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.”
Next, a short post on why Social Action needs to be self-less and altruistic, and why it can’t be just charity and the tansfer of wealth.
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.”
Tomorrow, I will post some thoughts on “what social action is” for those wondering what I mean by the tern and concept.
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.
Yes, I know I started out in this thread speaking about miracles and the misappropriation of “performing” miracles in order to gain power—usually power gained through the perception of others who are awed by the performance or the miracle (sometimes just the claiming of one is enough), or the status recognized by others because of the “faith” or ability to perform the miraculous. I briefly observed that the performance of the miraculous by people can be a way of gaining power over people, controlling people, and maintaining that control. This is very similar to why the miraculous was promoted in the Hellenistic world of Jesus’ day; and is in contrast to what we see in Jesus. I used the literary setting of the exorcism in Mark 5 as an example of why Jesus did miracles: 1) to show the presence of the kingdom and 2) to relieve those in oppressed or impoverished conditions caused by outside influences/structures. The miraculous now is often more about power—although in the guise of pious faith and seeming claim on God’s word. But it seems to me the miraculous that accompanied Jesus’ ministry is about giving away power.
The political and social background which is obvious in the exorcism-pigs story of Mark 5, suggests that Mark wanted us to know that Jesus’ ministry and the arrival of His kingdom was confrontational to the powers—the socio-economic structures—of his day. (Although Mark 5 hits on the Roman power-structure, other parts of Mark, in particular the narrative thread from chapter 9-13, indicate His confrontation to the Jewish power-structures as well. So this is not just about an occupational force which oppresses.) The social location and physiological context represents anxiety over the Roman occupation (and given the fuller Marken context, oppressive Jewish authorities as well). The power-structure and hold over the community is symbolized in the deed-parable of the exorcism-pigs story.
Evangelism as a concept and then its permitted actions/activities are all too often simply limited by etymological definitions and word-studies. This does not allow the text of Scripture to speak to defining evangelism, and thus limits the potential outcomes allowed by defining evangelism in terms of the Kingdom of God. We should ask, “How does the Mark 4-5 text, and in particular here, the exorcism-pigs narrative as Mark presents it, help us to define evangelism and its kingdom-centered outcomes? Here is a start in answering this question:
Juxtoposed to the Mark 5 narrative and deed-parable is of course the word-parables of chapter 4. So, straight away, after the teaching on the kingdom through word-parables, “on the other side” Jesus enters into an activity that demonstrates the teaching of chapter 4—wasted seed, kingdom-growth that can only be of God, and the bush branches offering birds shade. The Gerasene graveyard is the first place (i.e., the first “field” and “garden") after the teachings on the word and the kingdom where seed is sown and the mustard-seed plant begins to grow. The exorcism (which parallels the issue at hand, Mark 3:22ff, prior to the word-parable teachings in Mark 4) is the sowing, the graveyard is the field/garden, and Jesus’ confrontation with the two (the demon-possessed man and the “legion") who need to be evangelized are all a part of how the kingdom is going to grow--and the “birds” are going to find shade/protection.
Or, is it? We know the story all too well—we know the ending, so it spoils the impact. The kingdom-growth is not guaranteed here. It is a most ridiculous place, with a most undesirable object for evangelism. Mark’s choice of the “region of the Gerasenes” as a symbolic setting for the first deed-parable after the sowing-kingdom parables of chapter 4 takes on relevancy that leans toward public and political meaning, especially with Jesus’ use of ‘legions.’ But at first, natural, glance, it is wasted seed in poor soil.
You wonder what is meant by the “two who need to be evangelized” mentioned above. We are always “evangelizing” two, never one. Albeit the second of the “two” is not a single person, but a system, a political presence, a socio-economic structure, a people. This is always the case, for the person needing to experience the presence of the Kingdom, i.e., the Gospel, is always in a context. And in particular, since we are defining Gospel in terms of “Kingdom of God,” the context is socio-economic and political, not just inividuals, but a geographic, cultural, political, socio-economic context. Both, as in the exorcism-pigs deed-parable, need to be evangelized—that is to be exposed to, confronted by the arrival of God’s Kingdom.
I do not think it a leap to suggest that social action is a legitimate form of evangelism because it addresses the need of the person—to be freed from oppressive barriers—and the need of the socio-economic context to become ordered toward God’s Kingdom and its values. Social action, and not just charity, fulfils two things that the arrival of the Kingdom does: 1) Allows the person or people to experience the “growth” or “harvest” (or using the last follow-up parable, shade of protection) which comes with the presence of God’s kingdom; and 2) the social context is changed or realigned with Kingdom values, or at least has the potential for changing toward the values of the Kingdom. Social action can be evangelism. Evangelism as social action, unlike contemporary performing of miracles, allows the ministers (leaders) of the Gospel, the Kingdom-agents, to give power away. Social action puts the emphasis on, first, the presence of the Kingdom and, second, on the person or people who need relief from socio-economic systems and cultural structures that keep them marginalized, poor, and/or in a class of people who are not allowed to benefit from being “in the land.”
There is a lot here. And I will admit that this is a very rough cut of my thinking at this point. Hopefully, my forthcoming paper on Mark 4 will expand these marginal thoughts more adequately. Keep watching—sometime in November 2008, the paper needs to be done! (Read all the posts on this thread,
1,
2,
3,
4.)
“All right lads. I know there is not a faint heart among you. I know you are as anxious as I am to get into close action. Now we must bring him right up beside us before we spring this trap. That will test our nerve and discipline will count just as much as courage. The Acheron is a hard nut to crack; more than twice our guns and more than twice our numbers. And they will sell their lives dearly. They mean to take us as a prize and we’re worth more to them undamaged. Their greed will be their downfall. England is under threat of invasion and though we be on the far side of the world, this ship is our home. This ship is England” (Captain Jack Aubrey, HMS Surprise, in the film, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World).
When I am researching a subject, whether it be for a grant, a paper on workforce development, or some biblical study or exegesis of a text, I pay attention to everything—even commercials, billboards, side comments by people at a nearby table at a restaurant, the news, even things my kids say and do. I couldn’t help but be listening when I was watching one of my favorite movies, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. I am in the midst of studying and researching and thinking about Mark 4, parables, evangelism, and social action, so I am keen on everything around me to inform me and give me insight. I try not to be too allegorical on these matters, but I did find a rather poignant speech by Captain Jack Aubrey in the film rather insightful, relevant, and stimulating in regard to my thinking on evangelism and the kingdom of God. He was giving his crew a courage-motivating speech, not unlike George Washington’s “give me one more month” speech at the end of the revolutionary war. I quote the scene above. (The link will let you in on the scene.) I found it, well, rather relevant to my research, actually.
Probably now that I have given the context of my juxtaposing of research on evangelism and the Captain’s words (above), the relevance and parallel is obvious. But really, it is very obvious. Like the men on board the Surprise, serving His Majesty the King of England, so, too, are we, Christians, aboard the Lord’s ship, the HMS The Church. (Okay…that’s a little much, but you get the idea.) We, too, are on the far side of the world, far away from God’s heavenly throne. But it is our home, the church; this ship, it is heaven. I was struck far beyond the obvious however.
Our evangelism as it presently stands as mere proclamation keeps us from truly engaging the community around us—and from a comfortable distance as well for many, I might add. However, we need to get into “close action” with the world around us, and this certainly will “test our nerve” and, Captain Jack couldn’t have been more dead on when he said to his men, “discipline will count just as much as courage.” We can protest the world, stand bold as spiritual heroes all we want, be separatists, but it will take discipline, focus, intention to allow God’s reign to work its mystery through us in the world around us. This is one reason I find proclamation-evangelism as only one component (and way too safe a component) of evangelism, and not ultimately sufficient in accomplishing the task of the church. On the far side of the world here, we must be involved with social action, which engages the community (gets us into close action). Evangelism as proclamation allows for two potential outcomes, one private and one public. Proclamation-evangelism seeks to win a person to Christ (which is a good thing), but since we make no demands on the grace of salvation, the potential public outcome is only a secondary “nicety.” This is how many think society is to change—by individual conversions resulting in better, more moral, living. But it is not required as a condition for salvation, so the public outcome is only secondary, a potential by-product.
However, opening ourselves up to the idea that social action can be evangelism allows us to fulfill the actual outcome of the presence of God’s reign—namely, seeking to apply God’s righteousness “on the far side of the world” (as it were). Social action that seeks to make real God’s righteousness and dominion in the very structures and systems of relationships around us (that is within the socio-economic public realm) is evangelism—spreading the goodness of the kingdom of God. It is truly asking and meaning the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” This is “close action.” This is bringing ourselves “right up beside” those in the world. But social action “will test our nerve and discipline will count as much as courage.” May there be not one faint heart among us.
A number of years ago a former pastor had a great idea to get people to come to church. On one Sunday morning he asked us to list three topics on a 3 x 5 card located in the bulletin that our friends would like to hear from the pulpit. He was to run a series of sermons that would interest our friends and the un-churched—perhaps they would come to church then if the topics had some practical value to them. This was a no-brainer for me: I listed “Workforce Development” as the first and for another “the issue of poverty.” Later I asked the pastor if he planned on preaching on my friend’s interest areas. He noted I had written “Workforce Development” and made this comment: “That’s your area.”
He never preached on “Workforce Development (nor, on poverty), but I mark that time as a pivotal moment where I decided I needed to investigate the relationship of our faith, church-growth, and issues related to “Workforce development” and poverty. For sure these areas are “mine” in the sense that I work professionally within the social service world in a Community Action Agency, whose mission it is to alleviate the causes of poverty and to move families toward self-sufficiency. But these areas are equally the Church’s business as well.
Within my own Christian community and circle of Christian friends, and as well in much of the literature I have read, many simply respond to the issues of poverty and employment by referencing the Apostle Paul’s words to the Thessalonians: “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (3:10). Ironically this verse has little to do with the issue of poverty and more to do with the church’s misunderstanding of eschatology; but it is often quoted as a reason for the poor being poor and a basis for the Church’s inaction toward the issues of poverty.
As a result of much study on the role of the Church with regard to the issues of poverty I was led to the topic of evangelism verses social action, and in particular, Mark’s parables in chapter 4. Interestingly, as clear as the parable of the Sower who sows is related to spreading the Gospel, this parable and its companions in Mark 4 are rarely utilized to understand the nature, content, and potential activity of evangelism. Usually, if mentioned at all, evangelism in Mark 4 is, for most Christians, a self-evident concept of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ, and in particular, His death for the forgiveness of sins. However, like the misreading of Paul’s words in Thessalonians, the Mark 4 parables and its context are, as well, misread, especially with regard to evangelism’s relationship to eschatology, and in particular the implications of the inauguration of God’s reign in history.
If the church wants to be relevant—as we hear so much in the pop-theology of church-growth—one would wonder why “Workforce Development” isn’t more highly regarded as a concern for the Church.
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >