Words'nTone

We’re crazy.  Some great and godly men here in Fairfield, CT have launched the crazy and almost impossible idea of starting an evangelical seminary in Southern New England in the heart of progressively liberal, very secular, Fairfield County Connecticut.  Crazy, I know!  But still, a great vision for this area.  I cannot officially speak for the group, but the ground work has been laid, and we’re even offering the first course (unaccredited of course, but a college-seminary level offering nonetheless).  The course is a typical theological institution offering: Introduction to Christian Apologetics.  The course, set for this fall (Sep 14-Dec 4), will be team taught by the various instructor-leaders of The New England School of Theology.  The syllabus outline is posted on the website for those interested.

I am fully supportive of a good apologetics course being taught—I am humbled I am one of the team-instructors.  I have been interested in apologetics for many, many years (at about 30 now), having read, studied, and taught on Christian apologetics in various forms throughout the years.  But this past year, as a result of undertaking a paper on the subject of “Idolatry and Poverty” for last year’s Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting (in New Orleans), I have a new appreciation for an apologetic that actually is the one used in the Bible.  Without rehashing my paper, let me summarize just a little.  For those wanting to browse all my posts and threads on the research and drafts, you will find them under the topic “Idolatry and Poverty (paper)” on my site.

In essence, there is a strong and consistent relationship throughout the Bible between the issues of poverty and idolatry, and within an apologetic context.  I not only demonstrate this in the paper, but I show how it’s embedded into the very fabric of the Gospel we say saves us.  Without it, the revealed Gospel is no gospel and cannot save anyone.  Second, I found it interesting that God often pits Himself against the other gods and idolatrous practices of the non-believing world.  Yes, a biblical God vs. the gods kind of approach.  I write in my paper:

     Although few doubt the Christian call to serve the poor, the Bible, however, is not the first set of ancient documents to promote the protection and care for the poor, nor did Jews and Christians invent our concepts of justice. The world of the ANE was very familiar with the care and protection to be given the poor, particularly by its deities, monarchs, and sovereigns.  The concept and practice was pre-Israelite and pre-dated Israelite propheticism.  Israel was indeed unique in excluding the worship of other gods besides Yahweh, but much of the ethical content associated with the biblical God can be found elsewhere in the ancient world.  As for the caring and protecting of the poor, there was little new under the religious and socio-economic sun.  From the beginning of recorded history, people, societies, and governing structures (whether Empires or “at the city gate”) have all struggled with how to assist the poor.  The Pentateuchal texts compare, even regarding the poor, to Sumerian and Akkadian Laws of Babylon.  Protection for the unfortunate, the poor, and indigent was “common policy” in the ANE and was not “unfamiliar to the Western Semites.” What is of particular interest is that the defense of the poor was “seen as a virtue of gods, kings, and judges,” essentially a policy of virtue that proved the piety and character of a ruler, monarch, or god.
     In light of antecedent ANE concerns for the poor, the uniqueness for the Israelite is that everything narrows down to one God who is alone righteous, who brings about justice for the poor.  Thus, enter the strong warnings against having other deities before Yahweh and the prohibitions against any form of idolatry (political allegiance or cultus worship) that would challenge the place of Yahweh as the one true God. Idolatry alone was the ultimate expression of unfaithfulness to God, fully deserving divine judgment.  The Genesis creation account is set within a God vs. the gods polemic.  The ten-plagues against Egypt and the Pharaoh were executed to demonstrate Yahweh’s place as the true God.  Later in 1 and 2 Kings, Israelite kings are portrayed as either good or bad “purely on religious grounds,” whether “they destroyed or introduced idols.” There is a polemic thread running through the Old Testament that idols and the gods or monarchs they reflect are “powerless” (cf., Pss 115; 135), unable to perform virtuous acts, and to trust in them is an embarrassment (Hab 2:18-19).  The Old Testament presents the God of the Exodus as the one true God who ultimately cares for and protects the poor.

Not only was it biblical to say, “My God is bigger and better than your god (or ruler or king or tribal leader or monarch),” but equally biblical to say, “My god takes care of the poor and stops generational poverty better than your god (or ruler or king or tribal leader or monarch).” This is most definitely why it is important to include our relationship to the poor and advocacy for the poor as a major component regarding our apologetic, our reason why others should believe in our God and in His Son, Jesus, the Messiah.  Although posted elsewhere on my site, I want to repeat my concluding remarks from the paper.  I read them just recently to one of my colleagues here in the Finance Department at work, and after she heard them she replied, “We really don’t live this way.” My conclusion and why it’s of biblical importance to consider why the issue of poverty is actually an issue of Christian apologetics…even if its not in the syllabus outline.  Eventually, I hope it’s a course!

     The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life that are incorporated into his or her belief system—seemingly validating the plausibility of personal faith.  The problem for the non-poor Christian living in such a history and current social-location, then, experiences only a partial reality, which is a defective social construction.  The Bible warns of God’s judgment upon those who create or maintain economic structures that benefit some and exclude others; that pave the way to prosperity for some and prolonged, generational poverty for others (e.g., Exod 22-23; Lev 19, 24; Deut 15, 24; Jer 4-8, 16-17; 22; Ezek 17-18, 22; Amos 4:1ff; Mic 2:1-2; Zech 7; Isa 5:7ff).  Unaware or in denial of their socially constructed world, the non-poor believer can accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.”
     Emil Brunner famously remarked, “For every civilization, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’” For the Christian and Christian community it is, Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the effects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship. The reality of everyday life, the acceptance that Suburban life and its enablers—the free market and human acts of power—are often at odds with the Gospel, especially a Gospel that has been formed by the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition.  For the non-poor Christian this is an idolatrous mode of living and does not offer a biblically defensible apologetic for the God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Finally, some concluding thoughts. Please remember these are first thoughts. I am hoping to work on a paper, maybe to present, but certainly as a chapter in my hopeful book on evangelism and Social Action: “Significance Before Application: Proclaiming, Casting, and Evangelistic Social Action Outcomes.” But for now, these concluding remarks are very rough draft. My concern in this thread was to attempt some thoughts and a preliminary answer to the question, “How is casting out demons = to social action.” I have suggested below in the posts to this thread that it is not that casting = social action, but that the significance of the fulfillment of the promise to become fishers (Mark 1:17), that is, the significance of the commission to announce the arrival of the kingdom and the activity of casting out of demons (Mark 3:14-15), ought to have social action applications—I’d rather say, they can have social action outcomes.

First as briefly discussed above, I believe part of the impasse, the barrier, to seeing how social action outcomes are a legitimate evangelistic outcome is that we start with application and move back to the text. We start with witnessing and other verbal forms of evangelism and we read back into the Gospel story that is what Jesus must have meant in saying you will become fishers of men. Second, we have a problem with moving from proclaiming the gospel to anything other than “the four spiritual laws,” or “Jesus died on the cross for your sins.” And third, we make no application regarding the significance of the fisher activity of “casting out demons” other than literal exorcism. So we stop and assume we know what the text says because we’ve already figured out how to apply it. So the text (i.e., “fishers of men” in Mark 1:17) must mean what we already think it means, namely, we are to verbally communicate that Jesus saves and fish, catch people for Christ, i.e., get them to convert, be saved, become a Christian. This however is our doing, not the text’s inference, and certainly not what is presented even throughout the whole of the New Testament.

I’d like to return for a moment to Mark 1:14-15, Jesus’ first summary of His ministry and Mark’s primary summary text of the content of what the Jesus-ministry-mission is.

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Let me borrow from Joel Markus’ thought on this passage from his commentary on Mark 1-8. We read this as two statements, but we do not read them as two parallel statements that explain or correspond to each other, which would not have been so far-fetched given the Hebrew thinking of the one who said it (Jesus) and the one who wrote it (Mark). Let’s just say it’s a structure that smacks of Hebrew parallelism.

The time is fulfilled   and   the kingdom of God is at hand
Repent                  and    believe in the Gospel

The significance of the parallelism is that the time of the old age, or this present evil age with all its anti-YHWH aspects, has come to an end; that time (the καιρὸς) has come to its eschatological end, for the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated. The old age of Satan’s rule over mankind has come to its eschatological end, albeit in a “now and not yet” form. And, the time of God’s dominion, His right to rule over the realms of mankind, has come—His Kingdom has been inaugurated in the appearance of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). (Also in the “appearance” are the other inaugurators as well—John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit, and the fishers of men.) The first imperative is to repent, which corresponds to the first indicative that the Kingdom has come. The second imperative is to believe, which corresponds to the second indicative that the hearers are to turn to belief/faith in (loyalty to) the good news that the new age of God’s dominion has dawned.

The fisher-promise, which comes right after this ministry-mission summary, pulls those who follow this King Jesus, the Messiah, to mirror this ministry-mission. As Jesus begins his ministry in the following verses through chapter 3, consisting of proclamation and casting (and healing), so now in Mark 3:14ff the followers are commissioned to mirror the same. The content of the Kingdom is drawn from Old Testament covenant texts, land-stipulations, and prophetic judgments—all of which contain issues related to the economically vulnerable (as I have already demonstrated and written and posted even on this site). Why shouldn’t we think that both the proclaiming and the casting interventions are related to bringing about the values, laws, and regulations that mirror the rule and reign of the arrived King? One certainly explains it; the other certainly demonstrates it. The proclaiming in the Gospel isn’t about “Jesus saves” (although one of the outcomes associated with the presence of the Kingdom for sure), but about the time when God’s Kingdom has arrived and all of creation is to realign itself with this Kingdom, and all people are to reorient themselves to the demands and values of this Kingdom.

Those who say “fishers of men = verbal communication of the Gospel as evangelism” forget there is a second part, “casting out of demons.” Of course there are those who believe casting is a miracle for today—this is not the debate here, although I have no problem with that assumption. What I am driving at here is, “Do we cast as well as preach, witness, and proclaim?” Few do. So how do those who disagree with me “cast out demons?” Or, do we take literally the fisher commission to proclaim (and narrow it down to only individual salvation) and “spiritualize” or do away with the commission to “cast”? Or perhaps we should see the significance of the Gospel of Mark’s commission and the two interventions of preaching and casting, that is interventions that are to reorient ourselves to God’s inaugurated Kingdom and that God’s Kingdom is “aggressively” taking over the realms of Satan, the present evil age, which has distanced itself through private actions of individuals, through structure sin (intended and unintended), and through both intended and unintended consequences of the choices and social structures we live within? Long sentence, but it makes my point.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out elsewhere, even the casting in Mark’s Gospel, particularly in the lengthy section of chapter 5, is actually about God’s stronger man invading the realms of mankind in order to bring about God’s rule and reign. More on this in a future thread. For now, I believe we should see the significance of the commission to proclaim and cast as interventions that are to move the realms of mankind away from the present evil age that has come to its end and move the realms of mankind—individually and corporately, things of the private sphere and things of the public sphere—toward the outcomes that are to be associated with the arrival of God’s Kingdom.

Yes, proclaiming the presence of the Kingdom and the casting out of demons are to be understood as including social action outcomes that address the needs and conditions of those who live in poverty. Social Action Outcomes can be biblical evangelism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business hindered completing the next and final post to this thread...so I continue yesterday’s with this…

---

As noted yesterday, there is an entirely different way to read these B-attitudes (which I suggest is closer to how Jesus and Matthew meant them to be understood) beyond the love affair we have with the self-centered-private sphere which is all-about-us (me,me, me, me!). When we get to the powerful words, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (v 9), why do we cheapen them through small and petty application? On two fronts, these words spoken by the Son of God, who left His majestic throne in unspoiled and untainted heaven to come down to sin-filled, corrupt, and self-centered earth, and who would soon die on a shameful cross as the ultimate peace-maker, ought to carry that same weight. First, the crowds that day would have well understood the great movements of history that left them—that is the poor in spirit, those who mourn, and the meek who have no place on the earth—as pawns, marginalized, subject to the whims of history and those with power, and powerless to advocate for themselves. They would have known the brave few peace-makers that had come to stall or avert the powerful who were there to enslave or capture them. They would have known their end—whether in triumph or defeat (mostly defeat). Second, in their time they would have understood that to be a “Son of God” was akin to being a king or emperor (e.g., Caesar was called and referred to as a “son of the gods” himself). Here is the twist—the biblical spin—the sons of God as referred to by Jesus would certainly have the ring of royalty and chosen-ness, but one also of suffering.

As I listened to a rather good sermon on this text one Sunday, I mentioned to my daughter that it is in the destiny of biblical “sons of God” to die in their peace-making activities. We, however, prefer a better, more recognized, life-fulfilling destiny as a peace-maker. Biblical peace-makers die on crosses to bring peace. There is a slight twist in this blessed-position, for to be called a “son of God” in the biblical context is to also to own all the potential suffering that goes with the title.

This brings us to the later book-end of the B-attitudes…and for some summary comments and potential application…

Typically we hear that these Beatitudes are for us “to find true happiness.” In other words, if we just become these (poor in spirit, meek, pure in heart, a peace-maker, etc.) we’d find happiness—you know, be blessed.  However, it seems to me that what these B-attitudes are is a description of the presence of the Kingdom and the framework or ingredients that are to make up the community of the Kingdom of God.

As I have stated here before, we seem to take the “poor” out of the poor and seem to read-in that “in spirit” means the poor can be anyone who has a poor spirit about them.  But that word for poor is never used that way and the connotation is that someone who is poor is someone who has be robbed of a voice or power within the community.  Combine the reference to “poor” with “those who mourn” and “the gentle” (I prefer the translation, meek, which is also a term akin to poor, or one who has no power for self-advocacy in a community) and you really have a description of the down-trodden, the marginalized in a community—you know, the poor in spirit.  We suburbanites like to figure out ways to read these verses as if Jesus mean us, you know the poor, meek, and mournful suburbanite non-poor.  I am sorry, no way this text is to be read that way.  What we have is poor non-poor readers of Scripture when this happens.  The first three blessed-people are blessed because of their condition, not because they have humbled themselves and realized they are broken (i.e., poor in spirit) and truly not happy (i.e., mourning), and although we have power, we’re truly gentle, meek and we now realize we are to have our power under control.  Hogwash!  These first three terms describe how God’s Kingdom turns everything on its head—it’s the poor, and those who mourn because of their loss, powerlessness, or marginalization, and those who are meek and cannot advocate for themselves—it is these in the community who are blessed, for the kingdom belongs to them and they will be comforted, and they will eventually inherit what has been denied them—the earth!

Now that the Kingdom has come, we are to recognize that all is not what it seems in society.  Then, it is the next set of B-attitudes that grab us and points us in the direction of witness and advocacy:  When those who hunger and thirst for righteousness seek such God first (biblical) righteousness, they often will find themselves at the wrong end of the sword (as it were); for those in power and with power, those who by worldly standards are not poor, mournful, or meek, are not receiving of such righteousness in society—these will resist those who hunger and thirst for such right-ness in society (i.e., advocacy for those who are poor, those who mourn, and those who are meek).  It is those who are merciful who will receive mercy.  The presence of the Kingdom and the demand for righteousness among people points to judgment—punishment/curse for those who resist God’s righteous demands on society (on behalf of the marginalized—I think you get the point by now) and reward/blessing for those who show mercy.  The pure in heart are those who show no duplicity and, as the young say, what you see is what you get.  Among those who are advocating for the poor, mournful, and meek, there is no hidden agenda, no duplicity—their advocacy isn’t for show or to be recognized (as we will see in the remaing parts of the Sermon on the Mount).  And peace-makers…more on this in the next post in this thread, along with some concluding remarks…

When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him (1). He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, (2)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (3).

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted (4).

“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth (5).

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied (6).

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy (7).

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (8).

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (9).

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

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me (11). “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (12).  (Matthew 5:1-12)

While in seminary I somehow was able to skirt by the oft-given assignment of a Greek exegesis paper on the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). But I have been studying and restudying this passages for the last 20 or so years nonetheless. In fact, not that it replaces knowing what the Greek reveals from the passage, I even memorized the Sermon on the Mount during the summer between my freshman and sophomore years of college. One thing I have searched for in this long study and pursuit of this famous text, that is the Beatitudes, is a key, an interpretive key. I have long tried to give this set of sayings a chiastic structure (you know, A B C D C B A or something like that). But such paring up of sayings (i.e., verses) doesn’t seem to be there. But I am convinced that Jesus (or at least Matthew) wanted the readers to make a connection between v 3 and v 10. These are bookends that should help in any interpretion of the text and its meaning and application. Above you can see my underlining to highlight the parallel between v 3 and v 10.

For my Greek nerds, here is the text of 3b and 10b so you can see the obvious parallel being made.

   ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν
         ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, v 3b

   ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν
         ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, v 10b

The same blessed promise is made to the “poor in spirit” and to “those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness,” both are assured that “the kingdom of heaven” is theirs. Without parsing too much of this parallel, one would be hard-pressed not to see the significance since it is the kingdom of heaven that is at issue.

Previously Matthew has crafted his gospel to emphasize the centrality and seriousness of the kingdom’s presence:

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2)

“Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matt 4:8)

“From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “ Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17)

“Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people” (Matt 4:23)

Second, Luke’s Sermon on the Mount account, although the content is the same, is crafted differently, indicating Matthew’s making of the poor/kingdom (v 3) / persecuted/kingdom (v 10) parallel intentional. Third, the remaining portion of the Blesseds centers on the “persecuted” theme.

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt 5:11-12).

And immediately, then, Jesus points toward the witness of this present kingdom that His new community is to have. Note the emphasis of the kingdom theme:

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:13-20).

In light of this, over the next few posts, I would like to make a few observations about the Beattitudes here in Matthew, point out how its not about making us “happy,” but crafting the Christian community into a righteous witness of the presence of the Kingdom of Heaven.

My paper on Evangelism and Social Action, which I presented at the 2008 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Providence, RI, has been published in the Africanus Journal’s recent edition. I am honored and humbled by their kindness in asking for and publishing this paper as an article. You can obtain both the article and the Journal online through the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary website, the Boston Campus.

---

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

     A number of years ago my pastor had a great idea to get people to come to church. One Sunday morning he asked us to list on the 3 x 5 card in our bulletin topics that our friends would like to hear. He was planning a “relevant and practical” sermon series during the evening services. The pastor hoped the topics would interest our non-churched friends if there were some “practical” value to them. This was a no-brainer for me, so, without hesitation, I wrote down “workforce development” and “poverty,” topics that would interest my friends. Some weeks later, I asked the pastor if he had seen my 3 x 5 card. He acknowledged he saw my topics and then made this comment, “That’s your area.” For sure, these areas are mine in the sense that I work within the social service world, and, in particular, a Community Action Agency, whose mission is to alleviate the causes of poverty and move families toward self-sufficiency. At that moment, I realized I needed to develop my own “theory of evangelism” as it relates to the Christian faith and issues like “workforce development” and “poverty.”
     The pastor’s comment was in line with a history of dissonance over the Church’s social responsibilities and how the Bible speaks to issues of poverty…click here for the full article...and scroll down…

After re-reading my last paragraph, I needed to reverse something...here is the ending re-written with a better twist reflecting on the Emil Brunner quote in light of my paper’s assertions regarding the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition:

---

Emil Brunner famously remarked, “For every civilization, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’” For the Christian and Christian community it is, Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship.  The reality of everyday life, the acceptance that Suburban life and its enablers, the free market and human acts of power, are often at odds with the Gospel, especially a Gospel that has been formed by the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition.  For the non-poor Christian this is an idolatrous mode of living and does not offer a biblically defensible apologetic for the God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ

.

It is down to the wire and I am finishing up my paper on the Idolatry-Poverty Juxtaposition and the Gospel. Nov 19th is fast approaching, so I have left some fine tuning and then deciding what parts not to read--I only have 40 minutes and I am supposed to leave some room for Q&A. Here is the conclusion I have decided upon. Some of its a repeat from earlier posts, but better I think. In the next post, I just want to make some personal, concluding remarks.

---

Conclusion: Social Action as Christian Apologetics
Simply—more affluent suburbanites, despite a claim to a higher work ethic or a more developed sense of responsibility, didn’t do it on their own; they had help along the way. On the one hand, the non-poor’s social construction of reality which they now experience as everyday life allows them to benefit from past actions of government, not just the market, that laid much of the groundwork for continued prosperity. On the other hand, the concentration of poverty in central-cities is not simply about laziness, slothfulness, or even personal sin. (I assume the non-poor who benefit from the current structure and mediating institutions are just as much “sinners” as those living in geographic areas of concentrated poverty.) Indeed, much of what is in place and experienced now as normal arose from various forms of racism and redlining practices, as well as “the concentration of subsidized housing projects [that] destabilized and isolated the poor, while federal home-loan programs, targeting new construction exclusively, encouraged the deterioration and abandonment of urban housing.” The fact of poverty and the reality of those affected by it in the central-cities couldn’t have happened any more affectively if it were actually planned and implemented with malice. Without the aid of government policies and subsidies, as well as municipally empowered zoning laws and discriminatory business policies (such as bank red-lining), the foundation for exurban wealth in America might not have happened. Rather than lamenting this inequitable state of affairs, participants, including many non-poor believers, have been encouraged to rejoice in the “prudence” of such strategies and the institutions—not the government (they say) but capitalism and the mythical market—that sustain them. The modern, non-poor suburban dweller is the heir of such socially constructed forces.

The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life that are incorporated into his or her belief system—validating the plausibility of personal faith. The problem for the non-poor Christian living in such a history and current social-location, then, experiences only a partial reality, which is a defective social construction. The Bible warns of God’s judgment upon those who create or maintain economic structures that benefit some and exclude others (e.g., Ex 22-23; Lev 19, 24; Dt 15, 24; Jer 4-8, 16-17; 22; Ez 17-18, 22; Am 4:1ff; Mic 2:1-2; Zech 7; Isa 5:7ff), that pave the way to prosperity for some and prolonged, generational poverty for others. The non-poor accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.”

In Man in Revolt, Emil Brunner famously remarked, “For every civiliation, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’” For the Christian and Christian community it is “show me what kind of gods do you worship and I will tell you what kind of relationship you have with those in poverty.” The reality of everyday life, the acceptance that Suburban life and its enablers, the free market and human acts of power, are often at odds with the Gospel, especially a Gospel that has been formed by the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition. For the non-poor Christian this is an idolatrous mode of living and does not offer a biblically defensible apologetic for the God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“What do you think are the one or two most critical needs in our community?  Notice this is different than asking people what they would like to see in a church. (Reggie McNeal in The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church p. 62).

“If you are a pastor or staff member of a local congregation, you must model missionary behavior for the church to see” (The Present Future p.64).

Some of McNeal’s material truly challenges the chaplain status of most evangelical pastors.  Yes, of course there is a need to care for the flock, but the flock and the individual sheep will end up imitating, not what the pastor says, but what the pastor does.  And this is an important point, especially in regards to discipleship and church ministry.  I agree that pastors need to visibly model out-of-church-in-the-community behavior, activity, ministry, outreach, evangelism, care, mission—whatever—in order to demonstrate “this is what we, the church, are about.” This model begins by re-asking congregational questions.  We ask both inside and outside of church the question: “What do you want in a church?” This is a good marketing question, for sure.  And, it has its place (rarely).  But a more biblical question to ask is, “What are the critical needs of this community?” The reason we tend not to ask this question is that the answers might be ones that make us uncomfortable, ones that might take us away from a building-centered ministry, answers that could take away financial and people resources from our church-building-centered comfort, ones that could put us right in the middle of enemy territory.  Discovering what are the important issues a community needs or faces might break up the club mentality of most congregations.  But, this question is a good modeling question for pastors to be asking and doing!

“I have but one candle of life to burn, and I would rather burn it out in a land filled with darkness than in a land flooded with light” (John Keith Falconer, missionary to the Arabian peninsula, 1885).

Over the past many months I have seen an increase in the client flow at our delegate AmeriCares Free Health Clinic.  I have talked with a doctor, two nurses, and someone there just to translate for the Spanish-speaking children and parents.  They were all volunteers.  The patients just keep coming.  I get in the way so I move rather quickly through.  But I always impressed.  I could not help but think of the countless testimonies I heard in Bible College chapel, then chapel while I was at Graduate School, and then later at numerous mission conferences that I have attended earlier on in my Christian life, even some Church testimonies of late.  My mind reminisced on the multiple testimonies from missionaries about schools and health clinics that were started and maintained in the farthest reaches and in the darkest places on earth.  All on foreign soil, in countries and among people I never had even heard of or seen.  I recalled the quote above that was used as a motivator to move us toward going into missions or at least supporting missions—foreign missions.  Whenever I see the work being done at the AmeriCares Free Health Clinic I have two thoughts that creap through my mind as my mind remember those former times:

1) Why not here in America, where there are children with no healthcare, especially in the urban centers; why are their no, or only a few missionary outposts dedicated to setting up schools and health clinics?

2) I thought, maybe, we are just not a dark enough place here in America to see such dedication and calling.

I am reminded and provoked by another quote:

“Some wish to live within the sound of a chapel bell; I wish to run a rescue mission within a yard of hell” (C.T. Studd, one of the Cambridge Seven, missionaries to China, 1885).

Where are the rescue missions a yard from hell?  Maybe here in America we are living too close to the sound of chapel bells.

In less than a month (Nov 19) I will be presenting my paper on ”Idolatry and Poverty” in New Orleans at the 2009 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society.  Am I nervous?  Of course, besides some really smart people sitting in the room, listening, some of my former professors will be there, too.  But the topic is close to my heart—in the very fabric of my heart, really.  The paper is a forum that reveals my own journey as a Christian in what it means to be biblical and a disciple of Jesus.  I don’t know how I missed it all those years, but how can we escape the fact that Jesus and the Gospel writers embed and define the Gospel we say we believe with the Old Testament’s emphasis on caring, protecting, and advocating for the poor and economically vulnerable.  Just because we are Americans with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights does not mean we are exempt or released from how the Bible defines who we are and what is Christian discipleship.  Anyway…here is the drafted introduction to the paper.  The rest of the draft has been posted as threads on this site over the last few months…happy, convicting reading..

---

Non-poor, Evangelical Christians need a framework to think Christianly about being a believer in a capitalistic, free market economic society where there are almost 40 million people who live with the affects of poverty; where almost 18% of children live in poverty; and, where 42% of children born in the bottom income quintile will remain in that quintile as adults.  At the risk of setting up too many straw men, typically, discussions on the issue of poverty revolve around individual accountability vs. corporate responsibility and/or the individual vs. the state.  Issues of poverty are almost automatically, by default, arranged in private vs. public dichotomies, arguments, and responsibilities, which sets up a defective social construction of reality for the Christian.  Alternatives offered are often defined by reactions to opposing sides, rather than truly addressing the issues of poverty and the effects of poverty on neighborhoods, families, and children.  Most Christians, conservative and liberal, agree that the poor are to be cared for, but the range, methodologies, and degree, as well as government involvement are areas of disagreement.  Some Christians can give the impression, however, that they do not have other than a political affiliation or economic preference as a framework to engage the issues of poverty.  And on the other hand, the banal, neutral posture on the part of many non-poor Christians regarding the poor can lead to the “bystander effect” or a “diffusion of responsibility,” leaving many Christians out of any active role in addressing the causes of poverty or assisting those affected by poverty.

Regarding the issues of poverty in America there is a lot at-stake for many people, Christians included: Constitutional rights, entitlements, property rights, taxes, freedom, wealth, the “American dream,” upward mobility.  Sides often define the opposing socio-economic approaches to solving issues of poverty as a threat to society or the cause for continued poverty.  For most on the political right the free market system with minimal interference from the government and private charity is what will ameliorate poverty; those on the political left stress public responsibility and that government is to deconstruct “unjust” structures and utilize its power to distribute resources more equitably.  While most non-poor Christians understand there is a general Biblical call to help the poor, they, too, are divided left and right, public vs. private.  The Christian is then faced with the choice of leaning toward one as biblical, while making accusation toward the other as unbiblical.

Much of the discussion about poverty, the poor, and right and left ideologies associated with the means of eradicating poverty involves how the Old Testament presents the topic of the poor.  The Christian’s framework for thinking about poverty is not individualism, nor any socio-economic/political system, but should be formed by the Gospel itself.  Interestingly, Jesus and the Gospel writers, and in particular Mark, not only utilize the Old Testament to develop the nature and content of the Gospel, they utilize texts and contexts where the poor and idolatry are juxtaposed.  In this we have a programmatic approach for discussing poverty and, as such, actually narrows the application down to, not what the government or general public or charitable individuals think or do, but how the Christian and the Christian community define themselves.  In the following I will explore this idolatry-poverty juxtaposition, particularly in Mark’s Gospel, and will seek to apply its significance to forming a Christian framework for thinking about the issues of poverty.

---

See below for all the other parts…

The Programmatic Summary (Mark 1:1-3) continued…
Moving to the Malachi 3 referent, the easy correlation is the sending of God’s messenger—ιδου εγω εξαποστελλω τον αγγελον μου (Mal 3:1); και ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου (Ex 23:20)—and John the Baptist as the messenger preparing the way (οδον) for the Lord (Mk 1:4-8).  Overlooked, however, are the contextual concerns regarding the poor that also link the Exodus and Malachi referents.  Following Mal 3:1, we encounter the vulnerable trio in verse 5: Then I will draw near to you for judgment…against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien… Earlier the issue of idolatry is raised: The profane sacrifices and polluted offerings (1:7-12) indicate idolatrous attitudes and practices, and Judah is rebuked for profaning the sanctuary of the Lord and has married the daughter of a foreign god (Mal 2:11).  Then in Mal 3:5 memories are drawn back to the covenant where the vulnerable trio are introduced with prohibitions against sorcerers (Mal 3:5; Ex 22:18) and those who swear falsely, bookend texts that recall stipulations regarding social relations, including one’s enemy and the needy (Mal 3:5; cf. Ex 20:16; 23:1, 7; cf. Dt 5:20).

The juxtaposition of idolatry and poverty in the Exodus and the memory-judgment context in Malachi bears out the apologetic framework discussed above.  Additionally, the constant use of Isaiah in Mark also reinforces this framework, which is particularly vivid in the Isaiah 40 component of Mark’s programmatic summary.  Mark’s Isaiah referent itself—A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa 40:3; cf. Mk 1:3)—carries imagery common to Isaiah’s world, reflecting the procession of ANE monarchs.  Here, it is Yahweh who comes as Victor-king, announcing the Good News, “Here is your God!” (v 9).  The indent of the procession is for the glory of the LORD to be revealed and all flesh will see His glory (v 5).  Isaiah 40 then develops comparisons of Yahweh to surrounding idolatrous nations, for the nations are like a drop from a bucket and they are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales (v 15).  The contrast flaunts, All the nations are as nothing before Him, they are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless (v 17).  And, in the end, it is the Word of God that will stand forever (v 8). 

Mark’s introduction links the Gospel to the concept of the imperial cult of Caesar with the apologetic of Isaiah, namely the incomparability of Yahweh.  Yahweh’s sovereign power over creation is boasted (v 12) and God is free and independent, needing no-one’s counsel regarding justice (vv 13-14).  In fact, Yahweh is distinct from the image-bearers made of gold and silver who need to be fashioned by human-hands (vv 19-20), for He sits above the circle of the earth and stretches out the heavens like a curtain (v 22).  God reduces rulers to nothing and makes the judges of the earth meaningless (v 23).  The Holy One takes on the all-comers: To whom then will you liken Me that I would be his equal? (v 25).  Isaiah references the starry hosts, each representing idolatrous pagan powers (v 26), yet it is Yahweh who created them and calls by name, indicating His might and strength over the idols/gods of the nations. 

I have yet to draft a beginning or a summarizing conclusion at this point, but the three major sections are drafted.  In fact I posted the 3rd section first (Our Defective Social Construction) and the first section 2nd (A New Framework for Thinking About Poverty).  Now I turn to my middle component, which plows through the Gospel of Mark to demonstrate that the issue of poverty and idolatry are embedded into the narrative.  This one is rather lengthy—don’t know how I am going to present all the material in New Orleans!  I suspect it will be a thread of at least ten posts…but that might change…

---

Mark tends to use the Old Testament at critical points in his narrative (e.g., the Gospel programmatic summary, the call to be disciples, confrontations with Jerusalem leadership, explaining the presence of the Kingdom, and the fore-telling of the temple’s destruction) and “prefers certain categories of texts for particular concerns.” In Mark, Jesus judges his critics by the standard of Old Testament and “re-evaluates it in the light of his own person and mission.” Furthermore Mark also crafts his narrative using Old Testament texts that bring to mind Exodus land-management stipulations related to the economically vulnerable and words of judgment for abandoning them.  Mark’s use of these texts and their contexts contain references to idolatry and the poor.  Mark is fairly consistent—and intentional—in this use—and at critical places (cf. Mark 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13)—thus making them most likely programmatic for understanding the Gospel and, as well, the nature of discipleship and evangelism. 

The Programmatic Summary (Mark 1:1-3)
As Mark begins he frames his narrative with a composite Old Testament quotation (Ex 23:20, Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3) that contains contextual references to poverty and idolatry, making the twin concepts programmatic for the Gospel.  Mark draws from the concluding summary (Ex 23:20-23) of the “Book of the Covenant” (Exodus 20:1-23:33), which is immediately followed by warnings against idolatry (You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces, 23:24; You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you, 23:32-33).  Essentially the entire “Book of the Covenant” is structured around this theme.  At the head, in what constitutes the foundational covenant Ten-Words (Ex 20:1-17)—the Decalogue—Israel is commanded to have no other gods before Yahweh (20:3) and idolatry in any form is prohibited (20:4-5).  Interestingly, even the Ten-Words are bracketed with prohibitions against forms of idolatry, for the tenth commandment, You shall not covet (v 17), is associated throughout the Old Testament with idolatry (cf. Ex 20:23; Dt 7:25; Isa 1:29; 44:9; Ps 115:4).  Then after Israel affirms hearing from Yahweh (Ex 20:18-22), Moses begins unpacking the Ten-Words, idolatry leading the record:

“You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.  You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you” (Ex 20:23-24).

The first time the economically vulnerable are mentioned in the Exodus, idolatry frames the pericope (Ex 22:18-20; 23:13) where Moses presents a trio of commands prohibiting the idolatrous behavior, each with a consequence of death:

“You shall not allow a sorceress to live” (Ex 22:18).

“Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death” (v 19).

“He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed” (v 20).

This is immediately followed by land-management stipulations concerning the economically vulnerable trio (the widow, orphan, and foreigner):

“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.  You shall not afflict any widow or orphan” (vv 21-22).

As the consequence of idolatry is death, there is a similar penalty for not fulfilling the codes related to the economically vulnerable.  They are mirror-retributive in nature:  Oppressing the poor, which provokes their outcry to God, brings about the sword, making the families of those who violate these land-management stipulations just like the poor, becoming widows and fatherless and, thus, economically vulnerable as well (vv 23-24).  Then there is a series of codes that promote action or prohibitions of the non-poor to protect the vulnerable trio from continual and generational poverty (vv 25-27).  Although partiality in disputes is prohibited no matter one’s economic status (Ex 23:6), strangers were not to be oppressed (v 9; i.e., defrauded) and during the seventh year rest of the fields, the natural growth was to be left to sustain the poor (v 12).  The segment, then, closes with a repeated warning against idolatry (Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth, Ex 23:13).  Exodus 23:20 introduces a series of reminders and warnings that the land-stipulations are to be obeyed and concludes with a repeat of the prophibitions against idolatry (Ex 23:32-33), making idolatry the antithesis to obeying the “voice” of the angel—the point of reference for Mark’s programmatic summary of the Gospel.

    I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you.  I have no one else like him, who takes a genuine interest in your welfare.  For everyone looks out for his own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.  But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.  I hope, therefore, to send him as soon as I see how things go with me.  And I am confident in the Lord that I myself will come soon.

    But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs.  For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill.  Indeed he was ill, and almost died.  But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow.  Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety.  Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him, because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me (Philippians 2:19 30).

Biographies, autobiographies, and the diaries of great Christian men and women fascinate me.  Giants such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, David Brainerd and Jonathan Edwards captivate me.  I am convicted, motivated and humbled by the accounts of those whom God has greatly used to promote His cause and increase His kingdom.  In eternity I am sure we will learn of countless others unmentioned in the history books and unnoticed by the general public.

Jonathan Edwards, born in 1703, enrolled at Yale at age thirteen.  He was a key instrument through whom God brought a great spiritual awakening to colonies that had become careless about the faith of their forefathers.  His influence was felt in much of New England, New York and New Jersey.  Eventually Edwards was asked to become president of Princeton College, a school then devoted to training church leaders.  The life of this incredible man of God ended one month after he arrived at his new post.  Ah, but what a life!

Jonathan Edwards has been the subject of many biographies.  All seek to discover what motivated him, what drove him, what fed his passion.  For answers, we must return to Yale College and note the aspirations of this young student.  Edwards was convinced he must make some resolutions in the presence of his God.  The list numbered seventy items, all of which he committed to memory.

Resolution 6 summarizes the passion of Edwards’ heart: “Resolved to live with all my might while I yet live.”

In pondering that resolution we must keep two things in context.  First, life to young Edwards was a gracious gift from God.  Second, all of his resolves were made in the consciousness that God was looking on.  His first resolution, in fact, was to “do whatsoever I think to be most to the glory of God.” Since God’s honor and glory were at stake in his life, Edwards further resolved “to find out fit objects of liberty and charity.” Further, he would “live so as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.”

---

This is a short excerpt from my book, Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life, a lay commentary on Paul’s letter to the Philippians.  Here’s a sample chapter, “Putting Jesus Back into Our Potential.” Of course you can click through to Amazon to purchase the book, too!