Christian Social Engagement in a Post-Christian America: Maybe We Should Change Our Tune?

I write this with some trepidation, because I am well aware of the all-too-common tendency among us to misread, misinterpret, misunderstand and misapply. So, let me be clear about what I am NOT going to say in this post before I try to make my point.

• I am NOT saying that Christians should retreat from engagement in the social and political arena. I do not believe that the church’s task is political, but spiritual – we are here to introduce sinners to Christ who is their only hope of salvation and to teach the full truth of God’s Word through which the Spirit works to transform us to be like Christ. But American Christians have the right and responsibility, both from the Word and from the Constitution, to be active and vocal in the political arena. I am not advocating that Christians abandon the political arena.
• I am NOT saying that we should compromise our convictions in any way. We must remain faithful to what the Bible says about gender, about sexuality, about the sanctity of life and other issues, regardless of its unpopularity in this culture. We must resist that nauseating habit that the church has had through the years of molding our convictions to the current social climate. What is right is right even if the whole world says it is wrong and what is wrong is wrong even if the entire country says it is right. Truth is not a candidate seeking our support.

If someone accuses me of saying these things, I will close my eyes and think of you while reciting that old Methodist Hymn:

May the bird of paradise fly up your nose. May an elephant caress you with his toes. May your wife be plagued with runners in her hose. May the bird of paradise fly up your nose.

You have been warned!!    Continue at Dave Miller

The Social Gospel, Yesterday and Today - Part 1

It becomes clear from such statements that Lausanne, which represents much of mainstream evangelicalism, is co-mingling a form of the social gospel with the biblical gospel. To be fair, the Lausanne leadership attempts to give evangelism the pre-eminence stating: “Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist.”[24]

This statement goes to the heart of the issue. The question is not if Christians should play a responsible role in society, nor if we should denounce evil and injustice, but whether or not both “evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty,” and if so, to what extent? Later in part two of this study I will try to address this question from Scripture, but for now I would like to document that whatever the intention, the drift of much of the evangelical movement has shifted to social-political involvement at the expense of the Great Commission. As much has happened around the turn of the 20^th Century, we are in danger of losing the baby (the true commission of the church) in the bath water of social activism.

First, we need to document that this concern is widespread and contagious. Some of the most popular Christian leaders and authors stress the social agenda. Francis Chan, in his wildly popular book Crazy Love, wants Christians to live as simply as possible in order to give more toward the alleviation of “suffering in the world and change the reputation of His bride in America.”[25] I think one of the reasons Chan’s book has been received with such enthusiasm is that he is not telling people anything that our culture is not already saying. When Bill Gates and Warren Buffett pledged much of their vast fortunes toward the same agenda, the world applauded, just as it has for Chan. Chan is concerned about the reputation of the church in America, and not without reason. However, the true church doing the true work of God (calling people to Christ) will never win the world’s approval. Our message is offensive (1 Cor 1:18-25) and once the world catches on to that we are far more likely to be vilified and persecuted than we are to be cheered – as Jesus promised (Matt 5:11-12). We should find it a source of concern, not a reason for rejoicing, when the world likes us, as Christianity Today in its lead article in August 2011 affirmed it did.  Read the rest HERE

 The Social Gospel, Yesterday and Today - Part 2

IMAGE

What are we Saying when we Cancel Church Services in Favor of Community Service?

Rick Warren is a masterful communicator. So, what is he endeavoring to communicate with his announcement that they are canceling the services at Saddleback Church this weekend so they can serve their neighbors?

According to The Christian Post:

“Good Neighbor Weekend” has been enthusiastically received by the majority of the 20,000 members at Saddleback Church in Orange County. Many have already signed-up online for acts of kindness, according to church officials.

Volunteer opportunities suggested and organized by church members include visiting severely disabled children in hospitals, serving breakfast to homeless and families living in motels, and helping families having members in the military stationed away from home with house chores.

Additionally, many more churchgoers will be reaching out to their neighbors in ways they’ve conceived themselves.

Did you catch that number? 20,000 people! That’s a lot of people.

Let’s think about this then in terms of pros and cons (concerns).  Keep Reading >>>

The Tragedy of American Compassion

Tragedy and Compassion – two words that we don’t normally associate together. How could compassion be tragic? While we likely have different levels of bad news in mind when think of tragedy, we are all in agreement that tragedy is bad and something ought to be done. Although I think the TV news industry is working hard to widen the definition to include hangnails.

Compassion is a bit more complicated. We tend to think of compassion from the same perspective that we think of love – the unbiblical, Greco-Roman emotional view. Americans view compassion today differently than we did 250 years ago. We want to “relieve suffering” but don’t stop to think about the proper way of doing this, or even if there is such a thing. There are some issues – life threatening, for example – for which rapid elimination of the threat is proper. But there are many life issues that are the accumulation of bad decisions for which there is no proper quick relief. We can look at G.W. Bush’s policy in the Middle East, thinking the solution there was to quickly implant democratic governments. People will not value the liberty a representative government of laws brings until they realize their need of it. Small children will not realize the value of math if mom tells them the answers rather than teaches and asks diagnostic questions.  Keep Reading >>>

The Mission of the Church in Living Color

Greg and I have been trying to engage some of the conversation about our book. Believe it or not, we also do many other things besides blog and read blogs. So unfortunately we will not be able to respond to everything everyone wants us to respond to. I don’t have any missions-related posts planned after this one.

 But perhaps it would be helpful to think practically about how these things play out on the ground level. I’ll start by giving some examples from my church. At the end I also want to raise some questions for those who want a more expansive definition of the church’s mission.

What We Do

First off, I should be clear that the things we write about in the book are live discussions at URC too. I don’t claim that everyone in my congregation agrees with everything I’ve written in the book. Most haven’t even read the book yet (though I’ve preached on some of these themes).

Having said that, here are some (only some) of things we do and how I think through them.

One woman in our church heads up a crisis pregnancy center. Another woman has developed an inner-city arts ministry. Both ministries are on our church budget. I am thankful for both organizations. People from our church volunteer and help out at both places. At the same time, these ministries are not under the authority of our elders. They have separate boards. They get funding from many sources. Christians and non-Christians can be thankful for what they do. Their work is not first of all to win converts or make disciples. They try to help save babies and teach art to kids. That’s great. They do good in the community. Our folks who serve try to build relationships and talk about Jesus.  Keep Reading >>>

The Next Big Thing

The debate over the book on The Mission of the Church by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert [here and here] over at the Gospel Coalition and beyond is fascinating, both for its content and because it is likely a premonition of battles to come.  I have not yet read the book but the debate has pushed it to the top of my reading list and the reviews - negative and positive - lead me to believe that as of this moment I am very much with the authors not their critics on the matter of the church.

The debate reflects a number of tensions within the broader "gospel centered" scene, not least that between pastor-exegetes and leader-sociologists.   Part of the problem is that the current revival in reformed theology is not actually a revival in Reformed theology. Adherence to five or, more frequently, four points of Calvinism is that which qualifies one as reformed these days and thus as part of the movement.  Yet such adherence leaves massive and important areas of theology and church life undecided. A movement built on such minimal agreement is a movement whose strength and unity depends to a large degree on sleight of hand or at least on pretending that much else can be filed under `Agree to differ.'

The Gospel Coalition represents this in a number of ways. Its constituency enjoys consensus on a few important areas but much else is left open: some high-profile adherents regard multi-site as the wave of the future, others regard it as of the Devil; some regard T D Jakes as a Christian brother and a leader, others are horrified by him and his theology.  I suspect there is also disagreement over the issue of cultural transformation.   Keep Reading >>>

Examples of Mercy Ministry

In light of this series (where I argue that the church is not called to the task of social ministry to non-believers), I thought it would be helpful to describe what kind of mercy ministries am I involved in, and how I justify these ministries biblically. So below is a brief list of ministries that I regularly participate with, and a short explanation of why I see them as having a biblical foundation.

Despite the reputation those previous posts may have gotten me, I love mercy ministry. I love being able to express love and kindness toward others with the express purpose of introducing them to the Messiah. I do reject the concept that the church has as its goal the lowering of the poverty rate, correcting social ills or eradicating homelessness. The poor we will always have with us, Jesus said. But I embrace the mandate that the church has to take the gospel to the world, and in various circumstances it can be wise to use material means to gain a hearing for the gospel. There is a very real danger that food or assistance becomes associated with attending a Bible study or sermon. So for all of these ministries, there is a massive responsibility on the church elders to make sure that the method of bringing the gospel to others is not creating a culture of dependence. We love others, so we want to challenge them to change—not to maintain their situation. And we all know that there is hope for real change only in the gospel, and the radical repentance that comes with it.

As a side note, Grace Church also oversees dozens of evangelistic outreaches and ministries. Perhaps I will describe some of those in a future post. But here is a brief list of ministries that I personally work with on behalf of Grace Church.   Keep Reading...

Discontinuity: the Poor, Israel, and the Church

Much of the push for the church to engage in social transformation and indiscriminate care for the poor of the world comes from a wrong understanding of the relationship between the church and Israel. There is no doubt that Israel was called to care for the poor in their land—regardless of their creed. The alien, foreigner, slave, and sojourning widow were all protected by the Law, and if Israel would have kept the law, there would have been no poor in the land.

The question is this: does the church have a similar task? Is the church charged to care for the poor of the world, in the same way Israel was? I have argued elsewhere that the answer is “no,” but here I want to explain why the difference is important and helpful in understanding God’s mission to the world.

First, it has to be noted that Israel’s call to care for the poor was constrained in a very significant way. While it was not limited by creed, it was bound by geography. Israel was not called to care for the poor in Egypt. When a drought hit a neighboring country, the Israelites would have been more likely to celebrate than send a food pack. Contrast that with the church; we are quick to send aide around the world, but are rightly cautious to aide the non-believing poor in our own community. Why is that?     Keep Reading...

Only God is good, and that includes Samaritans

The most misinterpreted and wrongly applied of Jesus’ parables is certainly the story of the good Samaritan. The prevailing contemporary understanding of this passage sees the story through the lens of Christian ethics, as if the Samaritan was invented by Jesus as a means of demonstrating to Christians how they should express God’s love to the world. This interpretation—common as it may be—is the polar opposite of what Jesus meant by the parable. Jesus did not tell this parable to illustrate how we are supposed to live, but rather to refute the idea that being a good neighbor can earn you salvation. The Samaritan is not in Scripture to serve as an example of Christian ethics, and to conscript him for that cause largely misses Jesus’ point.

As a side note, the concept of working one’s way to heaven through doing good deeds and being a good neighbor is not limited to Ancient Near East priestly societies. In fact, it is as common today in the United States as it was in second temple Judaism. How often have you witnessed to someone who says they are going to heaven because they are “a good person”? When you follow up by asking them to describe what it means to be a good person, the response is generally along the lines of “I help people, and do what is right in my own eyes.” The story of the good Samaritan was told to crush exactly that concept of good.  Keep Reading...

Humanitarian Jesus

There are few issues of theology that confuse me more than issues related to social justice. Those who advocate Christian humanitarianism, those who tell Christians that they are responsible before God to fight injustice, to feed the hungry, to free the oppressed, are able to provide a compelling case and they are able to tap into a deep vein of guilt. It is difficult to hear of poor and hungry children and not feel that the primary mission of Christians must be to feed such people. And yet when we look around we see that ministries or organizations that make such a task their primary calling so quickly fade into theological obscurity. The social gospel so often trumps the gospel of Jesus Christ. Read the rest HERE

Disaster Relief and the Social Gospel

A Return to the Tower of Babel?

An Open Letter to Pastor Rick Warren