Words'nTone

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.

Goal(s) > Outcome(s) > Intervention(s)/Activity(ies) > Indicator(s)

This is an easy way of seeing the process…

1. What is our goal?
2. What outcomes do we want to achieve that support our goal?
3. What will it take—what interventions or activities will promote or help to achieve the outcomes?
4. And, then what are the actual means to measure whether or not the interventions/activities actually produced the outcomes?

Let’s return to the fisher-promise (Mark 1:17) and the contextual assumption in Mark 1 that God has, in Christ, inaugurated His Kingdom over the realms of humankind.  If—and I believe it’s right—that fishers are disciples who are to be revealed as inaugurators of the Kingdom of God, then we have a paradigm to work with that supports social action outcomes as part of the evangelistic role of these disciples.  Let’s plug these into our Goal-Outcome-Action model.

1. The Goal is the establishment of God’s inaugural Kingdom—His right to rule over the realms of humankind
2. The outcomes are Kingdom-related: Proclamation of the Gospel and Casting Out Demons (from Mk 3; as well as Healing from Mk 6).
3. The interventions, or actions that will achieve these outcomes are proclaiming the Gospel and casting out demons (and healing)
4. We can measure the success or integrity of the outcomes of these actions by measuring the influence of proclaiming the Gospel and over what territories have people been freed from demonic influence

Although this seems simple enough—and clear—we, obviously, haven’t settled what it means to “proclaim the Gospel” and “cast out demons” (or “heal”).  This will be the subject of the 3rd and 4th posts of this thread.  Here, it is sufficient to say that “proclaiming the Gospel” and “casting out demons to relieve others of the influence of the demonic realm” (and of course “healing”) offer a wide range of possible outcomes and actions.  If you have read the posts on the fisher-promise (and have noted my other papers on Mark’s Gospel), the background to the presence of the Kingdom and the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God is the Old Testament, and in particular the issue of covenant loyalty with its land-stipulations regarding the poor.  Although it seems simple enough just to say that proclaiming the Gospel means getting people saved and casting out demons is just that—casting out demons, we need to view these two activities and their outcomes as summary, paradigmatic of evangelistic activities and outcomes.  More on this in the next two posts—hopefully to make my thoughts clear (or muddier as the case may be).

This thread is some expanded musing on how I get from the fisher-promise in Mark 1:17 to potential social action outcomes.  To refresh, here are both the New American Standard Bible translation of Mark 1:17 and my own interpretive, exegetical idea for this verse:

And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men” (NASB).

Come follow Me and I will make you appear in history, publicly, as God’s agents of judgment who actively pursue the outcomes that reflect the inauguration of My Kingdom.

These thoughts stem from two questions asked of me after I delivered my paper on the Fishers of Men from Mark 1:17 this past Saturday at the Northeastern Regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in up-state New York.  There was a suggestion that I was downplaying, perhaps even minimizing verbal evangelism (i.e., proclamation, witnessing) and I was making a rather long leap from the authority to cast out demons to social action.  The question was asked of me, “Is Casting out demons, then, social action?” What follows here in this thread is merely rough draft musing on my potential answers, perhaps really clarifications on these two matters.

First, what is social action and a social action outcome?  I have already posted a rather long answer to this question, so here I will only summarize.

Simply put, social action is the activities of individuals and groups to participate in social issues to influence an outcome for the benefit of people and communities.  Such activities are to produce empowerment for those who cannot or are not able to speak or act for themselves, and to impact social change.  Social Action is the means (i.e., the action) by which one group offers alterative means to a different end for another group, the formation of action and policy for dealing with social issues, in this case, specifically issues of poverty.  Social Action is not simply charity, alms-giving, or the transfer of wealth.  Social Action, as a term and concept, is associated with actions taken by individuals or groups on behalf of others, and in particular advocating on behalf of the marginalized or powerless individuals or groups whose access to the systems of power are prohibitive or unavailable.  Social action outcomes are the results of the action taken.

And this begs one more thing before I move on—what is an outcome?  People, yes even Christians, confuse goals, outcomes, interventions or action, the means, and indicators.  Preaching the Gospel is not the outcome—it is the intervention, the action, the means, the activity.  A decision for Christ is the outcome.  The indicators would be confessions of faith, changed lives, and such.  And to use the casting out of demons as an example, the casting out is not a social action outcome; the casting is the action, the intervention, the means. The demon expelled, cast out is the outcome.  The indicator is the person free of a demon, a life changed.

A comment, before I conclude this post of the thread at hand: Goals are also tricky things.  Using the examples here, changed lives, people saved, people following Jesus are the goals.  People free of demonic influence is the goal.  Of course I am being specific to the two fisher-activities of proclamation and casting out of demons.  But I think for understanding goals, interventions and outcomes, this helps make it clearer.

A faithful Words’nTone reader has made us aware of the need for helping our Haitian friends, brothers and sisters, and neighbors. She has provided a link to a page on the Christian & Missionary Alliance website where we can read about the need and how we can help. I encourage the Words’nTone faithful to take the time to click over to the site and help with what you can.

The Alliance Responds to Haitian Disaster
CAMA is gearing up to assist survivors of the 7.0 earthquake that destroyed Port-au-Prince, Haiti’s capital, on January 12. According to a CNN report, the death toll may top 100,000. The hospitals are gone, and medical supplies are desperately needed. About 3 million people—one-third of Haiti’s population—were impacted by the quake.

In partnership with sister organizations already on the ground, CAMA will provide immediate assistance—including clean water, emergency shelter, medical aid, and other necessities—as well as long-term help in rebuilding efforts, integrating Jesus’ message of redemption with practical acts of compassion.

A compassionate response during a disaster tangibly expresses Christ’s love and opens doors for other ministries, says Phil Skellie, CAMA’s president. [CAMA is Compassion and Mercy Associates, a ministry arm of the Christian & Missionary Alliance.]

Read and give...

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

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

This isn’t just spin. As a conservative and a republican, I am all for being more fiscally responsible and to minimize the tax burden on American citizens. This always bring economic growth. But it is of national interest to maximize our resources, as the purpose of the Community Services Block Grant program affirms, “to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities.” For sure there is government waste (heck, there is wasteful spending in almost every home and institution, including the church!), and I agree some of the tax dollars funneled into welfare and poverty programs are wasted, not well implemented, unaccountable, and unwisely distributed—but I say some, not all. (Strengthen, don’t eliminate; fix, not do away with.) As the disaster in New Orleans and the broken levies has shown even other federally supported programs (like the ones that were supposed to build good levies) can be wasted and misused and misappropriated. But does that mean we stop building levies? Of course not. We fix what is wrong. Same should be applied to our goal—isn’t it a good goal, of national and of personal interest?—“to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities.” Why would you be against that goal? Why would anyone? This idea that it is up to individuals, or even should be left up to the religious organizations is a phony hypothetical. Those claiming such are often religious, few of whom ever lift a finger to do a thing about poverty.

What gets me now is that we hear over and over that the major talking heads of evangelical leadership community are asking the Federal government to work on global warming and world poverty—over there, of course. Let’s see these same evangelical leaders do something about it right here, on our shores, in our backyard. Politically-correct-evangelical-ese has now succumbed to the Bono-syndrome: It is all over there. (Apparently Bono and our status leaders show up at these evangelical leader’s offices now.) Forget what’s here, right next door. Not in my back yard (NIMBY). The NIMBY principle is alive and well among evangelicals. If evangelicals, together, wanted to actually do something about poverty here in America, they would because they could. Os Guinness in his Gravedigger File points out

“It may be true that there are more Christians in America than ever before and that they have never had so much money at their disposal, such powerful technologies to use, such positions of influence to fill, or such a global opportunity to which to respond. But the signs are that the opportunity will be squandered and that much of American Christendom is more modern and more American than it is decisively Christian.”

Whereas I agree that we will always have the poor among us (actually a poor interpretation and reference to Jesus’ words), why is that the primary working (Biblical) principle among those who claim to be following Jesus Christ? Yet James, the brother of Jesus and an apostle reminds the Christian community that was divided over the issues and thought patterns of rich-poor, haves-have nots:

“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27).

This is obviously what the church community should be busy about, since it was written to an established church.

We use the “poor will always be with you” principle as an excuse. How is it that we escape the words from Proverbs?

“He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him” (Proverbs 14: 31).

“The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, the wicked does not understand such concern” (Proverbs 29:7).

We think we escape them. We won’t. NIMBY will not work on judgment day!

I know I have wondered about here with my ranting. I am greatly disturbed when I hear that top leaders within the Evangelical community from church and denominational leaders to Presidents of institutions of higher Christian education sign “A Call to Action” to stop global warming (and aren’t we cooling now, anyway?) and world hunger (now we’re players on the political scene and apparently our Evangelical talking heads have become “people to see”), yet ignore the poverty right here. Where is the call to action for alleviating the causes and conditions of poverty right here in our communities? In our back yard? “Not in my back yard!” God forgive us.

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.

In the previous post I posted some thoughts on the leap between my degrees and training in theology and church ministry to programs and services to serve the poor.  Here are a few other bits of information that went along with those thoughts.

• From 1997 to 1999 I was a grant writer for TEAM, Inc., a Community Action Agency in Derby, CT.


• From 2000 to 2005 I was the Director of Development & Planning for NEON, the Community Action agency in Norwalk, CT.


• From 2006 to present I have been the Director of Finance & Planning Services for NEON.


• From 1998 to 2000, I served as the Chair of the Southwestern Connecticut’s Welfare-Reform Task Force, a 100 member committee of SW CT’s human service, workforce development, and government entities, given the task to implement President Clinton’s Welfare Reform in SW Connecticut.  I have also served on the Governor’s Commission for Employment & Training, which designed and implemented Connecticut’s standards for employment training vendors and monitoring instruments.


• I have written on the subject of Church and Social Action: “Widows in Our Courts (Mark 12:38-44): The Public Advocacy Role of the Local Congregation as Christian Discipleship” presented at the2006 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington DC; “Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): The Task of Evangelism and Social Action Outcomes” presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society; and currently researching and developing a paper for the 2009 ETS meeting in New Orleans on the subject “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the private vs. public debate isn’t enough.”

I attended Crown College (formerly called St. Paul Bible College) outside of the Minneapolis area in Minnesota.  I graduated in 1984 with a B.A. in Theology and went on to graduate studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in So. Hamilton, MA.  I have pastored and taught at a Christian college since these graduations and now find myself serving the economically vulnerable through a Community Action Agency called NEON, Inc. in Norwalk, CT as the Director of Finance & Planning Services.  Although a leap, it is really not that fair to take the step from good theological training to helping the poor.  My alma mater, Crown College, has picked up on this leap--they call it “market place ministry"--and have asked me to send them some material for a future article in one of the school’s publications.  Not sure exactly what they are looking for, I kinda wandered about between describing what I do to why churches ought to consider similar approaches to ministry, in particular attacking the issue of poverty.  Here is some of what I sent them.

Over 4,000 low-income and economically vulnerable families walk through our doors to find help with everything from food to rent assistance, from childcare and preschool to job search, and from energy assistance to alterative incarceration.  I work at a Community Action Agency in Norwalk, CT as the Director of Finance & Planning Services.  Our agency’s mission is to help at-risk populations to ameliorate their personal and employment crises and to provide resources to move them toward self-sufficiency.

Our agency, Norwalk Economic Opportunity Now, Inc, like over 1,000 Community Action Agencies scattered throughout all 50 States, came into existed through President Lyndon Johnson’s landmark 1964 Economic Opportunities Act and his “War on Poverty.” For over forty-years our agency, better known as NEON, has offered area low-income and economically vulnerable populations a wide range of services and programs: Head Start and pre-school, energy assistance, employment and training, alterative incarceration services, financially literacy skills training, English as a Second Language, comprehensive case management, and occupational skill training.  Our agency, like so many other Community Action Agencies, has a strategic plan that includes goals to be a quality organization, to engage the community to end poverty, and to actually help move families out of poverty.

I remember hearing over and over when I was a young Christian that change for change sake is not good.  Then while teaching at Prairie Bible College (probably sometime in 1991), I heard Leith Anderson say that change is good, even if it’s just for change sake.  At that point in my life I began to agree—just like a garden that isn’t turned over every once and a while, the nutrients don’t get stirred up and in, and oxygen doesn’t get shifted around (poor illustration, but you know what I mean).  But in the end, really there is no such thing as change for change sake—the dynamics of going through the motions of change always produce something; it has some affect on the status quo.  Something changes.  People change.  Lives change.  But I would add that it is important to decide what outcomes are desired first, so the change is designed to bring about those outcomes.

Over the last few years I have heard tossed around the phrase, “Making a Case for Change.” And now, through a strategic planning exercise that our agency has undertaken, we are making a case for change, specifically change that “ends poverty” in our community.  A big goal?  Absolutely!  Each year for the last ten years I have put together community need assessments, which translated into community action plans, which had goals and outcomes to help families with a range of support and resources (e.g., jobs, skill training, childcare and preschool, medical assistance, etc.).  This past year our agency took a good look at the needs of the community and began to produce a 10 and 3 year strategic plan that seeks to engage the community to end poverty in our municipal region.  The process was simple: 1) Look at the data—the demographics, the longitudinal studies, crime, graduation rates, unemployment, employment skill requirements for jobs in the area, languages, cultural backgrounds, etc.; 2) Develop a case for change from the data; 3) Craft a vision in light of the data—what do you want your community and agency to look like?; 4) Develop a method and strategy to bring in stakeholders—staff, the community, clients (some rather call them customers, participants, students, even citizens), municipal leaders, business leaders, other human services providers, etc.; 5) Develop goals and outcomes; and of course, implement the change and leadership development process and a means to measure the outcomes.
I have often said that my job, although not directly a vocational “church” ministry, is indeed a fulfillment of the presence of the Kingdom of God.  My role in the agency mission has been to design, implement, and monitor programs that help low-income people become less dependent on assistance and move toward self-sufficiency—more than just charity.  Most, if not all, my co-workers and colleagues in the social service and workforce development world (here in Connecticut) know that my passion and hard work on behalf of the most vulnerable among us is an outworking of my faith.  The Gospel Jesus came to preach to the poor was the Gospel of the presence of God’s Kingdom, the invasion of His rule and reign into the life of this world, into our communities.

I have always advocated that churches, likewise, should also learn to develop community needs assessments and input the findings into a church action plan with outcomes that help move people out of poverty.  Churches should be on the front lines when it comes to making a case for change.  But I fear the change we desire is more related to “number growth” (head counting), a bigger church budget, a bigger church building…the list goes on.  The church, of all social entities or institutions, is to exist for others.  Granted a component of church life is the nurture and development of Christians, but the command to “Go into all the world and make disciples” implies that the church community was not to be buiding-centered, but to be a disciple-making entity with the goal of going out into the world.  I am learning everyday of churches and church communities that are moving or have moved into this new (really old) direction of engaging their communities to end poverty.  My interests is in how the church—i.e., a local church—can be a people who make a case for change and develop leaders (i.e., disciples) who have a vision to make that change, especially as it relates to the church’s association and role in social action toward the poor.  The church should be asking itself, “How do we make a case for change in ending poverty in our community and how do we engage the community in ending poverty?”

One day when we came back from work, we saw three gallows rearing up in the assembly place, three black crows. Roll call. SS all around us, machine guns trained: the traditional ceremony. Three victims in chains— and one of them, the little servant, the sad-eyed angel.
     The SS seemed more preoccupied, more disturbed than usual. To hang a young boy in front of thousands of spectators was no light matter. The head of the camp read the verdict. All eyes were on the child. He was lividly pale, almost calm, biting his lips. The gallows threw its shadow over him.
     This time the Lagerkapo refused to act as executioner. Three SS replaced him.
     The three victims mounted together onto the chairs.
     The three necks were placed at the same moment within the nooses.
     “Long live liberty!” cried the two adults.
      But the child was silent.
     “Where is God? Where is He?” someone behind me asked.
     At a sign from the head of the camp, the three chairs tipped over.
     Total silence throughout the camp. On the horizon, the sun was setting.
     “Bare your heads!” yelled the head of the camp. His voice was raucous. We were weeping.
     “Cover your heads!”
Then the march past began. The two adults were no longer alive. Their tongues hung swollen, blue-tinged. But the third rope was still moving; being so light, the child was still alive…
     For more than half an hour he stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony under our eyes. And we had to look him full in the face. He was still alive when I passed in front of him. His tongue was red, his eyes were not yet glazed.
     Behind me, I heard the same man asking:
     “Where is God now?”
     And I heard a voice within me answer him:
     “Where is He? Here He is—He is hanging here on this gallows…”

[Excerpt from Night by Elie Wiesel in Jon Pahl’s book Shopping Malls and Other Sacred Spaces: Putting God in Place (2003), p 36.]

Pahl excerpts this piece from Wiesel’s book, Night, a powerful narrative of living through the Holocaust. What struck me was how the narrative (this little story) moved my own thoughts about God is showing up and what is typically thought of on that subject. Of course, as good evangelicals (and, yes, I am still one) we know God can’t be seen (at least according to texts like John 1:18). So, we piously eschew the idea of seeing God “in person” anywhere. But that’s not what is being asked when we say, “Where if anywhere, is God?” (as Pahl puts it). Of course, this is a metaphorical question or idea. So when we ask the question Where is God? we are really not asking something about God, but something about ourselves. The short account from Night made me think: where we see God is where we show our emotions, give our time, and place our commitments. If we see God in a cardboard box, over a street sewer vent keeping warm from the night’s cold, we do something about homelessness. If we see God hanging out on the street corner, spray-painting graffiti on a store façade, we fight for programs to change lives. If we see God hunched over on a hidden park bench smoking a crack pipe, we develop soup kitchens and halfway houses and drug rehab-centers. If we see God, baby in toe standing in line for free bread and clothing, we develop self-sufficiency programs to break the cycle of poverty. Maybe we’d have more Christian community action if Christians would stop limiting where we see or can see God.  Where do you see God hanging?

In yesterday’s post, I moved toward a definition of “Social Action,” which I believe is biblically informed and, at the same time, reasonable for our capitalistic, upward mobile, property-owning socio-economic culture.  In the days and months to come, I will be working through a two-fold track to help clarify my position and offer possible solutions to our issues of poverty.  Throughout the year, I plan on posting my thoughts on these two areas:

1. The biblical juxtoposition of the concepts of idolatry and poverty

2. Beyond charity—moving people out of poverty

I will of course continue my thoughts on why I believe, despite, perhaps my own right-wing, evangelical, conservative, less-government, lower-taxes political tendencies, that it is reasonable and important for the issues of poverty to rise to the level of national interests, and thus belong in the public sphere and not just the private sphere.

Yesterday I left you with my definition of Social Action: “Social Action is a means to ensure that the blessings and benefits of living in society reach to the poor.” I plan on unpacking this throughout the year—for personal edification, but also for preparing another paper for next year’s Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meeting (which will be in New Orleans of all places) on the subject of “Idolatry and poverty: Where the private vs. public is not enough” (my working title, which is always subject to change).  Although personal charity is important and righteous, I am not suggesting that our government take over acts of charity; but, I am suggesting that there is a good, reasonable, even biblical rationale to advocate for socio-economic systems in the public domain that help those in poverty to move out of poverty and find full, responsble, contributing participation in the privileges and benefits (i.e., the blessings) of living in this land (in our particular socio-economic system).  Don’t get me wrong—there are personal and private, as well as public and national responsiblities in the mix.

My goal, here in the next coming year, is not necessarily to change the world around us (although I hope that happens on many levels), but changing how the Church thinks about the issues of poverty living here in the land of plenty.  I am not so much concerned about re-ordering our country, but re-orienting our Christian worldview, habits, and presence in our socio-economic culture.  I hope to explain and put out for discussion why I think issues of poverty are both personal and structural; why charity is both needed and potentially an unrighteous means to control and exoricse power over the marginalized; why the Church’s habits contribute to or help with the issues of poverty.

In my recently delivered paper, “Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): The Task of Evangelism and Social Action Outcomes,” I only brielfy defined what Social Action actually is.  I assumed a lot from my readers/listeners to fill in the blanks with commonly held understandings of the concept (e.g., advocating for the poor, seeking change in policy, systems, and social structures that harm the vulnerable, or seeking that there is adequate attention given to the poor and to issues of poverty).  In this post, I’d like to spend a little time explaining what I mean by Social Action.

P. Hovath, writing in an article, “The organization of social action” (Canadian Psychology-Psychologie Canadienne, 40(3), 1999: 221-231), defined Social Action as “participation in social issues to influence their outcome for the benefit of people and the community.” Furthermore, Hovath underscored the importance of bringing about necessary change on behalf of others: “Social action can, under favourable circumstances, produce actual empowerment, impact, or social change.”

In its sociological context, Social Action is about the interaction of individuals and groups and the change that happens as a result of such interaction.  According to Townley, Cooper, and Oaks, Social Action is the “pursuit of reason in human affairs” (“Performance Measures and the Rationalization of Organizations,” Organization Studies, 24(7), 2003: 1045-1072).  Others place the emphasis on concerns of structure and “the transparencies of intended ends,” as well as “the means to achieve those ends” (so M. Weber, Economy and Society (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978).  Weber forms more of a sociology of knowledge definition, asserting that Social Action contains “the rational consideration of alternative means to the end, of the relations of the end to secondary consequences and finally of the relative importance of different possible end states” (Economy and Society, 78). 

Based on these, and especially Weber’s understanding, Social Action is that means (i.e., action) by which one group offers alterative means to a different end for another group, the formation of action and policy for dealing with social issues, in this case, specifically issues of poverty.  Within the context of poverty, Social Action is not simply charity, alms-giving, or the transfer of wealth.  Social Action, as a term and concept, is associated with actions taken by individuals or groups on behalf of others, and in particular advocating on behalf of the marginalized or powerless individuals or groups whose access to the systems of power are prohibitive or unavailable.

It seems like Social Action is often defined generically as a philosophy and process, then with further explanation, moves the thought toward what “it” does and who does “it” (e.g., social action workers are committed to social justice).  Some define Social Action as simply social policy reform (i.e., socio-economic reform); some, simply as working for social justice (but then leave the concept of “social justice” undefined or open-ended).  I like one website that suggested that Social Action is people working alone or together, acting for the benefit of others and for society.

In my paper, “Wasted Evangelism,” I posited that since the Kingdom of God provides the framework and definition of what evangelism actually is, it was natural, actually biblical, that Social Action be a relevant and legitmate evangelistic activity (with or without outcomes of individual conversions).  I utilized the OT, specifically the context of Exodus 21-23, since Mark hinges his understanding of the Gospel in that OT context (cf. Mark 1:1-3), to undergird the importance of considering the poor in relationship to the Christian’s social context.  I pointed out that the Exodus land-laws were operating behind Mark’s programmatic theme, which were given “to ensure that the vulnerable (i.e., the land-less) were full participants in the benefits of living in the land.” This led to my most obvious definition for Social Action:

“Social Action is a means to ensure that the blessings and benefits of living in society reach to the poor.”

This past Wednesday morning I had the privilege of presenting my paper on ”Wasted Evangelism” at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.  I consider that 17 people who ventured into my session at 9:20 am Wednesday morning was a great showing of interest.  In a conference where there are at each session time many more possible choices and topics and way more famous writers and speakers than I, having 17 people, including my wife, join me was encouraging.  Over the next few days, I will post a few observations from the sessions I joined, but for now, here are a few of my favorite lines from my paper, “Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): The Task of evaneglism and Social Action Outcomes” —which you can read backwards on this blog from this point --> Wasted Evangelism.

It was an honor and privilege that my paper was accepted to be read.  Special thanks go out to Dr. Aída Besançon Spencer of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminiary (So. Hamilton, MA) for letting the one in charge of accepting paper proposals know that I can do the right stuff.  Also thanks to Yale Divinity School’s library and staff for helping me out during my research for this paper.  The people who joined my session were so grasious for listening patiently--some even asking a few questions.  I walked away unharmed...and hopefully my material encouraged some to consider the poor and vulnerable just a little bit more.  Over the next few weeks I will finalize my paper—clean up a few odds and ends—and post a pdf file for those interested in downloading the whole paper.  I hope to, someday, turn this paper into a book on Mark, evangelism, and social action.  Anyway, enjoy the quotes, read the blogged portions of the paper, and enjoy—and let me know what you think!  Really, I can handle it.

“Any attempt to develop a coherent theory of evangelism must begin with the eschatological implications of the presence of the Kingdom, which is wholly constitutive of the gospel.”

_________________

“We accept that Mark has drawn into his Gospel the motifs of God’s dominion, exodus, exile, the Spirit, and idolatry.  What is undervalued, overlooked, or even ignored is the same context that contains these obvious correspondences, likewise, includes direct references regarding socio-economic relationships and community responsibilities toward the poor and vulnerable.”

_________________

“The parable of the Sower who sows assists the readers/listeners to understand the nature of the Gospel and how they are to imagine what it means for the Gospel of the Kingdom to be present (1:14-15).”

_________________

“The lavished seed of the Kingdom (word and deed) sown by the Master Sower is wasted on some, yet still produces a good crop among the crowds and “outsiders,” a harvest of 30-, 60-, and 100-fold.”

_________________

“The parable presents the realities of the inaugurated Gospel of the Kingdom, not how hearts need to change.”

_________________

“Idolatry is associated with the dissonance between the function of worship and the nation’s community life and their social responsibilities (1:12ff; 1:17; cf. 1:21).  Their idolatry created attitudes, as well as, religious and socio-economic structures (2:6-8; 2:20) and habits that discouraged or hindered them from their responsibilities toward the poor.”

_________________

“We are, however, to imagine that the seed is sown without regard to where it lands; nothing else is done.  We are moved away from human intervention to manipulate a harvest to a picture of a Sower who sows despite the outward realities of the conditions where the seed lands.  He sows indiscriminately, lavishly, almost carelessly.  All the while, the listeners/readers become aware that some seed will be wasted and yet there will be a good harvest.”

_________________

“It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus deliberately links the rule of God to a weed” (D. Oakman).

_________________

“The Parable of the Mustard Bush expands our understanding of evangelism to include issues regarding the dominions of mankind (i.e., socio-economic and power structures) and the poor.”

_________________

“The field where Jesus immediately sows the Kingdom is beyond the borders of the sacred.  The garden where the domesticated bush of God’s Kingdom extends its branches, immediately attracts the unwanted—the unholy, unclean, the sick, and the dead—to find the protection and sustenance of its shade.  The Master-Sower wastes his seed, yet, there is harvest.”

_________________

“Social Action is a means to ensure that the blessings and benefits of living in society reach to the poor.”

Over the past few days I have posted a four-part thread on miracles, and in particular the difference between Jesus’ miracles and or more contemporary claim on them.  I pointed out that Jesus was not mere miracle-worker and did not utilize them to provoke faith, stir faith, build faith, and especially for gaining a following.  In fact those who know the Gospel well know there are times he won’t “perform” miracles and times when he chastised others who followed Him only because of the miracles.  I suggested that in the world where Jesus did miracles, the elite and powerful of the Hellenistic world used miracles to maintain order—to keep people in place so as to maintain their own position and status.  Miracles were a way of keeping their class way of life.  I suggested that, I some since, we follow the Hellenistic high class use of miracles, rather than Jesus’.  The Messiah used miracles, not to gain or maintain power and control over people, but to demonstrate the presence of the Kingdom of God, and this always did two things.  First, it confronted the status quo and order of life—in fact, as one author puts it, miracles offered disorder to the world (to the community, whether it be the village, synagogue, temple, the State of Rome, or Israel) where the socio-economic structure was challenged, upset, and reordered.  And in this reordering, Jesus both met the need of those marginalized and disenfranchised by the existing socio-economic structure and confronted that structure at the same time—this is always the nature of the Kingdom of God.

My contention (my suggestion) is that social action is a fair application to the significance of miracles (especially as I demonstrated that Mark 5 is an obvious confrontation to the socio-economic structure of the day).  Social action that has Kingdom values (which is obviously something to be explained and maybe even debated) addresses the needs of those who are effected by anti-Kingdom socio-economic structures and confronts (seeks to reorders) that socio-economic structure.  Yes, I know this doesn’t seem to address the spiritual need of the individual and the reordering of socio-economic structures does not guarantee outcomes of individual salvation, but it certainly offers parables of the presence of God’s dominion in our present time.  This is what I am after here: this seems to be the portrait of the Gospel painted by Mark (and the others as well).  Here’s the problem: Such a view and actual participation in this type of Gospel-application, that is social action, can also cause us be identified us with the marginalized and the poor and, be accused of being a traitor, and thus we could lose our power and place and this world.  Maybe we don’t like this possibility of ministry of the Kingdom because such confrontation of the social, cultural, and economic structures can lead those who seek to bring the reordering to a cross.