Words'nTone

The tension between being a citizen of this great county, the US of A, and being citizens of God’s kingdom is real.  Or, it should be.  In fact, I think there should be many sleepless nights and burden filled days for American Christians.  I do love being an American.  I enjoy the benefits that our form of government and the way our economic system works, and I appreciate the responsibilities that come with the role of citizen.  I served in the Air Force, a volunteer, and I even served on the local Town Committee for the Republican Party (now, don’t go pigeon holing me—make sure you read a lot of this blog before making me a stereo-type conservative).  And like Daniel and his three friends, I hope I contribute to my country’s welfare.  But also like these four young men, I hope I know where to draw the line between what is acceptable in the emperor’s kingdom (i.e., the state) and what is pleasing as a member of God’s Kingdom.  For any Christian, this is a tough task.  Or, if should be—for too many, there is no tension at all.

Sometimes making this distinction and living it out can lead to a lion’s den and a fiery furnace (as in Daniel’s story).  I hope when it is my turn, I live up to my convictions.  In July, Americans get all patriotic—even Christians.  Around the 4th many churches include such patriotism as a part of its worship, including the singing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the Star Spangled Banner, O Beautiful, and God Bless the USA, and in many churches, replacing the Apostle’s Creed with the Pledge of Allegiance.  The Red, White, and Blue becomes the center of many American churches during this month.  I have a problem with this—you should too!  The worship service is to be characterized in such a way to reflect God’s throne and our allegiance to His Kingdom.  Sermons—which ought to be a reflection of God’s Word, not American religiosity or civil religion—ought to be the place we learn about this tension and how to deal with it.  In some countries and some places in history such kingdom-centered worship led to a lion’s den and a fiery furnace.  The New Testament itself, especially books like Galatians and Revelation directly argue against aligning our church-life and Christian experience with the State, or a race, or an ethnic group.  The worship of a Christian Church should not promote patriotism at any time, even if it’s only for the 4th of July; but, should celebrate that the church—no matter what country its adherents belong or living in—is a reflection of the eternal worship found in the consummation and in the nature of the Gospel itself.  When we portray the Gospel as aligned in any way with a State or culture, we should listen seriously to what Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Better yet, we should make sure that our worship reflects God’s Kingdom rule as Daniel portrayed it in Daniel 7:13-14:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

I only pray, despite whatever harm or result of my allegiance to God’s Kingdom comes my way, I can say as the three who faced the fire,

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter.  If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king.  But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).

We owe it to the martyrs of old and even those facing the same throughout the world today, who didn’t and doesn’t allow their faith to be a reflection of their civic duties and discovered as a result that their worship was welcomed by the face of lions and the flames of fire.  We owe it to the truth of the Gospel.  Sometimes, even when it seems unpatriotic, as Christians and citizens of the kingdom of God, we need to know where that line is.  I need to know where that line is…daily.

PS In a few following posts I’d like to reflect on that line a little…

No doubt a favorite verse among Christians at this time of year. Usually its present somewhere during the Fourth of July period. I heard it at least once this year. When celebrating our nation’s birth, Christian congregations all over America seem to think these verses are about them:

“If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:13-14)

Just like a few observations. Without stating it too strongly: Where do we get the idea that this verse applies to America? Or, to our part of the country? Or, our church? You know, if God’s church repents here in American (or put in your town’s nanme) and truly seeks after Him, he will heal our land, i.e., America. First, I don’t mind the application “My people” being applied to the Church. This seems to me a perfectly legitimate correspondence. The New Testament makes that leap all the time: Israel of God OT = the Church, the Body of Christ NT. Writers throughout the New Testament often take God’s OT promises to Israel and applies them to the Church. So, to understand this Old Testament command to be applicable to the Church is appropriate. But, applying this verse to America (or any country) seems a mismatch. Let me offer a few quick observations (and I’ll let you go home).

First, the context is the dedication of Solomon’s temple to God—the context is worship and the supremacy of God. Now, some believe (as some of our American forefather’s did) that America is God’s chosen land, a City on a Hill, and American’s are God’s chosen people. This is good for speeches, political and civic, but is an unsustainable reference from a Biblical point of view. The reference to “healing their land” does not correspond to God healing America. Although I’d equally argue (from elsewhere in Scripture) that there is a relationship between God’s blessings on our country and the Church’s (good) influence on American culture; however, I think we misappropriate this verse because we view it through our patriotism and love of country rather than commitment to Christ and our church-life. It seems more responsible to apply 2 Chronicles to the life of the Church than otherwise. Solomon finalizes the building of the temple and offers a prayer of dedication. At that point the Shekinah Glory, that is, God’s presence pours into (fills) the temple (7:1-3). The correspondence is more likely that if God’s people, the church, humble themselves, turn from their wickedness (stop adopting contemporary cultural values, which is the context—read pass the verses in 13-14) and pray and seek after God, then God’s presence and blessing will become evident among them, His church, that is the local community of God. I’d also like to point out God’s evident presence and blessing doesn’t always look and feel victorious and comfortable. I’d say God’s presence was fully on Jesus, nonetheless, and He still went to the cross. So, if God’s people do humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways (its American, cultural adaptations), and pray—God’s redemptive blessings on the church will not necessarily make them comfortable in their American culture, or nor will the “blessings” to be poured out “fix” America so the church can go on happily and with ease.

A number of years ago we witnessed at church on a Sunday morning a young man and his wife stand before us, poised and ready to head off to the foreign mission field: China. He was going as a medical-doctor-missionary for a organization called Christar. I remember the moment; it was great, wonderful, and moving. I could tell his parent’s were proud—I would be. He pointed to the place in the sanctuary where he sat as a teenager when he first felt called to missions. That day the young man was also the morning speaker for our church’s annual mission conference. He didn’t get far into his message before he began to cry, tears of passion for missions and thankfulness. The church, where he was called, was now sending him with support, blessings, and much prayer. He spoke on a simple theme: “How do we measure success?” Without the details, in summary he plainly explained that biblically, success = obedience. Not worldly prosperity, riches, or recognition. Sounded simple enough and to the biblical point as I recall.

Every church service has its serendipitous moment—we had one that morning in our pew. As part of the mission decor, the missions committee had placed a rather large, almost a story tall, balloon-world to our right in the sanctuary. It was filled with helium for about a week or so, giving it fullness and shape and rising up a bit into the sanctuary. After a week, however, the balloon was looking rather dilapidated, yet still holding itself up--somewhat. After the young man had finished speaking, our Pastor stood to close the service, pointed to the globe, and said, “What’s wrong with the world?” Without hesitation, more to us in the pew than to the rest of the congregation, my good friend, sitting next to me, Pete Kramka leaned toward my ear and replied, “Helium.”

Now that’s funny. I thought how true: The world is losing what it takes to stay afloat. I thought it also odd that the remaining helium in the plastic globe made the Northern hemisphere look fine. There was the USA all filled out, but the lack of helium at the bottom made South American and Africa all shriveled up, along with the southern portions of Asia. And there you have it—the Christianized west is full and fine, the unreached (least reached) and more populated countries are all shriveled up. What’s wrong with the world? It needs more helium—Christian witness and resources. I know, silly perhaps. But Pete’s retort struck me as funny, ironic, serendipitous. Nonetheless, the fact is 80% of Christian resources are used for 5% of the world’s population (that’s North America). And to add to that sad fact, most of that 80% of Christian resources is made to prop up wealthy and affluent church building-centered ministries in places of prosperity rather than in those places and locals and among people groups in the USA that are economically vulnerable and affected by poverty. Either way you—as a Christian—look at it, judgment on USA Christians will come, someday, and we will be held accountable for hording the 80%.

When Jesus said, “The poor you will always have among you” (Mark 14:17) or when Moses penned, “There will always be poor in the land” (Deut 15:11), we should not take these statements as our goal, nor understand them as indicative of what we should expect as a future matter of fact. Nor, are these statements excuses for the Christian community of faith to eschew its responsibility to invest in the poor among us and seek to alleviate the causes of poverty. These are not matter of fact statements of fact, but descriptions of the proximity of the poor to God’s community. Almost as if to say, “While you are living in the land of promise, the poor will be living with you as well.” The Old Testament law and practices provided for how the community of promise was to treat and care for the poor. The New Testament does not rescind such arrangements or principles of conduct. In fact, these statements ought to be taken, “The poor will be in our midst, as they ought to be; they will be a sociological group associated with our community.” In fact there is a good likelihood that the New Testament text indicating that “poor always” will among the Christian community is drawn from that Deuteronomy text. In other words, Jesus and Moses were indicating that the poor are identified with His community of people. Being poor is not a mark or “automatic” entry into the invisible community of God—that comes through faith in God’s means of salvation, namely faith in His Word, faith in Jesus Christ. That being said, one cannot read through the Old and New Testaments without feeling the sense that God chooses the poor to be close by, to be close to His people. As someone has pointed out, these texts ought to remind the community of faith of its “share shared accountability and social responsibility” regarding the issue of helping the poor. As we benefit from God’s redemption (Old or New), we ought not ignore the poor among us or even seek to, as the same author says, “eradicate them.” As a part of our social structure, we have a sacred responsibility to them—a reason why Moses continued, “Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Jesus enjoins, after indicating the poor’s presence among His people, “whenever you wish you can do good to them.” The problem: Do we wish? God’s people are defined as those who wish to do so. Moving away from them—i.e., further into the suburbs and into the countryside—is a sinfulr way of attempting to eradicate them, the poor, from our midst and does not relieve the Christian community of its responsibilities. One cannot escape the continuous indictments throughout Scripture against God’s people, and the eventual judgments, for ignoring our responsibility toward the “poor among us.”

Glancing through Servant magazine, I always like the stats and quoteworthies my good and now old(er) friend and editor of the publication, Phil Callaway, puts in each issue. These particularly had an impact on me:

• Estimated number of deaths in Haiti’s earthquake: 200,000
• Number of children worldwide who die each month from malnutrition and disease: 200,000
• 850 million people will go to bed hungry tonight
• Approximately four billion people live on less than $4 per day
• 1 billion live on less than $1 per day
• 2 billion on $1 to $2 per day
• 1 billion on $2 to $4 per day

Of course we should all be concerned with the people of Haiti, but it wasn’t the earthquake that killed all though people; it was only the vehicle, the means. The Haitian leaders are ultimately at fault for not addressing everything from the decrepit infrastructure and housing conditions to the vast spread of poverty. Although Rush Limbaugh received flack for saying so, nonetheless, ‘tis true. Furthermore, in perspective, per the quotes, the same number of children die of malnutrition and disease each month—we are those who sing “we are the world” for these children? Where are Christians on these matters? My crazy daughter keeps telling me I should run for something political. Actually I had, when younger, thought about it. But I tell her now, I couldn’t be an elected person to much of anything because I couldn’t’t sleep at night knowing that it was in my power to make sure no children in my demographic charge went to bed at night hungry. No one gets reelected on that kind of platform. Of course these issues highlighted in the quotes from Servant magazine, are just about getting food to people and rescuing earthquake victims and getting the bottom billion higher day pay-rate—it is about the systems which are and the people in place who are barriers to ameliorating these conditions. Of course changing people’s hearts is important, but these stats shouted out to the Christian community it’s not just about individualized sinning but as much from unrighteousness and injustice systems in which people live. Of course I want the problems solved “overseas,” but I continually wonder why the American evangelical Christian community doesn’t make it their mission to address the issues of poverty right here in the U.S. Certainly, one cannot read the Bible and think its not God’s mission.

Amanda was 9 years old when she went to speak to the pastor’s wife about salvation.  I had no doubt she had already asked Jesus in her heart years before, but Amanda obviously saw a need to make sure and to pray with the pastor’s wife.  I tried, over the years, not to interfere or manipulate my daughter’s spiritual journey, especially when it came to her salvation.  Yes, of course, church, without question, was important and an every week event, with Bible Study and children’s mid-week ministries, and even Son-Singers.  But, I have seen it over and over, parents either manipulate their kids into salvation or the children “accept Jesus” to please their parents, friends, or its expected, or even just for the child’s or teen’s need to be affirmed by their church-family, and in the end, it wasn’t really for salvation.  Too often, it was for the parents to feel better about their kids “being saved.” The problem is, salvation isn’t for the parent’s self-image, nor really for the child/teen’s self-image among the peer groups at church—it’s for the present life and eternal destiny of a fellow human being, who needs Christ for no other reasons but to glorify God and be made righteous—and who just happens to be their own child.  I have tried my best to not put on a show for Amanda or give her churchie expectations.  When it came to her spiritual life—in salvation and in growing as a Christian—I have done the hard thing, acted like a fellow sinner in need of Christ, and then, after she became a Christian, like a brother in Christ.  (This is really hard to do and never really talked about at church much.) Of course I am her father, and of course I set standards and expectations as a parent, but it’s God’s job to bring our children to Christ and to empower spiritual growth.  Whether right or wrong in the eyes of others, this is what I did as a Christian parent for my daughter—best I could.

I am thankful that Christ acted early in Amanda’s life.  I have enjoyed spending time talking about the Bible with her.  I have always shared my thoughts about my Christian worldview on many and various topics.  Someday I knew she’d be off on her own, and finding a college and going (hopefully) in the Fall of 2011, enter as a freshman.  So, I have attempted letting God prepare her for that best I could and hopefully not interfering too much.  After we visited Crown College in MN, the college I graduated from, we shared with me that God was impressing on her that, perhaps, she’d like to go to a country that doesn’t let regular missionaries in.  She even wrote a thank you note to the guy that gave the tour at Crown.  She wrote in part,

Please let Dr. Bedford and Dr. Norby know that, not only did I enjoyed my time with them, learning about what to expect in their programs [the History degree and Teacher Education Degree], but also for helping me focus on my goals.  In fact, Crown’s emphasis on missions and the Doctors linking their programs to potential overseas ministry and vocational possibilities actually helped me make a big decision in my walk with Christ—to live for His purpose only, determining to follow wherever that purpose leads me.  One of the things I thought about after that day at Crown was how I might use a teaching degree to open possibilities in areas of the world that are closed to regular missionaries.  So I am grateful for their straightforward and honest assessment regarding my goals and their degree programs.  It certainly helped me to focus on what I am looking for in my college and degree choices.

I think this is real hard for a parent—letting God do this kind of directing in our young, inexperienced, yet to be adult-mature, teenager.  But somehow in the midst of doing all the parenting right, I need to let God be God in my daughter.  I want her to be a lawyer and then eventually the President of the United States.  She even said she wanted to be President back when she was 6, 7, and 8.  But now—with a little more experience under her belt, some experience making hard decisions (like the one to be involved with her unchurched and skeptical friends from high school rather than involved in a church youth group) and some good critical thinking skills—she is listening to God, looking for a college that will enable her to go and be used in places where Christians are always welcome and serve the people and Christ.  As her father, why would I want anything less for my daughter and sister-in-Christ?

PS This June, Amanda has received permission to leave school a little early for a mission trip to an Indian Reservation in South Dakota.  She leaves for Houston on June 10th and then drives with a team of adults and teens to South Dakota to stay and minister on an Indian reservation for about 10 days.  More on this later…

My daughter has been visiting colleges.  She has been selective, but open to different kinds, including Christian colleges and universities.  She even asked to visit my alma mata, Crown College in St. Bonifacious, MN.  (Some will remember it as St. Paul Bible College, its former name.) She loved that they had chapel and that even the teachers she met (some were my former teachers!) said they’d be praying for her as she makes her decision about college.

We visited others as well.  After one visit to a Christian college (I will leave unnamed because its history and work in serving the cause of Christian ministry and mission is far better than the impression made here), my daughter was quite for almost a day.  She said she had to think about whether it’s a school she could be at.  Finally, she said she was ready to talk about it.  I was not surprised, but very impressed at her observations—two stand out as pivotal in determining whether the college would be a good place for her.

First, Amanda was a little troubled when one of the people giving the tour of the campus mentioned that their soon-to-be-going-to-college teen mentioned he wanted to be a professional sportsman (I am withholding the actual sports career choice for obvious reasons).  The parent (who was the guide) said they were a little concerned because it didn’t seem to be a good Christian career choice, especially in terms of potential ministry or missions.  That bothered my daughter.  Amanda told me, “Who is to say what is and isn’t a career that God can call a person to.  Maybe God was laying that particular career choice on that teen.” Amanda felt there was no encouragement from the parents and that there was actually a shallow spirituality disguised in God-talk.

Second, Amanda said she it bothered her when she was asked about her involvement in youth group and church. It was made clear that this was important to the school in looking at potential freshman.  Not that Amanda doesn’t think these things important; but over the years her concentration has been on her non-Christian, unchurched friends from school—not hanging out at church or at youth group meetings (which she did from time to time).  When she mentioned this, the faculty member said, “Oh, yes, you spend time with your ’ministry’ friends.” No, Amanda said she had thought in her head—she was being polite because she was their guest—they are my friends, not “ministry friends,” friends no matter what, friends who can count on her, life-long friends. She told me, what upset her was that, again, there was this sense that there was a shallow spirituality being put forth.  She said they didn’t understand how she viewed herself as a Christian in this world and that at this school they wouldn’t let her be what God created her as (or is that “for”).  Plus, she knew that she might be the only “Jesus” that many of her friends see, one of the few “churched” people they would spend any time with.  She said she knew that she couldn’t be herself at that school.

I have not forced Amanda, or even strongly hinted that she should or has to go to youth group.  She told me long ago that the time she has available as extra or for extra things with all the homework and studying she has (she is in AP and honor courses), she decided that she’d concentrate giving that time to her school friends.  She has paid the price—even at church and among Christians—for that decision.

After visiting Crown College, my college, she mentioned that God had impressed upon her that she should consider getting a degree that would allow her to go into countries that don’t allow Christian missionaries.  I think her choice to be committed to her unchurched friends as being a true friend might very well be missionary training for my daughter.  Someday she might very well be in a place as the only “Jesus” others see.

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.

“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:10)

There is an intentional and deliberate tie between v 3 (Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ) and v 10, as can be seen by the underlined above and here in v 3.  I will be honest, to know what was in Jesus’ and Matthew’s mind is near impossible—but the draw is there.  There is reason to link the “poor in spirit” and those “who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.” Perhaps the question is to ask, what is this righteousness?  We know later in the Sermon Christians are to pursue God’s righteousness (6:33), but before we even get there we know those who thirst after righteousness will be satisfied (5:5), those who wish to enter the Kingdom must surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), and that practicing one’s righteousness before men disqualifies for any heavenly reward (6:1).  We know for sure the latter case (in 6:1) refers to the righteousness (i.e., the right actions) extended to the poor (6:2f).  So at least there is internal contextual linkage also in the Sermon on the Mount to suggest that the righteousness referred to in Matthew 5:10 is, but certainly not limited, to the righteousness God expected (from the plentiful texts and contexts from the Old Testament) toward the poor and economically vulnerable.  Perhaps that is why the righteousness of the religious leaders were not enough for entrance into the Kingdom, for their righteousness pertained to looking like they were keepers of the Law, but not real keepers of it.

When Jesus extends the final B-Attitude, we can hear that those who pursue God’s righteousness on earth will be cut off verbally and by action from the places of power and status found on earth, in society:

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me (11). “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (12).

This, too, parallels those who are economically vulnerable (i.e., the poor in spirit) who have no place or power as well.  I would suggest it is fair to assume application of the Sermon on the Mount would target the Christian community’s association and advocacy for the poor and economically vulnerable—this upsets the societal tables and places before those with wealth and power and status God’s righteous concerns for the poor.  Perhaps a reason for being persecuted for righteousness sake.

I contend that the Sermon on the Mount is more about the Kingdom Community’s witness in the larger community than about private matters of the heart.  We hear immediately after the B-Attitudes texts that affirm this hearing of the Sermon on the Mount:

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16).

And the section on “you have heard it said, but I say to you” (5:21-48) can be read as having more to do with our associations and relationships with people than just matters of the heart which privatize Christianity.  Reading through the entire text of the Sermon (5-7), one can easily be drawn to an introspective Christianity, but that is not what the whole of the text is about—it is outward focused.  A reading that places the emphasis on the outward witness of the Community of the Kingdom, and it is formed by the beginning of the Sermon which highlights this new community’s association and advocacy of the poor and economically vulnerable.

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…

“There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the morés of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

“Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent—and often even vocal—sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” (1963)

My daughter never ceases to amaze me.  In a recent homework assignment she analysis two pieces of literature from two government antagonists and advocates for civil disobedience—Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr.  Both these men, according to my daughter, Amanda, challenged “the ‘rightness’ of government laws and its justice system through civil disobedience.” These two essays reflected these sentiments: Thoreau in his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1849) and King in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963).  She utilizes these essays and how each of these recognizable civil antagonists provoked others to be persuaded by their point of view.  She summarizes the essence of these men’s conflict with Governing laws and the laws of personal morality:

“Humanity is ruled by a large range of moral law, which dictates the difference between right and wrong.  However, society is ruled by a government that dictates what is considered right and wrong according to laws.  These laws set the standards by which a society functions and the penalties for breaking the laws.  When the law of society clashes with the moral individuality of humanity, it is only fair that one should be able to ask if the government’s laws are sound and morally correct.”

My Amanda contends that Luther, rather than Thoreau, has a better persuasive essay, for in the end both use appeals to justice, both from two very different angles.  Thoreau because of how what he considered unjust laws affected him—he pushed his argument from an individualistic point of reference; whereas Luther, on the other hand concentrated on what is just for all people, especially those marginalized in places of concentrated poverty.  I, too, read Thoreau, not in high school, but in college and I told Amanda I always felt he was a whiner.  He complained about what he didn’t like personally.  He would no more want you or his neighbor to exercise their personal morality if it somehow placed him in conflict with his own.

I never read King until I was a Christian, out of college and grad-school and working in a Community Action Agency.  King on the other hand, despite any personal failings, didn’t complain for himself, but identified what ought to be just for all.  My daughter’s brief essay contrasting these two firebrands draws out King’s poignant comment to the Church:

“King’s essay is exceedingly more personal than Thoreau’s.  Within this letter there is also a hint of logical appeal, for example when his is talking to the church and how disappointed he is with their role in segregation, King ‘logically’ states that if the church does not ‘recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed and an irrelevant social club…’ (King).  This logical appeal attempts to get the church to think about the consequences of their actions and inaction, drawing the point that it may be their downfall to not aid in the termination of segregation.”

I was amazed at both the reference in the Letter and that my daughter would draw out her own attention to the Church’s culpability in following unjust laws (and allow and not confront structural sin that leave many poor and marginalized around us).  She ends her own argument that King was more persuasive than the selfish, bellyaching, whining Thoreau:

“In comparing King’s letter to Thoreau’s essay—both on civil disobedience— it appears that King’s letter is more effective in its use of emotional appeals and ability to draw in the audience with a convincing tone and persuasive argument.  King is fighting for something he believes to be right and the reader can feel his passion simmer throughout the letter.  King also is more effective in the way he establishes his authority.  In the letter he gives a brief introduction of who he is and his purpose for being in Alabama.  Thoreau, while demonstrating a well thought through and logical argument, still fails to truly captivate the reader.  At the closing of his essay it appears as though he is just bitter for being placed in jail.  Thoreau was not prepared for the consequences of his actions.  King, on the other hand, was convinced that suffering the consequences of his actions was part of his argument.”

Perhaps one reason the Church fails to captivate the public is that we argue like Thoreau—we’re only complaining about what affects us, selfish, moralizing whiners who just don’t want what is unjust toward us.  We ought to reflect more King’s argument and stop being “an irrelevant social club,” and realize that whatever suffering as Christians we are to endure on behalf of others is part of our apologetic, part of our argument for Christianity and that Christ is alive and the true King over all things in heaven and on earth.

Typically, everyday you’ll find me reading and researching three subject areas—the fun part is linking them all together.  I am getting a little ahead of myself here.  I just spent the last six months researching and getting a paper done to present at this past November’s annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.  They met in New Orleans.  A great setting to present a paper on the issue of poverty.  And then, this past Thursday the new issue of the Africanus Journal was posted, along with an article of mine on the topic of evangelism and social action called “Wasted Evangelism,” based on the Sower who sows parables in the Gospel of Mark.  My colleagues at work, obviously proud of their co-worker (which I am humbled by), they wondered when I had time and why I wrote academic papers like this for a hobby, a past time.  Some curiosity at the religion stuff mixed in too.  Most know I have a personal faith in Christ and have been an ordained pastor, so it’s not too hard to make the connection.  But a full fledged academic pursuit with resulting paper—that’s harder to fathom.

I do it to see if I can.  Really.  Back in 2005, I attended an Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Valley Forge, PA.  (The annual meetings float around to different major cities each year.) I hadn’t been to a meeting since 1996.  Mostly I had been redirected in my vocation and employment away from full time church and academics to community action and social services.  The academic, evangelical setting didn’t seem a matched for those intervening years, 1996-2005—so I didn’t go.  Then an annual meeting was set for Valley Forge, a two-hour drive.  I wanted my wife to see and experience my old life a little, maybe meet some of my former colleagues and friends from that time of my life—I was in church work and Christian higher education from 1986-1996.  And it was close by.  So we went—made all the introductions and we had a great time.  She even enjoyed some of the “academic” papers herself.  I wanted to reintroduce myself into the ebb and flow of the ETS and academic world, and start going to annual meetings again.  But I wasn’t going unless I could present papers—way too expensive a trip and stay unless I was justifying it with a paper to present.  So I undertook the attempt for the 2006 meeting in DC.  And I was able to research and write and present a halfway decent paper on Mark 12, “Widows in Our Courts.”

I wanted to see if I still had it in me to write at this level—and I did.  So in 2008 I wrote another paper to present (“Wasted Evangelism” on Mark 4) and again in 2009 (“Idolatry and Poverty”).

I spend almost every day reading books and papers and essays on the issues of poverty and social action, workforce development and preschool development, and biblical studies.  Synthesizing the three is my goal.  Relating the Church, especially the evangelical church and church-life to such topics as poverty, workforce development, child development, and social action.  The church needs to do this in order to make our proclamation and action both biblical and relevant to the needs around us.  So I do this because now I know I can and we must as evangelical confessing Christians.

My next paper is on Mark 1:17, “Designed for Discipleship: Disciples as God’s Instruments of Judgment.”

Again my three ETS papers have taken a toll on my view of the world and in particular the political world.  I remain conservative politically—low taxes, limited government involvement in almost everything, and in particular how one reads the US Bill of Rights and Constitution: I am an originalist if I need to put a word to it.  But that’s for other posts.  I am profoundly Christian and hopefully someone who seriously thinks christianly.  Now that the papers are done, I am beginning to unpack their implications for me as a person, as a non-poor, evangelical Christian.  The direction I take is focused on, obviously, the local church’s responsibility toward the poor, I have rethought, more clearly, the role of the church in society, that is our task, mission, and activities.  At one of the sessions (i.e., papers) I attended in 2006 in Washington DC (where I presented my first Mark paper, “Widows in Our Courts”) my former colleague and hopefully still good friend, Kenneth Shoemaker presented a paper on the Psalms and God’s mission among the nations.  I was struck by something he concluded: The Psalms as it talks of God’s and Israel’s mission to the nations (i.e., the gentiles), there is a strong sense that “out there” the nations practice unrighteousness and injustice, and that the nations were to see in Israel as a people who did righteousness and justice.  This is certainly in line with my recent paper on “Idolatry and Poverty” (New Orleans, LA 2009), where the biblical view of poverty is set within a God vs. the gods apologetic, God’s righteousness/Israel’s righteousness vs. the god’s/pagans/non-Israelite’s un/righteousness relationship.  Sort of, “Hey look here, our God does righteousness and justice; look at us!” This directs my thinking that perhaps the church’s mission isn’t to change the culture or even fight the culture wars, but to offer through its activities, attitudes, and worldview a righteous alternative and a community of people does justice and advocate on behalf of the poor.

George Coon, in his 2006 ETS paper on Paul B. Henry (Carl Henry’s son and former US Congressman), referred to Henry’s book, Politics for Evangelicals (1974), offered a quote:

“So long as evangelicals engage, then, in prescribing only moral clichés to difficult social and political problems, they are in fact avoiding any direct interrelating of their faith with the sociopolitical world around them” (p 51).

Coon felt that Henry was not denying the important role of evangelism, but that the use of “platitudes” by Christians to deal with social and political ills of society was more of an excuse to not get our hands dirty and do the work of justice and righteousness.  We fight the cultural wars by lobbing catch phrases and platitudes into the public square, whereas the Scriptures actually say (or seems to anyway) that God’s people are to “preserve justice and do righteousness” (Isa 56:1) in the public square.  Maybe we should think less about fighting the cultural wars and should do more to be that alternative community of justice and righteousness. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, we need to “smudge” ourselves with “the hard complexities of the world.” The problem is, most Evangelicals comfortably living in the burbs just don’t like to get smudged with anything.

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.

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.