Words'nTone

“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.

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14).

Although time for a detailed and indepth exegesis of Matthew 5:14 is unavailable to me, at a recent service I heard the preacher refer to this particular text—in fact made a strong point for us to read along with him—provoking me to rethink something about this text. The preacher’s words were a summary of his message and turning to this text made comments about the light and the city that gave me pause. He referred to the light-glow of the city that is warm and inviting, something that calls us to forsake our comfortable and older ways for the new and warm and caring light of the city so that we, too, may be that city light. Poetical. Sure. Nice words. Of course. Perhaps even inviting. But not actually grounded in either the text or the imagery Jesus is utilizing.  The imagery he drew from the words of Matthew fit his intended meaning and sermonic point--not the text’s (or matthew’s).

First, when Jesus says in Matthew 5 we (the Christian community) are the “light of the world,” whatever it means it also includes its juxtaposed meaning to that “city set on a hill.” So what kind of light are we? Well, we are city-light. Sounds simple and actually a fair reading of the text here.

Second, what is that city on a hill? For sure the city is Jerusalem, for how could any good Israelite not hear the words and think of the city that is indeed set on a hill right there in their experience and geography—Jerusalem. Of course there is the Old Testament connotation that Isaiah sets forth that God intended to restore His people so that they would be a “light to the nations” (Isaiah 49:6). So there is certainly a missional character to this city imagery, something active and not passive. But what is a city? Certainly the reference is not to a village or a suburban track outside the city-limits. The Christian community (and please, not an individualistic interpretation where each Christian is a city) is a light reflected as a city. The hustler and bussel of commerce and active streets, often messy and seemingly unorganized, where people flow in and out to find their needs and sustenance met. Certainly there is the imagery of protection—for cities were walled at that time. In fact it was the wealth of the city and the strength of the city that offered protection to the surrounding metropolitan areas. Instead, now we have those who escape the city and rob the city of its human capital and sustaining resources—in the suburbs.

So I found it ironic that we, at that service and mostly suburbanites, were being called to total commitment to the Lordship of Christ, but nothing was mentioned of repentance of a suburban life in exchange for one characterized by the “light of the city.” You are the light of the world, a suburban escape from the city which is set off, isolated from the city. It would be worth thinking about, namely how those living in the suburbs hear this text, and certainly how those affected by “affluenza” (i.e., affluence) respond to Jesus’ call to be a city set on a hill. How do those who are a Christian community set outside the city be a biblical city-light to the world?

In his book, Cold War in Hell Harry Blamires writes on what he calls the 20th century Problem Child:

“You actually do what is good—or what is bad. In either case it is by virtue of your reason that you know what you are doing. Now whether you are a good man is determined by what you do: where you are a rational man is decided, in the first place, by what you know. Of course only the good man is strictly rational in the last analysis, since it is highly irrational to do what reason tells you is bad…If reason is corrupted, it becomes increasingly difficult for men to be good.”

Herein is a danger for us, the modern man: Strip us of our capacity for reason and we lose our ability to determine what is good and thus to better express all the more our depravity. Multiply this among the now 300 million self-determined, irrational human beings in America and you will understand why we have a culture that is fading fast. My concern isn’t just with the general community, the non-Christian, secular, ore irreligious, nor with the unchurched. My concern is the dumbing down of the Christian life—the emphasis on the heart and feelings—widens the gap between our reliance (that is the confessing Christians’ reliance) on God’s Word and the addiction to how we feel. I have seen the frustration in the voices of our Christian leaders, as to why people even in the pew don’t take the Bible, God’s Word, more seriously. Well, frankly we’ve told Christians over and over that it (that is, the Christian life) is not about thinking, or about knowledge, about our cognitive abilities, or about reason. This has a harmful cumulative affect on the christian life. We’ve dumbed down Christianity into a hallmark card (postmodern) faith of heart and feelings. And this is compounded weekly through non-exegetical, non-expositional messages in the guise of sermons, which are unbearably light on theological reflection. And, we forget that reading the Bible and learning to obey it is, at first, truly a reasonable adventure—a cognitive experience. And since we tell Christians…get away from that, it’s a matter of the heart…the congregation gladly obeys…the preacher, but not the Word. If Christians want to rise above our fading, postmodern culture, and be able to set the pace for a meaningful life, it seems to me that reason needs to find a renewal within the Christian community. I am not talking about the blogger, online, community of faith (we seem overly reasoned in that realm). I mean the regular folk of our congregations…the moms and pops, the nine-to-fivers…that crowd. Guard our reason. Take every thought captive. Renew our minds. Love the Lord God with all our minds. Pastors and preachers guard our reason… Perhaps passages such as Rom 12:1-2, Colossians 3:2, and 2 Corinthians 10 need not to be “rationalized away” and we need to (re)grasp the importance of the mind--thinking, reasoning...for the Christian life and preaching/teaching.

“When it was virtues which were being pursued, and good character was the desired end, then the words used in [popular advice] manuals were typically citizenship, duty, democracy, work, building, golden deeds, outdoor life, conquest, honor, reputation, morals, manners, integrity, and above all, manhood. As the shift to focusing life around personality occurred, the language in these manuals also changed. Now, words the most commonly used were fascinating, stunning, attractive, magnetic, glowing, masterful, creative, dominant, forceful. It was a shift away from the older moral concern with personal restraint and sacrifice to the new concern with self-realization and self-expression. It was a shift away from one’s inner moral fabric and toward how one felt or how one appeared to others. Now, it was becoming important to express one’s uniqueness, to stand out in the crowd, and to know how to use one’s personality as one navigated through life’s stormy channels or came upon its opportunities. This ‘shift from character to personality,’ wrote Philip Cushman, ‘reflected a profound change in the cultural terrain of the era. The self was in process of being configured into a radically different shape’” [Referred to by David F. Wells in his book, Above All Earthly Pow’rs, p 50].

We can almost tell how old a person is, or more so, how mature a person is by the words they use. We know repeated “No” means babyish; “mine” toddler; “my right” immature, but still young and immature. The same is true of society. We are using a vastly different set of words to talk about ourselves, our personhood, and our place in this world than we did, say, even sixty years ago. What stands out here for me is the observation that we have moved from away from language of “personal restraint” and “sacrifice” to the language of “self-realization” and “self-expression.” A shift away from “character” to “personality.” Please don’t tell me this doesn’t make it difficult to develop a responsible citizenry, and even more so, near impossible to mature a congregation of Christians. It seems we cater to the heart in our preaching, but expect the sacrifice of our wills. In the pursuit of being relevant, the church has adopted the language of the postmodern (immature) world but expects the obedience and responsibility shaped by the language of Scripture. I don’t think we can have it both ways. We try, though.

“This kind of development is what David Lyon calls ‘Disneyfication,’ what ‘diminishes human life through trivializing it, or making involvement within it appear less than fully serious.’ It is a fearful idolatry and the immediate judgment that is being visited upon us is that our culture has become shallow, cheap, and vulgar. And far from challenging this emptiness and futility, evangelical churches have too often been its exemplars, as I shall argue in a later chapter, pitching their ‘product’ to ‘consumers’ and emptying themselves of every vestige of spiritual gravitas as if striving for a serious faith were a failing of great magnitude and one to be avoided at all costs” [David F. Wells in Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, p 47]

When my daughter turned into a teenager, I happened to be watching “politics” in action and I couldn’t help but hope that she will be a better teenager and less sophomoric than the Senators I am watching on TV showboating to their voter-base and baser instincts…and it makes me think of our culture, which is very much like a teenager…anyway… Reading David Wells book, Above All Earthly Pow’rs, isn’t quite like a breath of fresh air. It is more lot a ton of bricks falling. He hits the nail right on the head—Church as exemplar of our culture. Being creative and seeking how to “sell our product” to the unchurched consumer are not the same things. I have often thought the community at large and the unchurched don’t take us as very serious, because we aren’t—we do not show them serious, we show them entertainment, happy theme park, Disney-faith. I remember reading Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, and learning that Sesame Street didn’t work as well as they had originally thought—that is, the show didn’t actually help prepare kids for school. The big problem: school, once they were there, didn’t look or sound or feel like the Sesame Street TV show. I have often wondered: Life doesn’t look like or feel like or sound like church-life or worship, and maybe that’s why our faith doesn’t penetrate into society. People don’t live at Disneyland: they might work or play there, but they don’t live there. It is for escape, forgetting, for fun, a pause in life, not for developing life. No wonder we have it so awfully wrong within our church-life and worship habits.

One would think that Jesus actually meant, when He said, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” that we are praying for what is real in heaven where God reigns to be realized on earth now. Jesus’ prayer to His heavenly Father was a summary of His eschatology. He expected His followers to be disciples of realized eschatology; obedience to Christ is to mean that discipleship is to intentionally do on earth what is in heaven. The portrait of the future, that is, the eschatological reality placed before the believer in the text of scripture, demands a discipleship that seeks to bring that future into the imagination and obedience of the follower of Christ. It seems we like some parts of the eschatological reality and, just wish some would god away. Some of us like the piety and morality and reject the “earthly” matters of God’s reign over our economic choices and the issues of poverty. Many of us get the impression that God’s heavenly reality is more related to life in the suburbs and the upwardly mobile middle-class experience, than say, the urban and underclass and impoverished. I will continue to explore the relationship between eschatology and its impact on Christian obedience and discipleship as it relates to justice and activities that serve, assist, and provide for the economical and disenfranchised vulnerable populations that surround the church.

The contrast was there—after eight years of defending the Community Action mission and its agencies’ existence and worth (which I believe President Bush got wrong for eight years) and then the almost emotional uplift that has come in the new administration’s understanding of the value of Community Action and its potential role in helping move people out of poverty. I expected that contrast. I just returned from three days in Washington DC—a trip I have taken almost annually for the last eight years (7 under the Bush administration and this past one under Obama’s). The conference is set up to help Community Action Agencies across the country to become aware of pending and needed legislation—the good, the bad, and the ugly. We spend time with our legislators and with each other, talking, explaining, educating, and informing of the results of Community Action in hundreds of neighborhoods and regions across the United States. I expected the Bush-era/Obama-era contrast to be there and obvious. That’s one personal reason I wanted to go this year—just to see and feel the contrast, the difference. But that’s not what struck me—that’s not the contrast I saw and felt.

Now just for those who don’t normally read this blog, or “accidentally” google or browse into it, I am a politically conservative, evangelical, former pastor and Bible College professor who now works as the Director of Finance & Planning Services of a Community Action Agency which serves over 4,000 low-income people each year. I have been a pastor in the Christian and Missionary Alliance and a professor of Greek, New Testament, and Biblical Studies at Prairie Bible College. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Bible & Theology from Crown College (MN) and a Masters of Arts in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (MA). And now, after over ten years, I have worked in the field of Social Action, helping design, oversee, and monitor programs that seek to help the poor and working poor to ameliorate their economic and social crises and move them toward self-sufficiency and out of poverty.

The contrast I saw and felt wasn’t necessarily a bad contrast, but it was significant and important to me. The contrast was between the environment and nature of the Community Action conference in DC and the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) annual meetings I attend. ETS is a membership society of Biblical scholars, teachers, pastors and others involved in evangelical scholarship in order to serve Christ and His Church. Each year at its annual conference members who range from pastors to writers, from professors and laymen, meet to share and listen to papers ranging from text criticism, biblical theology, pastoral studies, philosophy, and almost anything pertaining to the Word, the Church, and Biblical studies. (I have had the privilege of delivering a few papers myself.) The crowd was about the same size, but none of the faces matched, nor what was talked about as people stood around and mingled. High theological thoughts were contrasted with vital ideas on how to move poor people into jobs and how best to actually use the “Stimulus Money” that will actually stimulate the economy and help those least among us.

I understand the need for both—so the contrast is not to lift one above the other in importance, but it highlighted the two worlds in which I maintain my spiritual sanity. I am very committed and convinced of the inspiration and inerrancy, and thus the importance and significance of the Bible and the Christian faith. My thoughts on the contrast were how unfamiliar each setting was to the other. I know many on my new colleagues in this field of social action are people of faith, but it was the total separation and distinct unfamiliarity between the two that stood out to me. Almost like there was no connection between the two. I make no judgments here on each group, but I am captured by both and find that, although the crowds of attendees were distinct and unfamiliar, the two groups (“societies”) are intertwined, linked, juxtaposed in my heart, mind, and actions. The two easily highlighted the two equally important commands of Jesus to love God with everything you got and to love your neighbor as yourself. Additionally, the issues of inspiration and inerrancy are linked if for any reason to make theologizing and doodling with God-talk real in the public life of the Christian and the Church.

“For earlier generations, the ideal minister was the evangelist who was measured by his success in persuading large numbers of people to become Christians. Some were traveling revivalists, and countless others worked in local congregations where they were appointed for evangelistic purposes. In the second era, congregational expectations for ministers shifted from outreach to nurturing the congregation and responding to the needs of individuals. In this era, ministers learned the techniques of the therapist and placed considerable value on pastoral care and counseling. Their task was to meet the ever-increasing perceived needs of the people in the congregation. In the present era, the minister is ultimately measured by the ability to organize, build, and manage a complex organization. Congregations continue to assume that the minister will maintain the traditional roles of marrying and burying, but they believe that the ultimate goal of the minister is to take the congregation to a new level of growth. The minister must be both an effective communicator and an administrator. In a competitive religious marketplace, the task of the minister is to ensure that the congregation maintains its place among religious consumers. Often search committees no longer look for someone who conforms to one of these models. Instead they seek someone who is a combination of, for instance, Jay Leno, Lee Iacocca, and Dr. Phil [James W. Thompson in Pastoral Ministry according to Paul: A Biblical Vision, pp 8-9].

Wow. When thinking about, searching for, or affirming a pastor—everything and anything but a biblical understanding of the role of the minister, pastor, shepherd of the flock. Immediately I connected with what Thompson was driving at in his new book. Over the past twenty-five years, I have read countless books on pastoral ministry, church ministry, and the expected role and duties (requirements) of the pastor. I have not seen many that actually struggles from a theological (what does the Bible actually say?) or an exegetical (what does the text actually say?) point of view. Oh, sure, a few proof texts here and there; a words study because an English word in our English translation of the Bible connects to our perception of what we are looking for; but, no exegesis or theological analysis. Thompson puts the discussion of Pastoral Ministry (at least according to Paul) within a theological and biblical framework. When I read the above words, my heart was saddened: we have traded the patterns of this work of ministry with marketplace values pressed upon the pastoral role and church praxis at the expense (really the replacement) of a Scriptural basis for pastoral ministry. We’ve invented much of what we call church and church life and experience, so a little return to Scripture is a good thing, a very good thing. I anticipate good things from Thompson’s book. I am getting closer to wanting to actually throw my hat back into the Pastoral ring. (Scary thought—for the church! And, after what I have said so often in this blog or written about, not sure bureaucracies and denominational hierarchy would want someone like me in their midst.) Sorry, a Dr, Phil I will not be. More biblical work needs to be done on measuring success biblically—something I have discussed throughout this blog, but also something I hope to tackle more fully in the future.

Many people read the Book of Revelation (from the Bible) and read into it “escape.” Others, and I take their side, read a message quite different: no compromise, no accommodation, repent from cultural accomodation and idolatry, overcome, stay faithful, and “live through it.” In John’s Revelation, one interpretive outcome is, “We get out of here” (raptured) and is very escapist in mentality (i.e., not of the world, but not in it either I might say).  The other interpretative outcome is less a geographical relocation (i.e., rapture off the planet completely, or leaving the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, or the archetypical city of Babylon, which is really Rome in Revelation) than it is a re-orientation of the community of faith’s social location within the culture of the very communities in which they live (i.e., in the world, but not of the world).  A commentator once said Revelation is

“a minority report on how Christians related to the larger Roman society.  The seer is apparently advocating attitudes and styles of life not compatible with how most Christians were living in the cities of Asia” at that time (Leonard Thompson in The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 1990).

It is the same biblical author who wrote down the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1) who also gave us Jesus’ own words that His people are not to be of this world and are also to remain in this world (John 17:14-21).  One would think that Revelation’s message, since it, too, comes from Jesus, would affirm and not say the opposite to His own teaching (in John’s Gospel).  What kind of minority report would we, the Christian community, have?  Would we have one at all?  Or, if we did, would our report just be an affirming report of how to live comfortably in our culture?  The Christian community is the minority report.  We should be offering a different reading on our situation, especially advocating for those who cannot or do not have a voice to offer their own report.  That is one way to live in and not be of this world.