up the Greek word Paul uses—it is plural, not singular (but of course you should look it up!). We also don’t take into consideration context—which Paul has already pointed to as being “the church” as a whole. The Apostle wrote in verse 9:

“For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”

The “we” in the context of Paul’s reference to apostolic church plants is Paul’s entourage and the “you” is the Church at Corinth. I am not denying the Holy Spirit’s indwelling of the individual believer—He does indeed. But, that’s not what this text is about, and a forced privatized, individualistic reading of text’s like this leads us away from both the text’s meaning and robs us of God’s intentions for His Church. (I am planning a Rough Cut on this text in the near future—at least before I am 50!) But for now, my thoughts are simple: We should read this text…

Do you, the Church at Corinth, not know that you, the whole Church that inhabits the City of Corinth, are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells among you [a way better understanding of Paul’s grammar here]?

We think of Church as the Church at 98th Street and Vine. Or, we think of Church as those who attend Park City Church, or the First Church of the Way, or whatever the church name. We think geographically narrow with displaced members shattered at addresses in the area. We think singularly. We have a pastor or pastoral team and we are a church in the area—that makes us a church. Paul on the other hand sees the church wholly, the Church of…name that city like Corinth or regional like Galatia. When Paul thinks of building the church—we translate that into God builds “our” church. Paul thinks of foundation laying and God building the church as a temple where God’s presence dwells. The picture of “growth” that God causes is one where the foundation expands, and as a result the temple, God’s Church in a local (with all the connotations of God as King and ruler, the One who has the right and authority to rule) enlarges to cover more ground (geographically, socially, politically, demographically) and God who dwells in this temple expands His Kingly presence in new territory, both geographically, socially, and in people’s lives. I believe we need a new theology of the church, one that is not built on our western individualism, and certainly, not one built on the new-up-to-date praxis of hip and trendy redefiners of church life (which is again, only built on what American’s a like today as opposed to what they were like yesterday—pure idolatry!). But, one build on the text of Scripture.

“He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:11-13).

I am struck by these words.  Always have been.  I know, many Christians memorize John 1:12-13 as life verses or verses of assurance of salvation.  I certainly did when I was a young Christian (way back in 1978!).  But, that’s not what these verses are for (although memorizing them is still a good thing).  In the first verse (v 11) there is an interesting spin to consider.  (Some Greek here; but easy stuff.) Literally, John uses the word “own” in two distinct ways to actually give the following sense

“He came to His own place (τὰ ἴδια) and those who were His own people (οἱ ἴδιοι) did not receive Him.”

This in itself isn’t shocking: we know the story.  Jesus came from His throne in heaven to the land of Israel (on earth) and the people, the Jewish people didn’t acknowledge Him as the long-awaited Messiah.  We know that.  Now think about it: the people in that place were the one’s who thought they had assurance of salvation by virtue of being born in that place—in Israel as Israelites, related to David and Abraham—and acting the part.  Their “not receiving” Jesus, however, put that assurance in jeopardy.

Now, for why John is writing this in the first place:  We must remember that John is not writing a history lesson.  And, I highly doubt the apostle penned verses 12 and 13 as assurance of salvation verses to memorize (especially by us contemporary Christians).  John writes to a Christian community that apparently is having a hard time believing who Jesus is and why He came.  As if Jesus comes now to His own church (the use of “own place” by John here might even suggest a particular church for application) and His own people (i.e., Christians) didn’t/don’t receive Him.  Now that’s shocking.  But we, evangelicals feel safe—or should we be?

My reading and rereading on church growth, the practices and principles, as well as the poor theology stemming from the mix (I am including all contemporary types in this general sweep), draws me back to these verses on a regular basis.  I am not opposed to reforming how we “do” things, nor against up-dating what we do.  But, our modern, mechanical, often staged methods of evangelism, worship, and outreach are more like the Baal worship of old (as described in the Old Testament) and the beliefs of ancient non-Israelites who practiced Baal worship than it is of biblical roots.  We act out what we want God to do for us in much of our so-called Church-growth models.  But, here John reminds me that it is those who receive Him for what He does (has done), not by being born into the place, not by the will of our fleshly methodologies, but by the will of God.  Rethinking church and ministry and “growth” should at least include these verses of caution.  I know, one would not think to include these verses in one’s Church-growth theology—but we should.

Much has been made of the verb which is linked to evangelism, which is the act of proclaiming the gospel… Since, basically, the verb euangelizomai means to proclaim the gospel, and thus, this word-study, entomological definition leads most Christians “from very diverse backgrounds” to argue “that this provides sufficient warrant for construing evangelism today as proclamation.” Abraham points out that this “only succeeds, however, if the exclusive warrant for envisioning evangelism rests on biblical word-studies, and if the only relevant terms for evangelism focus on proclamation.” Furthermore “it is not al all clear that it is appropriate to derive a vision of evangelism merely from verbal consideration related to the etymology of ‘evangelism.’ One suspects that even the early Christians would have been wary of this, for they were not intentionally developing a theory of evangelism in their writings.” They were, however, developing a vision for the church and a narrative for the future generations of the church to imagine what it means for the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to have been inaugurated with the coming of Jesus the Messiah.

Abraham sees that the etymological understanding of evangelism has been “disconnected both intellectually and institutionally from the life of the church” and then adds, “with disastrous results.” He sees that there are errors on both liberal and conservative sides of the church aisle: evangelism, on the one hand has been reduced to social action by liberal Christians, and then on the other hand, among more conservative Christians evangelism has been cheapened to simply be “manipulative schemes of conversion.” I however suggest that what has been disconnected from evangelism is not just the life of the church, but the social surroundings where the Kingdom of God has been invading.

“Whatever the gospel is, it centers on the inauguration of the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen from the dead.  Hence, the gospel is not first and foremost about a network of moral injunctions, nor about this or that kind of religions experience, nor about the arrival of the church, nor about some scheme of political liberation, nor about some magic formula to gain health and wealth, nor about a quick and easy way to find celestial fire-insurance.  It is constituted by those extraordinary events in and through Jesus of Nazareth, through which God acted in history by his Holy Spirit to establish his rule in the world” (William J. Abraham, “A Theology of Evangelism: The Heart of the Matter,” Interpretation 48/2 (1994): 117-130).

The church is to claim and proclaim that God has come to establish His rule and reign, inaugurated in and through the person of Jesus, the Messiah.  Furthermore, what had begun in Christ and by the work of the Holy Spirit continues, even today, in the world through the same working Spirit.  Thus, one should not define the Gospel apart from this, nor seek to restrict evangelism to individualistic, privatized outcomes of conversion.  The Gospel, finding a full definition in the concept of the Kingdom of God, should allow the concept of evangelism to be as broad as the intentions of God’s invading dominion, and thus, should have allowable outcomes related to those intentions.  It is, therefore, imperative for us to regain the Gospel narrative definition of euangelizomai (evangelism) and rediscover our place (the Christian community’s place) in that narrative in order to understand what biblical evangelism truly is, and thus begin to develop goals and outcomes, as Christian communities, that demonstrate how God’s dominion (i.e., His right to rule over the realm of mankind) relates to the lesser-dominions (power structures and socio-economic structures) that we encounter.  And in light of the repeated and overemphasized background in this Gospel narrative given to the poor, we should, as Christian communities seek outcomes of evangelism related to the marginalized among us who are affected by the negative impacts, harmful unintended consequences, and the premeditated and deliberate socio-economic structures relevant in our society.

Yes, I know I started out in this thread speaking about miracles and the misappropriation of “performing” miracles in order to gain power—usually power gained through the perception of others who are awed by the performance or the miracle (sometimes just the claiming of one is enough), or the status recognized by others because of the “faith” or ability to perform the miraculous. I briefly observed that the performance of the miraculous by people can be a way of gaining power over people, controlling people, and maintaining that control. This is very similar to why the miraculous was promoted in the Hellenistic world of Jesus’ day; and is in contrast to what we see in Jesus. I used the literary setting of the exorcism in Mark 5 as an example of why Jesus did miracles: 1) to show the presence of the kingdom and 2) to relieve those in oppressed or impoverished conditions caused by outside influences/structures. The miraculous now is often more about power—although in the guise of pious faith and seeming claim on God’s word. But it seems to me the miraculous that accompanied Jesus’ ministry is about giving away power.

The political and social background which is obvious in the exorcism-pigs story of Mark 5, suggests that Mark wanted us to know that Jesus’ ministry and the arrival of His kingdom was confrontational to the powers—the socio-economic structures—of his day. (Although Mark 5 hits on the Roman power-structure, other parts of Mark, in particular the narrative thread from chapter 9-13, indicate His confrontation to the Jewish power-structures as well. So this is not just about an occupational force which oppresses.) The social location and physiological context represents anxiety over the Roman occupation (and given the fuller Marken context, oppressive Jewish authorities as well). The power-structure and hold over the community is symbolized in the deed-parable of the exorcism-pigs story.

Evangelism as a concept and then its permitted actions/activities are all too often simply limited by etymological definitions and word-studies. This does not allow the text of Scripture to speak to defining evangelism, and thus limits the potential outcomes allowed by defining evangelism in terms of the Kingdom of God. We should ask, “How does the Mark 4-5 text, and in particular here, the exorcism-pigs narrative as Mark presents it, help us to define evangelism and its kingdom-centered outcomes? Here is a start in answering this question:

Juxtoposed to the Mark 5 narrative and deed-parable is of course the word-parables of chapter 4. So, straight away, after the teaching on the kingdom through word-parables, “on the other side” Jesus enters into an activity that demonstrates the teaching of chapter 4—wasted seed, kingdom-growth that can only be of God, and the bush branches offering birds shade. The Gerasene graveyard is the first place (i.e., the first “field” and “garden") after the teachings on the word and the kingdom where seed is sown and the mustard-seed plant begins to grow. The exorcism (which parallels the issue at hand, Mark 3:22ff, prior to the word-parable teachings in Mark 4) is the sowing, the graveyard is the field/garden, and Jesus’ confrontation with the two (the demon-possessed man and the “legion") who need to be evangelized are all a part of how the kingdom is going to grow--and the “birds” are going to find shade/protection.

Or, is it? We know the story all too well—we know the ending, so it spoils the impact. The kingdom-growth is not guaranteed here. It is a most ridiculous place, with a most undesirable object for evangelism.  Mark’s choice of the “region of the Gerasenes” as a symbolic setting for the first deed-parable after the sowing-kingdom parables of chapter 4 takes on relevancy that leans toward public and political meaning, especially with Jesus’ use of ‘legions.’ But at first, natural, glance, it is wasted seed in poor soil.

You wonder what is meant by the “two who need to be evangelized” mentioned above. We are always “evangelizing” two, never one. Albeit the second of the “two” is not a single person, but a system, a political presence, a socio-economic structure, a people. This is always the case, for the person needing to experience the presence of the Kingdom, i.e., the Gospel, is always in a context. And in particular, since we are defining Gospel in terms of “Kingdom of God,” the context is socio-economic and political, not just inividuals, but a geographic, cultural, political, socio-economic context. Both, as in the exorcism-pigs deed-parable, need to be evangelized—that is to be exposed to, confronted by the arrival of God’s Kingdom.

I do not think it a leap to suggest that social action is a legitimate form of evangelism because it addresses the need of the person—to be freed from oppressive barriers—and the need of the socio-economic context to become ordered toward God’s Kingdom and its values. Social action, and not just charity, fulfils two things that the arrival of the Kingdom does: 1) Allows the person or people to experience the “growth” or “harvest” (or using the last follow-up parable, shade of protection) which comes with the presence of God’s kingdom; and 2) the social context is changed or realigned with Kingdom values, or at least has the potential for changing toward the values of the Kingdom. Social action can be evangelism. Evangelism as social action, unlike contemporary performing of miracles, allows the ministers (leaders) of the Gospel, the Kingdom-agents, to give power away. Social action puts the emphasis on, first, the presence of the Kingdom and, second, on the person or people who need relief from socio-economic systems and cultural structures that keep them marginalized, poor, and/or in a class of people who are not allowed to benefit from being “in the land.”

---

There is a lot here. And I will admit that this is a very rough cut of my thinking at this point. Hopefully, my forthcoming paper on Mark 4 will expand these marginal thoughts more adequately. Keep watching—sometime in November 2008, the paper needs to be done! (Read all the posts on this thread, 1, 2, 3, 4.)