Showing posts with label The Gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Gospel. Show all posts
Monday, March 23, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Proclamational Social Gospel - Part 4
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3,
Rick Warren is quoted as saying “My goal is the second Reformation of the church. Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses to the door. The first Reformation was about creeds. This one is about deeds. This reformation needs to be about behavior, about what we should do. It's about the church's mission. I intend to give my life to this.” Pastors.com
Warren also stated that “In every village, in every home, in every business, in every government there is a man of peace, or a woman of peace. Somebody who’s willing to work. By the way they don’t necessarily have to be Christian, either.” [emphasis mine throughout]
I’ve had this “Social Gospel” theme floating around in my head now for a couple of months. Sometimes, the more you study a topic, from different perspectives, the more confused you become. In the last couple of weeks I have come across a couple of articles that have given me a clearer understanding.
That said, I will make a few comments about Rick Warren. I know that Rick Warren has also said that he believes in creeds and deeds and that they must both be present in order to fulfill the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). My question to Rick would be this: “How will you incorporate the Creed portion of this proper balance of proclamation when you say that ‘they don’t necessarily have to be Christian’?” The Great Commission is an “exclusive” commission – IN Jesus Christ alone – Acts 4:12.
Tim Keller, in the Summary portion of an article entitled “The Gospel and the Poor” makes the following observations:
Jesus calls Christians to be "witnesses," to evangelize others, but also to be deeply concerned for the poor. He calls his disciples both to "gospel-messaging" (urging everyone to believe the gospel) and to "gospel-neighboring" (sacrificially meeting the needs of those around them whether they believe or not! The two absolutely go together.
1. They go together theologically. The resurrection shows us that God not only created both body and spirit but will also redeem both body and spirit. The salvation Jesus will eventually bring in its fullness will include liberation from all the effects of sin—not only spiritual but physical and material as well. Jesus came both preaching the Word and healing and feeding.
2. They go together practically. We must be ever wary of collapsing evangelism into deed ministry as the social gospel did, but loving deeds are an irreplaceable witness to the power and nature of God's grace, an irreplaceable testimony to the truth of the gospel.
Greg Gilbert, in an article entitled “Some Unfinished Thoughts on the Cultural Mandate” says the following: The push for evangelical cultural engagement is very strong right now, and honestly, I find much in that line of thinking very compelling. But I still have some significant theological and textual hang-ups with the transformationalist approach. Here are some thoughts about why that is, from my email conversation. These are unfinished thoughts, but thoughts nonetheless:
1) I think the biblical text is pretty clear that the cultural mandate does not carry on in exactly its original shape and character after the Fall.
2) I think the telos, the end, of human culture changes after the Fall. Before the Fall, human culture was intended to grow and expand until it resulted in a worldwide city perfectly under the perfect rule of God. No longer. Now, it seems to me that the Bible's picture is of human culture being pretty consistently on a judgment-ward trajectory. From Cain (or his son) building the first city, to Lamech, to Babel, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to the whore of Babylon, human culture considered in toto seems to be consigned to judgment, not progress in godliness. That point is only underlined, as I mentioned, by the Bible's attribution of all the first great cultural accomplishments to the line of the serpent.
3) Because of #1, I don't think I would say that the cultural mandate (even as it exists now) is the mandate of the church.
4) Because of #2, I think language to the effect that we are "joining God in his work of renewing the world" or "redeeming the culture" is probably not the best language. I believe that the best reading of Scripture is that at the end of the age, God will transform and glorify---not destroy and remake---this world. So I believe there is continuity between those two worlds. But I also think Scripture's general picture is of even more discontinuity when it comes to human culture.
5) I also think the language of "transformationalism" may be too optimistic, given all this. Of course it's true that Christians can do much good in society. But the good that's been done: Is it really fair to call that "transformation?" That's entirely subjective, I know. And maybe it would be appropriate to call some things in history (the work of Wilberforce comes to mind) "transformative." But I think the story of the church's engagement with culture on the whole has been and is going to be less transformational than a fighting of what Tolkien called the Long Defeat. Human culture has always on the whole progressed in sinfulness, filled up its iniquity, and wound up being judged. That's what happened in the Flood, it's what happened at Babel, it’s what happened in Canaan, and it's what happens on a large scale to the whore on the dragon.
6) Despite all this, I think Christians should engage their culture. But I think the motivation is not so much the hope of transformation or the working toward renewal as a few other things:
a) compassion for people;
b) fulfillment of the cultural mandate as it still stands for all human beings;
c) as a witness of the goodness and character of God;
d) as a sign of the coming perfect Kingdom;
e) others....
In a response to the above article, Thabiti Anyabwile, in an article entitled “Cultural Mandate?” says the following: How would you respond to what I think I see as two motions in Scripture?
1. The Scripture pushes the church and Christians away from adopting human culture and tradition.
I think I very much share with you the Bible's pessimism and steady decline where human culture is concerned. In addition to the passages you mentioned, it seems to me inside the church a cultural skepticism is evident in Col. 2:16-17, 20-23 and Gal.4:8-11 (where Paul even classes the Law as "weak and miserable principles" of the old life). In Col. 2 he instructs the church to leave the elementary or basic principles of this world and seems to class both Jewish and pagan religio-cultic ritual together as undesirable. Earlier in Col. 2:8 he waxes poetic against philosophy that depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world. As far as high culture (philosophy) and religious culture, the Scripture pushes us away from those things to something different.
2. The Scripture "backgrounds" human culture inside the church in favor of greater unity in Christ.
We can see that in a number of places, perhaps most clearly in Romans 14:1-15:13. Jew and Gentile differ in their cultural preferences in disputable matters like preference for meat/vegetables (14:2-3) and sacred/regular days (14:5-6). All these are lifted as examples and pushed to the background in favor of unity in Christ and an end to judging one another in such matters. It seems that the passages consistently contrast all that we think of as human culture (by which I mean the patterns of thought, belief, and behavior, not primarily the implements of culture--instruments, etc.) with Christ himself and what it means to be in Christ.
Where am I going with all this? It is not my intention to be “original” in what I’m posting here, but I desire to be true to the Scriptures. From my study thus far, I have concluded that Tim Keller’s thesis is the best description I have found regarding the Church’s mandate in God’s Universe. Although his article speaks to the issues pertaining to the poor, the principles can be applied in other areas as well.
In closing, one more quote from Keller’s article: “The original question I was asked to address was "How does our commitment to the primacy of the gospel tie into our obligation to do good to all, especially those of the household of faith, to serve as salt and light in the world, to do good to the city?" I will divide this question into two parts: (1) If we are committed to the primacy of the gospel, does the gospel itself serve as the basis and motivation for ministry to the poor? (2) If so, how then does that ministry relate to the proclamation of the gospel?”
The Gospel of Repentance, as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle Paul; and all the great Reformers of the past and present, is Primary. Secondarily, ALL individual Christians should be involved in Mercy ministries as the Lord provides opportunities for them to first love God, and their neighbors as themselves.
For further reading:
The Centrality Of The Gospel
As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
Why Africa Needs Missionaries
Africa Needs God
Rick Warren is quoted as saying “My goal is the second Reformation of the church. Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses to the door. The first Reformation was about creeds. This one is about deeds. This reformation needs to be about behavior, about what we should do. It's about the church's mission. I intend to give my life to this.” Pastors.com
Warren also stated that “In every village, in every home, in every business, in every government there is a man of peace, or a woman of peace. Somebody who’s willing to work. By the way they don’t necessarily have to be Christian, either.” [emphasis mine throughout]
I’ve had this “Social Gospel” theme floating around in my head now for a couple of months. Sometimes, the more you study a topic, from different perspectives, the more confused you become. In the last couple of weeks I have come across a couple of articles that have given me a clearer understanding.
That said, I will make a few comments about Rick Warren. I know that Rick Warren has also said that he believes in creeds and deeds and that they must both be present in order to fulfill the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). My question to Rick would be this: “How will you incorporate the Creed portion of this proper balance of proclamation when you say that ‘they don’t necessarily have to be Christian’?” The Great Commission is an “exclusive” commission – IN Jesus Christ alone – Acts 4:12.
Tim Keller, in the Summary portion of an article entitled “The Gospel and the Poor” makes the following observations:
Jesus calls Christians to be "witnesses," to evangelize others, but also to be deeply concerned for the poor. He calls his disciples both to "gospel-messaging" (urging everyone to believe the gospel) and to "gospel-neighboring" (sacrificially meeting the needs of those around them whether they believe or not! The two absolutely go together.
1. They go together theologically. The resurrection shows us that God not only created both body and spirit but will also redeem both body and spirit. The salvation Jesus will eventually bring in its fullness will include liberation from all the effects of sin—not only spiritual but physical and material as well. Jesus came both preaching the Word and healing and feeding.
2. They go together practically. We must be ever wary of collapsing evangelism into deed ministry as the social gospel did, but loving deeds are an irreplaceable witness to the power and nature of God's grace, an irreplaceable testimony to the truth of the gospel.
Greg Gilbert, in an article entitled “Some Unfinished Thoughts on the Cultural Mandate” says the following: The push for evangelical cultural engagement is very strong right now, and honestly, I find much in that line of thinking very compelling. But I still have some significant theological and textual hang-ups with the transformationalist approach. Here are some thoughts about why that is, from my email conversation. These are unfinished thoughts, but thoughts nonetheless:
1) I think the biblical text is pretty clear that the cultural mandate does not carry on in exactly its original shape and character after the Fall.
2) I think the telos, the end, of human culture changes after the Fall. Before the Fall, human culture was intended to grow and expand until it resulted in a worldwide city perfectly under the perfect rule of God. No longer. Now, it seems to me that the Bible's picture is of human culture being pretty consistently on a judgment-ward trajectory. From Cain (or his son) building the first city, to Lamech, to Babel, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to the whore of Babylon, human culture considered in toto seems to be consigned to judgment, not progress in godliness. That point is only underlined, as I mentioned, by the Bible's attribution of all the first great cultural accomplishments to the line of the serpent.
3) Because of #1, I don't think I would say that the cultural mandate (even as it exists now) is the mandate of the church.
4) Because of #2, I think language to the effect that we are "joining God in his work of renewing the world" or "redeeming the culture" is probably not the best language. I believe that the best reading of Scripture is that at the end of the age, God will transform and glorify---not destroy and remake---this world. So I believe there is continuity between those two worlds. But I also think Scripture's general picture is of even more discontinuity when it comes to human culture.
5) I also think the language of "transformationalism" may be too optimistic, given all this. Of course it's true that Christians can do much good in society. But the good that's been done: Is it really fair to call that "transformation?" That's entirely subjective, I know. And maybe it would be appropriate to call some things in history (the work of Wilberforce comes to mind) "transformative." But I think the story of the church's engagement with culture on the whole has been and is going to be less transformational than a fighting of what Tolkien called the Long Defeat. Human culture has always on the whole progressed in sinfulness, filled up its iniquity, and wound up being judged. That's what happened in the Flood, it's what happened at Babel, it’s what happened in Canaan, and it's what happens on a large scale to the whore on the dragon.
6) Despite all this, I think Christians should engage their culture. But I think the motivation is not so much the hope of transformation or the working toward renewal as a few other things:
a) compassion for people;
b) fulfillment of the cultural mandate as it still stands for all human beings;
c) as a witness of the goodness and character of God;
d) as a sign of the coming perfect Kingdom;
e) others....
In a response to the above article, Thabiti Anyabwile, in an article entitled “Cultural Mandate?” says the following: How would you respond to what I think I see as two motions in Scripture?
1. The Scripture pushes the church and Christians away from adopting human culture and tradition.
I think I very much share with you the Bible's pessimism and steady decline where human culture is concerned. In addition to the passages you mentioned, it seems to me inside the church a cultural skepticism is evident in Col. 2:16-17, 20-23 and Gal.4:8-11 (where Paul even classes the Law as "weak and miserable principles" of the old life). In Col. 2 he instructs the church to leave the elementary or basic principles of this world and seems to class both Jewish and pagan religio-cultic ritual together as undesirable. Earlier in Col. 2:8 he waxes poetic against philosophy that depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world. As far as high culture (philosophy) and religious culture, the Scripture pushes us away from those things to something different.
2. The Scripture "backgrounds" human culture inside the church in favor of greater unity in Christ.
We can see that in a number of places, perhaps most clearly in Romans 14:1-15:13. Jew and Gentile differ in their cultural preferences in disputable matters like preference for meat/vegetables (14:2-3) and sacred/regular days (14:5-6). All these are lifted as examples and pushed to the background in favor of unity in Christ and an end to judging one another in such matters. It seems that the passages consistently contrast all that we think of as human culture (by which I mean the patterns of thought, belief, and behavior, not primarily the implements of culture--instruments, etc.) with Christ himself and what it means to be in Christ.
Where am I going with all this? It is not my intention to be “original” in what I’m posting here, but I desire to be true to the Scriptures. From my study thus far, I have concluded that Tim Keller’s thesis is the best description I have found regarding the Church’s mandate in God’s Universe. Although his article speaks to the issues pertaining to the poor, the principles can be applied in other areas as well.
In closing, one more quote from Keller’s article: “The original question I was asked to address was "How does our commitment to the primacy of the gospel tie into our obligation to do good to all, especially those of the household of faith, to serve as salt and light in the world, to do good to the city?" I will divide this question into two parts: (1) If we are committed to the primacy of the gospel, does the gospel itself serve as the basis and motivation for ministry to the poor? (2) If so, how then does that ministry relate to the proclamation of the gospel?”
The Gospel of Repentance, as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle Paul; and all the great Reformers of the past and present, is Primary. Secondarily, ALL individual Christians should be involved in Mercy ministries as the Lord provides opportunities for them to first love God, and their neighbors as themselves.
For further reading:
The Centrality Of The Gospel
As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
Why Africa Needs Missionaries
Africa Needs God
Monday, December 29, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Many Paths to Heaven?
Christian believers who named at least one non-Christian faith that could lead to salvation included 34% of white evangelicals, even though evangelical doctrine stresses that salvation is possible only through Jesus.
Higher levels of church attendance made some difference, particularly among white evangelical protestants. But an overall majority (54%) of people who identified with a religion and who said they attend church weekly also said many religions can lead to eternal life. This majority included 37% of white evangelicals, 75% of mainline Protestants and 85% of non-Hispanic white Catholics. (USA Today)
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Offense of the Gospel
"...I have a sneaking suspicion and an increasingly deep-seated concern that there is here in North America a growing loss of confidence in the Bible itself as the unerring word of God and an increasing willingness to play fast and loose with the uniqueness of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, and to the extent that that is true, the cutting edge of world evangelization is radically affected."
-Alistair Begg
Friday, December 12, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Proclamational Social Gospel - Part 3
Part 1, Part 2
This is now Part 3 in the series on “The Proclamational Social Gospel.” In this post I would like to examine, briefly, present day church growth strategies, and in Part 4 and 5 what the Church’s Primary and Secondary mandates are, according to the Word of God.
I. Present Day Church Growth Strategies
Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 “I will build My church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it…”
Francis Schaeffer once said “Tell me what the world is saying today and I’ll tell you what the church will be saying in seven years.” Schaeffer knew the danger of what happens when you deny the authority of Scripture only to redefine Christian faith in light of “the vain philosophies and traditions of men.”
David Wells has said that “The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, his grace too ordinary, his judgment too benign, his gospel too easy, and his Christ too common.”
There is a trend taking place today that is taking Evangelicalism by storm. It is known by a popular term called “the church growth movement”.
It could be purpose driven, or seeker sensitive, or mission or missional-driven, or disciple-making churches, or cell groups, or a “new way of doing church”, or the 21st Century church, or Evangelism driven etc....
But what exactly is this “New way of doing Church?”
This movement can be defined as: The use of modern marketing techniques by the church, in order to draw large numbers of people by meeting their "felt needs".
The church then “converts” them, and “disciples" them through the use of modern organizational management techniques, so that they can effect "change" in the community, and the world.
The church members then become agents of social change, or “change agents”. These types of churches are “planted” after a survey has been taken of the surrounding community.
The “felt needs" of the community are then compiled, and the church is customized, so to speak, around meeting those needs.
Some questions that I have are: Is it ever acceptable to pattern a church after the felt needs of unbelievers, when the Apostle Paul stated very clearly that the task of the church is to perfect and to edify the saints? (Ephesians 4:11–12)
Just a thought here: would unbelievers be so anxious to join a church where sinning was punishable by physical death? (Acts 5:1-11)
Furthermore, are we to use worldly surveys and techniques to become more attractive to the people around us? (1 Corinthians 1:20, and Romans 12:2)
These churches often do not have any religious symbols, such as crosses, stained glass windows, and pews, so as to make the unbelievers more comfortable, and the surroundings “less intimidating.”
Remember: the cross is an offense (Galatians 5:11), and the preaching of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18).
The environment is visually stimulating, often with multiple video screens, drama, dance, and skits to portray “Biblical concepts”.
The pastors “dress down” in order to set the audience at ease, they pace back and forth as they speak, wearing mobile microphones.
The pastors often give handouts with fill-in-the-blanks to be used during the message – this results in people rarely bringing Bibles to church.
We went to a Seeker Sensitive service earlier this year. We’re sitting in the parking lot watching everybody stream into the building. We began to notice something very strange. NO one was carrying a BIBLE!
The only person carrying a Bible was our son!
Multiple Bible versions are used, in order to put the right “spin” on the message, and the King James Version is usually avoided due to the “difficulty in newcomers understanding it”.
And what about the content of the Sunday morning message? The messages speak of Jesus’ love and grace, often His deity is minimized, and the fact that He is a righteous judge is usually avoided. Sin is often characterized as “wrongdoing”, “wrong choices”, and “mistakes.”
The true pastor is to act as a messenger from God, bringing God’s truth and message to the people, regardless of whether it is what they want to hear. (II Timothy 4:1-4) No Other Gospel
The end result is a watered-down message, with “feel good” half-truths, and no condemnation or conviction of sin is preached to the listeners. Those who “accept Christ” are not accepting the Christ revealed in the Word of God, but rather a false Christ, a Christ of grace and love, and not of judgment, who exists to meet their needs and heal their hurts. Jesus becomes a servant of theirs, rather than them becoming servants of Him. (see Crossroad Article)
It is reported that Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was read in a quiet, calm voice. God is Sovereign in Creation, Providence and Salvation - He does not NEED us; He uses us in spite of who we are.
For further reading, click here, and here
This is now Part 3 in the series on “The Proclamational Social Gospel.” In this post I would like to examine, briefly, present day church growth strategies, and in Part 4 and 5 what the Church’s Primary and Secondary mandates are, according to the Word of God.
I. Present Day Church Growth Strategies
Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 “I will build My church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it…”
Francis Schaeffer once said “Tell me what the world is saying today and I’ll tell you what the church will be saying in seven years.” Schaeffer knew the danger of what happens when you deny the authority of Scripture only to redefine Christian faith in light of “the vain philosophies and traditions of men.”
David Wells has said that “The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, his grace too ordinary, his judgment too benign, his gospel too easy, and his Christ too common.”
There is a trend taking place today that is taking Evangelicalism by storm. It is known by a popular term called “the church growth movement”.
It could be purpose driven, or seeker sensitive, or mission or missional-driven, or disciple-making churches, or cell groups, or a “new way of doing church”, or the 21st Century church, or Evangelism driven etc....
But what exactly is this “New way of doing Church?”
This movement can be defined as: The use of modern marketing techniques by the church, in order to draw large numbers of people by meeting their "felt needs".
The church then “converts” them, and “disciples" them through the use of modern organizational management techniques, so that they can effect "change" in the community, and the world.
The church members then become agents of social change, or “change agents”. These types of churches are “planted” after a survey has been taken of the surrounding community.
The “felt needs" of the community are then compiled, and the church is customized, so to speak, around meeting those needs.
Some questions that I have are: Is it ever acceptable to pattern a church after the felt needs of unbelievers, when the Apostle Paul stated very clearly that the task of the church is to perfect and to edify the saints? (Ephesians 4:11–12)
Just a thought here: would unbelievers be so anxious to join a church where sinning was punishable by physical death? (Acts 5:1-11)
Furthermore, are we to use worldly surveys and techniques to become more attractive to the people around us? (1 Corinthians 1:20, and Romans 12:2)
These churches often do not have any religious symbols, such as crosses, stained glass windows, and pews, so as to make the unbelievers more comfortable, and the surroundings “less intimidating.”
Remember: the cross is an offense (Galatians 5:11), and the preaching of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18).
The environment is visually stimulating, often with multiple video screens, drama, dance, and skits to portray “Biblical concepts”.
The pastors “dress down” in order to set the audience at ease, they pace back and forth as they speak, wearing mobile microphones.
The pastors often give handouts with fill-in-the-blanks to be used during the message – this results in people rarely bringing Bibles to church.
We went to a Seeker Sensitive service earlier this year. We’re sitting in the parking lot watching everybody stream into the building. We began to notice something very strange. NO one was carrying a BIBLE!
The only person carrying a Bible was our son!
Multiple Bible versions are used, in order to put the right “spin” on the message, and the King James Version is usually avoided due to the “difficulty in newcomers understanding it”.
And what about the content of the Sunday morning message? The messages speak of Jesus’ love and grace, often His deity is minimized, and the fact that He is a righteous judge is usually avoided. Sin is often characterized as “wrongdoing”, “wrong choices”, and “mistakes.”
The true pastor is to act as a messenger from God, bringing God’s truth and message to the people, regardless of whether it is what they want to hear. (II Timothy 4:1-4) No Other Gospel
The end result is a watered-down message, with “feel good” half-truths, and no condemnation or conviction of sin is preached to the listeners. Those who “accept Christ” are not accepting the Christ revealed in the Word of God, but rather a false Christ, a Christ of grace and love, and not of judgment, who exists to meet their needs and heal their hurts. Jesus becomes a servant of theirs, rather than them becoming servants of Him. (see Crossroad Article)
It is reported that Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was read in a quiet, calm voice. God is Sovereign in Creation, Providence and Salvation - He does not NEED us; He uses us in spite of who we are.
For further reading, click here, and here
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Proclamational Social Gospel - Part 2
It's been a while since I did Part 1 in the Proclamational Social Gospel series. I've listened to many sermons about this topic since then and I have read many articles, and I will briefly report what some of these preachers had to say about the so called "Social Gospel".
I think the danger we all face is that we have a tendency to go from one extreme to another. Some will tell you that there is NO Social Gospel, and some say that proclaiming the Gospel is not necessary at all, you just need to get involved in doing good deeds. I would have to say that I'm somewhere between these two extremes.
I must say that if those of us who profess to have been regenerated and born again by the Spirit of the living God feed the hungry, clothe the naked and provide for a place to live for the homeless, BUT we do not offer them the Bread of Life (John 6:35), and the Water of Life (John 4:10), they will have their best life now but will suffer for all eternity because the wrath of God abides on them!
It is by the preaching of the Word of God (foolishness of the Cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-31) that men and women hear the Gospel and believe.
What will it profit a man if he gain the whole world but loses his own soul(Mark 8:36)?
The unbeliever is blind, dead, desperately wicked, hates God, is self-righteous, is a self-worshiping creature, mocks Christians, thinks he's good enough to go to Heaven just as he is because he's never committed BIG sins!
The apostle Paul tells us that "if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).
Let me show you what some of the preachers I listened to had to say:
Rolland McCune
1. No Social Program given to the Church.
2. The Church has a responsibility to it's own (Acts 4:39; Acts 6; Acts 19; Romans 12; 15:25ff; I Timothy 5; James 2; I John 3:17).
3. The Old Testament economy was not the same as that of the New Testament. The OT economy was one of Covenant Community; the NT economy is that of separation of Church and State.
4. OT Prophet and NT Priest not on the same level.
His point is that the felt needs and the social problems of the world are endless.
Gregory N. Barkman
1. Our first responsibility is to our extended family.
2. Our second responsibility is to provide emergency aid - e.g Good Samaritan.
3. Our third responsibility is to Community Programs - regulated programs.
He says the closer the donor is to the people being helped, the less chance there is for abuse. He says further that Churches need to set up mentoring programs in needy areas of our cities or towns. And, LINK the recipient to a Gospel witness.
Rutledge Ethridge
This preacher used Exodus 22:18ff; and Malachi 2:17ff as his starting point for social transformation.
He had four points:
1. Seriousness of Social Neglect
2. Victims of Social Neglect
3. Consequences of Social Neglect
4. Ultimate Consequences of Social Neglect
One comment that one of the speakers made struck me with a profound sense of guilt. It was said that if the true Church will not be about the business of impacting culture, the apostate church will - and ARE doing deeds of mercy.
If the True Church only condemns others and does nothing else, why would the unbelieving world want to keep us around? We do have an obligation to our neighbors and we need to find ways to impact them with the Gospel AND helping those in desperate (legitimate) need.
The following men and their comments I found at 9Marks.org.
Thabiti Anyabwile
Okay, first the easy response. What is primary in the church is preaching, applying, and living the gospel. The church is to make disciples and teach those disciples to observe all the Lord commands. The gospel is central and without the gospel a "church" ceases to be a church. So nothing that comes under the banner of "cultural transformation" is to displace that most central of concerns.
Having said that, does not Christ command his people to do some things that touch upon cultural transformation or social issues? And insofar as the church is to teach disciples to obey all those commands, then I think on some level we’re in the business of "cultural transformation" (though that’s a hideous and misleading label).
I really dislike this question. It’s problematic in two ways. First, the question forces us to make a decision that’s too blunt or sweeping. It’s "all or nothing." And, I think it may suggest that there is a "letter" to be obeyed without necessarily attending to a corresponding "spirit." For example, I can’t think of chapter and verse (which the question seems to call for) that assigns the role of "cultural transformation" to the church qua church. And yet, I can’t reason that there is no role for the church when there are plenty of places where Christians universally are called to do justice in their cultural setting. What does it mean for there to be such a universal call to Christians and there to be no role for the church qua church (a gathering of said Christians in a particular locale preaching, administering the ordinances, and living out the faith)? The distinction the question imposes between the church and individual Christians breaks down, I think, when you’re talking about obligations Christians are universally to observe.
A second way in which the question is problematic: it seems to (a) assume a political and social context where government and perhaps a non-profit sector are intact and responsible for such things as education, and (b) overlook extraordinary social problems. So what is the church’s responsibility regarding cultural transformation in a developing nation (which is most of the world) where there are no basic governmental structures and no non-profit sector as in the United States? And can we comfortably conclude the church has no role to oppose things like the slave trade, sex trafficking, abortion, or provide disaster relief in famine or hurricanes?
We could rule some of these things in by exception. That is, we could say, "of course the church has a role in those limited extraordinary cases." But if it has a role in such cases, why does it not have a role in the more mundane, ordinary, or chronic situations? Are we to organize mercy when the problem is glaring, but remain disorganized and disinterested when they are "every day"? I can’t see that.
So, right now, I’m left to conclude that there is Christian liberty in deciding whether a local church will involve itself in this or that social issue. A great deal of discernment is required, for obviously not every social issue is "close" to the church’s core mission, and there is a long history of social causes displacing gospel order. In my experience, Christians are generally nervous about exercising the liberties that Christ provides. Perhaps this is a corporate exercise in that nervousness.
Thabiti Anyabwile is the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman and the author, most recently, of The Decline of African American Theology (IVP, 2007).
John M. Frame
The task of the church is the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20)—to make disciples, teaching them "to observe all that I have commanded you." By God’s grace, we train believers in obedience. That obedience inevitably transforms culture, as it has done now for nearly 2000 years. Christians have made huge contributions to learning, the arts and literature, the treatment of women, the abolition of anti-biblical slavery, the care of the poor, the sick, the widows, and orphans. Sin, of course, has impeded our mission; but the grace of God working through his people has accomplished amazing things.
Now some have argued that cultural transformation is the work of Christian individuals, but not of the local church. They argue that the latter should be limited to the area of the "spiritual," the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. But the spiritual/secular distinction is not biblical. The gospel as proclaimed by John (Matt. 3:2), Jesus (Matt. 4:17), Philip (Acts 8:12), and Paul (Acts 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31) announces the coming of the kingdom of God, a new order of righteousness, peace, and joy (Rom. 14:17). In the kingdom, we do all things (not just "spiritual") to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), all things in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17). It is plain that care for the poor, orphans, and widows is part of that.
Is a failing school system, then, for example, the responsibility of the local church? Education is part of our kingdom responsibility (Deut. 6:6-9, Tit. 2:12), part of the gospel of the kingdom. This may mean encouraging believers to educate their children at home, or in Christian schools. It may mean advocating a new commitment to excellence in the public schools. It is better that schools not be administered directly by the church: that is not necessary and it can be a distraction. But where there is no alternative, yes, the church may start a school, bringing to its children (and even to children of non-Christian parents) the riches of human knowledge within a kingdom-centered worldview. There are legitimate questions as to how best to handle such matters in different localities. But the question is not, whether the church has a responsibility, but how should it undertake that responsibility. The gospel of the kingdom is comprehensive—good news for every aspect of human life.
John Frame is a professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and is the author, most recently, of Salvation Belongs to the Lord (P&R, 2006).
Michael Horton
This question is carefully framed. It may be assumed that to say "no, the church isn’t called to cultural transformation" means that one doesn’t think that Christians should try to improve their surroundings during the time that God has given them. Yet the reality is more complicated than that.
In my understanding, the local church is not free to do anything in Christ’s name that Christ himself—the King of the church—has not commissioned it to do. Preaching the Word, administering Baptism and the Supper, teaching, and providing spiritual fellowship and discipline receive clear mandates in Scripture, with instructions for offices and procedures for carrying out this sacred embassy.
Now, as citizens of temporal kingdoms as well as the kingdom of Christ, believers are called to be husbands, wives, children, parents, employers, employees, voters, and neighbors in a variety of daily callings. In these vocations, they love and serve their neighbor. With no expectation that they are transforming the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of Christ, they nevertheless "aspire to live quietly, and to mind [their] own business, and to work with [their] hands, so that [they] may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one" (1 Thes 4:11-12). Besides the imperatives given for proper conduct in the household of faith, there are commands to live with integrity in the world, to submit to those in authority, to pray for rulers, and so forth. So there is indeed much for us to do in this matter of fulfilling our vocations, loving, and serving our neighbors.
There is no call to cultural transformation in the New Testament. Yet if Christian churches are fulfilling their specific mandate and believers are being built up in the faith and practice through the Word, we can expect to see distinctive effects in the culture.
The kingdom of Christ itself is something that we are receiving (Heb 12:28), not something that we are building. In this present age, Christ is reigning in his church, as his unique and exclusive office of Prophet, Priest, and King is realized through the ministry of pastors, deacons, and elders. It is this ministry that creates a "new society" within the structures of this fading evil age.
Michael Horton is a professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, editor of Modern Reformation magazine, and the author, most recently of Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ (WJK, 2007).
David Jackman
The corporate social role of believers, expressed at its most basic level in the local congregation, is to act as "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matt 5:13-14). Jesus tells us that our light shines before men in our ‘good deeds’ (v. 16). Similarly, Peter exhorts the scattered house churches to which his first letter is addressed to "live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God" (1 Peter 2:12).
This will happen in the lives of individual Christians, of course, but the original setting seems to be corporate and congregational, which means that the local church is being encouraged to be involved and play a strong role for good in the culture. The implication is that this will open the door for the gospel to be listened to, in that this quality of selfless Christian living will be a stimulus for enquiry to the unbelievers (1 Pet 3:15-16). "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Gal 6:10). The church fellowship is a model.
All this is part of our corporate expression of loving our neighbour as ourselves. We
do this firstly by holding out the gospel and seeking to bring its good news to as many as possible in our community and we must never dilute this priority perspective, because it is eternal. But if we have no interest in the everyday needs of our community, where for many people their greatest needs and struggles are experienced, our expression of gospel love can sound pretty hollow. Only the gospel can transform human lives and culture, but compassionate Christian service, in love for our neighbour, will always be a powerful validation of its truth.
David Jackman is the president of the Proclamation Trust, a ministry dedicated to equipping preachers and teachers with a commitment to proclaiming God’s Word.
Jonathan Leeman
No. Huh uh. The church is not called to transform culture, at least not in the sense that most people use that phrase today. If by transform one means "convert," then fine. But that’s not how the phrase is being used. You cannot transform what is blind except by giving it sight. You cannot transform what is deaf except by giving it hearing. You cannot transform what is stone except by making it flesh. You cannot transform what is dead except by making it alive.
How do you "transform" something that’s dead? If you happen to be supernatural, you can make it alive (John 1:13). But you cannot transform it.
Are churches called to love, to serve, to care, to bring justice and mercy? In some capacities, yes; in other capacities, no. That’s a more complicated discussion, and I refer the reader to Steve Boyer and the Capitol Hill Baptist Church elder’s discussion on caring for the poor. Here, I simply want to state for the record that the entire discussion about "transforming culture" is only possible when Christian have begun to blur the line between church and world, between the city of God and the city of man, between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world, between children of the Father and children of the devil, between those who are God’s people and those who are not God’s people.
This exclusivistic line is offensive to our cultural sensibilities, so we talk about everyone being on a journey. We euphemize about the "unchurched" or "pre-Christian"; the label "non-Christians" sounds stark, absolutist, and intolerant. Am I claiming that any church knows precisely who the wheat are and who the tares are? No, but that’s not the point. The point is simply that wheat cannot "transform" tares other than by asking God to convert them into wheat. A tare is a tare is a tare.
Now, is a failing school the responsibility of the local church? No, of course not. Where does the Bible say churches are responsible for schools? Are the people who comprise a church responsible to love and serve their neighbors in myriad ways, including the education of the neighborhood’s children? Potentially, yes! In the same way that Christians are called to live and love like Good Samaritans, we should always be looking for ways to serve our non-Christian neighbors—that they might be given sight, hearing, hearts of flesh, and life!
Jonathan Leeman is the editor of the 9Marks eJournal.
Aaron Menikoff
Let me begin with four biblically informed assumptions. First, an overarching concern of the New Testament is personal transformation (c. f. Mark 7:14-23; Rom. 3:21-27; 1 Pet. 2:24); Jesus implied as much in John 18:36 when He told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." Second, there is a clear emphasis in Scripture on the responsibility to care for Christians (c. f. Acts 6:1-6; Gal. 6:10; 2 Cor. 8-9). Third, the marks of the church, biblically and historically, are the right preaching of the word and the right administration of the ordinances (c. f. Eph. 2:20; Col. 1:28, 1 Cor. 11:20). Fourth, physical care for those outside the church is important (c. f. Gal. 6:10; Tit. 3:1-3; Matt. 5:13-16).
Combining these assumptions leads me to conclude that the church should focus on doing that which she is uniquely charged to do: guarding doctrine, preaching it boldly, and calling her members to live it out vigorously and practically in their communities. This excludes the church, as the church, from taking responsibility for the culture, though it does not exclude the church from changing the culture indirectly through the work of individuals. In fact, if a church is not expressing a Scriptural concern for those outside the church—leading and equipping her members to act—she is not preaching the whole counsel of God.
It is easy to set up a straw man by arguing a church that adopts this position has no corporate social conscience, but nothing could be further from the truth. Just look at the Second Great Awakening! Evangelical Christians, who believed that faith without works is dead, fed the poor and ministered to the blind, to name just a couple issues they targeted. Some of them even did so "as the local church," but most did so as Christians who, transformed by the gospel, married physical and spiritual ministry—all with a heart to bring sinners to repentance.
Cultural transformation undertaken by individuals need not be thought of as the ugly-step sister of ministry sponsored by the church, especially when it is fired by the prophetic preaching and encouraged by the tender love of a local congregation.
Aaron Menikoff, a Ph.D. student in church history at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is an elder at Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and a writer for Kairos Journal for pastors.
Philip G. Ryken
Does Scripture call the local church (by which we mean the local church as the local church, not as individual Christians) to the work of cultural transformation? For example, is a failing school system the responsibility of the local church?
There is a sense in which the answer to this question must be "no." The church's primary calling is to preach the gospel and to worship God in the ministry of the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. While the worship of God and the proclamation of the gospel have a transforming influence on the surrounding culture, this does not happen directly, but indirectly, as the people of God live out the implications of their faith in every aspect of life.
Yet there are also ways in which the answer to this question must be "yes." In its priestly ministry of intercession, the local church prays for the needs of its community—all of the areas where the surrounding culture needs to experience the transforming influence of the gospel. In its prophetic ministry of preaching and teaching God's Word, the local church disciples its members to fulfill their various callings as parents, teachers, artists, students, politicians, business people—callings that have culture-transforming power. In its diaconal ministry of mercy, the local church offers practical service in the name of Christ—service that transforms the lives of the poor, the homeless, and the elderly, as well as children, prisoners, and internationals. In these ways, at least, the local church is called to the gospel work of cultural transformation.
A church that regards such transformation as its primary goal may well miss its more fundamental calling to glorify God in preaching the gospel. Yet a church that minimizes the importance of its legitimate calling to cultural transformation may fail to do the full work of discipleship or of bearing full witness to the kingdom of God.
To take education as an example, a failing school system ought to be a matter of deep concern to Christian people. In appropriate ways, it can also be a legitimate area for local church involvement. Local churches can and should pray for the education of local children. They can and should support local Christian schools through their benevolences. Where permitted, they can and should lead Bible studies, provide Christ-centered religious education, or do other evangelistic work in local schools. Where invited (as is the case in Philadelphia), they can and should respond to the request of the civil government to offer spiritual and educational mentoring to local students.
Philip G. Ryken is the senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is the author, most recently, of What Is the Christian Worldview (P&R, 2006).
Tony Payne
One is hard pressed to think of a word from Scripture that calls local Christian congregations to see cultural transformation (of the kind envisaged in your question) as part of their God-given work and mandate. Then again, one is hard pressed to think of many things at all in the New Testament that are given to local gatherings (considered as such) to be their work or mandate. D. B. Knox was fond of pointing out that, in the New Testament, the activities of the local congregation (as a congregation) do not go beyond loving, Spirit-filled fellowship with one another around Christ based on the heavenly gathering of which we are all members, and mutual edification as we look forward to the Day of his coming (see e.g. Heb 10:24-25; 12:18-24; Col 3:1-4f.).
Of course, because of our heavenly fellowship in and with Christ, and because of our desire to love and do good to all people (especially the household of faith), we will band together for all manner of purposes, in all manner of associations, both short- and long-term, depending on our opportunities and circumstances.
Prayerfully proclaiming the gospel will remain the chief of these purposes—not least because Christ has commissioned his people specifically to do so—but it will not be the only one. Tackling besetting social and cultural problems (such as a failing education system) may well be a good purpose that Christians work together on, and Christians have famously done so throughout history. But, as far as I can see in Scripture, it is not the particular responsibility of the local congregation, viewed as such.
Tony Payne is publishing director at Matthias Media and the author of multiple books.
Stephen Um
All peoples, institutions, and groups are interested in changing, renewing, or transforming society by impressing their core values on the culture. For that matter, we cannot help but make an impact on our culture. The minute anyone opens his mouth, he is speaking in a particular language, from a particular cultural context, with a particular worldview vision of morality and various definitions of what he believes to be the "true", the "good", and the "beautiful." As such, no one should be led to think that he is not "getting into the public square."
In addressing the question, "Is it the church’s responsibility to embrace or assume the civic responsibility of the state (e.g. education, the poor, social injustice, the arts, etc.)?", we need to consider the following. The church does not have any juridical authority in the city/state public square, but that does not mean that the Church ought to stay out in the periphery. The church does have the responsibility for acts of mercy and for engaging our community with acts of social justice (cf. Jas. 1.27). Paul states that "as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Gal. 6:10). He is clearly referring to a deed ministry that should be shared with all people as they have need. James says that true religion is this: "to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (Jas. 1.27). In other words, it is the church’s responsibility to pursue both public compassion and personal piety. For example, although a failing school system is not the civic responsibility of the church, the church could get involved in "doing good" by perhaps coming along side of the local school in providing after-school tutoring.
Unfortunately, some activist or fundamentalist groups have thought that they should either assume the responsibility of the state (whether conservative or liberal) or impede the government’s involvement in the lives of individuals. However, the gospel calls individuals in the church to pursue the common good in our culture and to enter into the public square by encouraging and promoting gospel values and by engaging in an incarnational/grassroots strategy for cultural renewal and community development. This is not to suggest that social action, political involvement, or pursuing the common good is a replacement for evangelism.
What does this gospel response look like? There is to be an integration of faith and vocational calling in bringing cultural renewal. Thus, the church and its members should cultivate friendships with people in their neighborhoods, join clubs and associations, and partner with organizations that are also involved in acts of mercy and social justice. In other words, because the ministry of the gospel is both a ministry of word and deed, we can actually promote the public witness of the gospel by pursuing the common good and engaging in acts of social justice.
Part 3
Stephen Um is the senior minister of Citylife Presbyterian Church in Boston, Massachusetts.
November/December 2007
©9Marks
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.
I think the danger we all face is that we have a tendency to go from one extreme to another. Some will tell you that there is NO Social Gospel, and some say that proclaiming the Gospel is not necessary at all, you just need to get involved in doing good deeds. I would have to say that I'm somewhere between these two extremes.
I must say that if those of us who profess to have been regenerated and born again by the Spirit of the living God feed the hungry, clothe the naked and provide for a place to live for the homeless, BUT we do not offer them the Bread of Life (John 6:35), and the Water of Life (John 4:10), they will have their best life now but will suffer for all eternity because the wrath of God abides on them!
It is by the preaching of the Word of God (foolishness of the Cross - 1 Corinthians 1:18-31) that men and women hear the Gospel and believe.
What will it profit a man if he gain the whole world but loses his own soul(Mark 8:36)?
The unbeliever is blind, dead, desperately wicked, hates God, is self-righteous, is a self-worshiping creature, mocks Christians, thinks he's good enough to go to Heaven just as he is because he's never committed BIG sins!
The apostle Paul tells us that "if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).
Let me show you what some of the preachers I listened to had to say:
Rolland McCune
1. No Social Program given to the Church.
2. The Church has a responsibility to it's own (Acts 4:39; Acts 6; Acts 19; Romans 12; 15:25ff; I Timothy 5; James 2; I John 3:17).
3. The Old Testament economy was not the same as that of the New Testament. The OT economy was one of Covenant Community; the NT economy is that of separation of Church and State.
4. OT Prophet and NT Priest not on the same level.
His point is that the felt needs and the social problems of the world are endless.
Gregory N. Barkman
1. Our first responsibility is to our extended family.
2. Our second responsibility is to provide emergency aid - e.g Good Samaritan.
3. Our third responsibility is to Community Programs - regulated programs.
He says the closer the donor is to the people being helped, the less chance there is for abuse. He says further that Churches need to set up mentoring programs in needy areas of our cities or towns. And, LINK the recipient to a Gospel witness.
Rutledge Ethridge
This preacher used Exodus 22:18ff; and Malachi 2:17ff as his starting point for social transformation.
He had four points:
1. Seriousness of Social Neglect
2. Victims of Social Neglect
3. Consequences of Social Neglect
4. Ultimate Consequences of Social Neglect
One comment that one of the speakers made struck me with a profound sense of guilt. It was said that if the true Church will not be about the business of impacting culture, the apostate church will - and ARE doing deeds of mercy.
If the True Church only condemns others and does nothing else, why would the unbelieving world want to keep us around? We do have an obligation to our neighbors and we need to find ways to impact them with the Gospel AND helping those in desperate (legitimate) need.
The following men and their comments I found at 9Marks.org.
Thabiti Anyabwile
Okay, first the easy response. What is primary in the church is preaching, applying, and living the gospel. The church is to make disciples and teach those disciples to observe all the Lord commands. The gospel is central and without the gospel a "church" ceases to be a church. So nothing that comes under the banner of "cultural transformation" is to displace that most central of concerns.
Having said that, does not Christ command his people to do some things that touch upon cultural transformation or social issues? And insofar as the church is to teach disciples to obey all those commands, then I think on some level we’re in the business of "cultural transformation" (though that’s a hideous and misleading label).
I really dislike this question. It’s problematic in two ways. First, the question forces us to make a decision that’s too blunt or sweeping. It’s "all or nothing." And, I think it may suggest that there is a "letter" to be obeyed without necessarily attending to a corresponding "spirit." For example, I can’t think of chapter and verse (which the question seems to call for) that assigns the role of "cultural transformation" to the church qua church. And yet, I can’t reason that there is no role for the church when there are plenty of places where Christians universally are called to do justice in their cultural setting. What does it mean for there to be such a universal call to Christians and there to be no role for the church qua church (a gathering of said Christians in a particular locale preaching, administering the ordinances, and living out the faith)? The distinction the question imposes between the church and individual Christians breaks down, I think, when you’re talking about obligations Christians are universally to observe.
A second way in which the question is problematic: it seems to (a) assume a political and social context where government and perhaps a non-profit sector are intact and responsible for such things as education, and (b) overlook extraordinary social problems. So what is the church’s responsibility regarding cultural transformation in a developing nation (which is most of the world) where there are no basic governmental structures and no non-profit sector as in the United States? And can we comfortably conclude the church has no role to oppose things like the slave trade, sex trafficking, abortion, or provide disaster relief in famine or hurricanes?
We could rule some of these things in by exception. That is, we could say, "of course the church has a role in those limited extraordinary cases." But if it has a role in such cases, why does it not have a role in the more mundane, ordinary, or chronic situations? Are we to organize mercy when the problem is glaring, but remain disorganized and disinterested when they are "every day"? I can’t see that.
So, right now, I’m left to conclude that there is Christian liberty in deciding whether a local church will involve itself in this or that social issue. A great deal of discernment is required, for obviously not every social issue is "close" to the church’s core mission, and there is a long history of social causes displacing gospel order. In my experience, Christians are generally nervous about exercising the liberties that Christ provides. Perhaps this is a corporate exercise in that nervousness.
Thabiti Anyabwile is the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman and the author, most recently, of The Decline of African American Theology (IVP, 2007).
John M. Frame
The task of the church is the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20)—to make disciples, teaching them "to observe all that I have commanded you." By God’s grace, we train believers in obedience. That obedience inevitably transforms culture, as it has done now for nearly 2000 years. Christians have made huge contributions to learning, the arts and literature, the treatment of women, the abolition of anti-biblical slavery, the care of the poor, the sick, the widows, and orphans. Sin, of course, has impeded our mission; but the grace of God working through his people has accomplished amazing things.
Now some have argued that cultural transformation is the work of Christian individuals, but not of the local church. They argue that the latter should be limited to the area of the "spiritual," the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. But the spiritual/secular distinction is not biblical. The gospel as proclaimed by John (Matt. 3:2), Jesus (Matt. 4:17), Philip (Acts 8:12), and Paul (Acts 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31) announces the coming of the kingdom of God, a new order of righteousness, peace, and joy (Rom. 14:17). In the kingdom, we do all things (not just "spiritual") to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), all things in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17). It is plain that care for the poor, orphans, and widows is part of that.
Is a failing school system, then, for example, the responsibility of the local church? Education is part of our kingdom responsibility (Deut. 6:6-9, Tit. 2:12), part of the gospel of the kingdom. This may mean encouraging believers to educate their children at home, or in Christian schools. It may mean advocating a new commitment to excellence in the public schools. It is better that schools not be administered directly by the church: that is not necessary and it can be a distraction. But where there is no alternative, yes, the church may start a school, bringing to its children (and even to children of non-Christian parents) the riches of human knowledge within a kingdom-centered worldview. There are legitimate questions as to how best to handle such matters in different localities. But the question is not, whether the church has a responsibility, but how should it undertake that responsibility. The gospel of the kingdom is comprehensive—good news for every aspect of human life.
John Frame is a professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and is the author, most recently, of Salvation Belongs to the Lord (P&R, 2006).
Michael Horton
This question is carefully framed. It may be assumed that to say "no, the church isn’t called to cultural transformation" means that one doesn’t think that Christians should try to improve their surroundings during the time that God has given them. Yet the reality is more complicated than that.
In my understanding, the local church is not free to do anything in Christ’s name that Christ himself—the King of the church—has not commissioned it to do. Preaching the Word, administering Baptism and the Supper, teaching, and providing spiritual fellowship and discipline receive clear mandates in Scripture, with instructions for offices and procedures for carrying out this sacred embassy.
Now, as citizens of temporal kingdoms as well as the kingdom of Christ, believers are called to be husbands, wives, children, parents, employers, employees, voters, and neighbors in a variety of daily callings. In these vocations, they love and serve their neighbor. With no expectation that they are transforming the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of Christ, they nevertheless "aspire to live quietly, and to mind [their] own business, and to work with [their] hands, so that [they] may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one" (1 Thes 4:11-12). Besides the imperatives given for proper conduct in the household of faith, there are commands to live with integrity in the world, to submit to those in authority, to pray for rulers, and so forth. So there is indeed much for us to do in this matter of fulfilling our vocations, loving, and serving our neighbors.
There is no call to cultural transformation in the New Testament. Yet if Christian churches are fulfilling their specific mandate and believers are being built up in the faith and practice through the Word, we can expect to see distinctive effects in the culture.
The kingdom of Christ itself is something that we are receiving (Heb 12:28), not something that we are building. In this present age, Christ is reigning in his church, as his unique and exclusive office of Prophet, Priest, and King is realized through the ministry of pastors, deacons, and elders. It is this ministry that creates a "new society" within the structures of this fading evil age.
Michael Horton is a professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, editor of Modern Reformation magazine, and the author, most recently of Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ (WJK, 2007).
David Jackman
The corporate social role of believers, expressed at its most basic level in the local congregation, is to act as "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matt 5:13-14). Jesus tells us that our light shines before men in our ‘good deeds’ (v. 16). Similarly, Peter exhorts the scattered house churches to which his first letter is addressed to "live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God" (1 Peter 2:12).
This will happen in the lives of individual Christians, of course, but the original setting seems to be corporate and congregational, which means that the local church is being encouraged to be involved and play a strong role for good in the culture. The implication is that this will open the door for the gospel to be listened to, in that this quality of selfless Christian living will be a stimulus for enquiry to the unbelievers (1 Pet 3:15-16). "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Gal 6:10). The church fellowship is a model.
All this is part of our corporate expression of loving our neighbour as ourselves. We
do this firstly by holding out the gospel and seeking to bring its good news to as many as possible in our community and we must never dilute this priority perspective, because it is eternal. But if we have no interest in the everyday needs of our community, where for many people their greatest needs and struggles are experienced, our expression of gospel love can sound pretty hollow. Only the gospel can transform human lives and culture, but compassionate Christian service, in love for our neighbour, will always be a powerful validation of its truth.
David Jackman is the president of the Proclamation Trust, a ministry dedicated to equipping preachers and teachers with a commitment to proclaiming God’s Word.
Jonathan Leeman
No. Huh uh. The church is not called to transform culture, at least not in the sense that most people use that phrase today. If by transform one means "convert," then fine. But that’s not how the phrase is being used. You cannot transform what is blind except by giving it sight. You cannot transform what is deaf except by giving it hearing. You cannot transform what is stone except by making it flesh. You cannot transform what is dead except by making it alive.
How do you "transform" something that’s dead? If you happen to be supernatural, you can make it alive (John 1:13). But you cannot transform it.
Are churches called to love, to serve, to care, to bring justice and mercy? In some capacities, yes; in other capacities, no. That’s a more complicated discussion, and I refer the reader to Steve Boyer and the Capitol Hill Baptist Church elder’s discussion on caring for the poor. Here, I simply want to state for the record that the entire discussion about "transforming culture" is only possible when Christian have begun to blur the line between church and world, between the city of God and the city of man, between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world, between children of the Father and children of the devil, between those who are God’s people and those who are not God’s people.
This exclusivistic line is offensive to our cultural sensibilities, so we talk about everyone being on a journey. We euphemize about the "unchurched" or "pre-Christian"; the label "non-Christians" sounds stark, absolutist, and intolerant. Am I claiming that any church knows precisely who the wheat are and who the tares are? No, but that’s not the point. The point is simply that wheat cannot "transform" tares other than by asking God to convert them into wheat. A tare is a tare is a tare.
Now, is a failing school the responsibility of the local church? No, of course not. Where does the Bible say churches are responsible for schools? Are the people who comprise a church responsible to love and serve their neighbors in myriad ways, including the education of the neighborhood’s children? Potentially, yes! In the same way that Christians are called to live and love like Good Samaritans, we should always be looking for ways to serve our non-Christian neighbors—that they might be given sight, hearing, hearts of flesh, and life!
Jonathan Leeman is the editor of the 9Marks eJournal.
Aaron Menikoff
Let me begin with four biblically informed assumptions. First, an overarching concern of the New Testament is personal transformation (c. f. Mark 7:14-23; Rom. 3:21-27; 1 Pet. 2:24); Jesus implied as much in John 18:36 when He told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." Second, there is a clear emphasis in Scripture on the responsibility to care for Christians (c. f. Acts 6:1-6; Gal. 6:10; 2 Cor. 8-9). Third, the marks of the church, biblically and historically, are the right preaching of the word and the right administration of the ordinances (c. f. Eph. 2:20; Col. 1:28, 1 Cor. 11:20). Fourth, physical care for those outside the church is important (c. f. Gal. 6:10; Tit. 3:1-3; Matt. 5:13-16).
Combining these assumptions leads me to conclude that the church should focus on doing that which she is uniquely charged to do: guarding doctrine, preaching it boldly, and calling her members to live it out vigorously and practically in their communities. This excludes the church, as the church, from taking responsibility for the culture, though it does not exclude the church from changing the culture indirectly through the work of individuals. In fact, if a church is not expressing a Scriptural concern for those outside the church—leading and equipping her members to act—she is not preaching the whole counsel of God.
It is easy to set up a straw man by arguing a church that adopts this position has no corporate social conscience, but nothing could be further from the truth. Just look at the Second Great Awakening! Evangelical Christians, who believed that faith without works is dead, fed the poor and ministered to the blind, to name just a couple issues they targeted. Some of them even did so "as the local church," but most did so as Christians who, transformed by the gospel, married physical and spiritual ministry—all with a heart to bring sinners to repentance.
Cultural transformation undertaken by individuals need not be thought of as the ugly-step sister of ministry sponsored by the church, especially when it is fired by the prophetic preaching and encouraged by the tender love of a local congregation.
Aaron Menikoff, a Ph.D. student in church history at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is an elder at Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and a writer for Kairos Journal for pastors.
Philip G. Ryken
Does Scripture call the local church (by which we mean the local church as the local church, not as individual Christians) to the work of cultural transformation? For example, is a failing school system the responsibility of the local church?
There is a sense in which the answer to this question must be "no." The church's primary calling is to preach the gospel and to worship God in the ministry of the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. While the worship of God and the proclamation of the gospel have a transforming influence on the surrounding culture, this does not happen directly, but indirectly, as the people of God live out the implications of their faith in every aspect of life.
Yet there are also ways in which the answer to this question must be "yes." In its priestly ministry of intercession, the local church prays for the needs of its community—all of the areas where the surrounding culture needs to experience the transforming influence of the gospel. In its prophetic ministry of preaching and teaching God's Word, the local church disciples its members to fulfill their various callings as parents, teachers, artists, students, politicians, business people—callings that have culture-transforming power. In its diaconal ministry of mercy, the local church offers practical service in the name of Christ—service that transforms the lives of the poor, the homeless, and the elderly, as well as children, prisoners, and internationals. In these ways, at least, the local church is called to the gospel work of cultural transformation.
A church that regards such transformation as its primary goal may well miss its more fundamental calling to glorify God in preaching the gospel. Yet a church that minimizes the importance of its legitimate calling to cultural transformation may fail to do the full work of discipleship or of bearing full witness to the kingdom of God.
To take education as an example, a failing school system ought to be a matter of deep concern to Christian people. In appropriate ways, it can also be a legitimate area for local church involvement. Local churches can and should pray for the education of local children. They can and should support local Christian schools through their benevolences. Where permitted, they can and should lead Bible studies, provide Christ-centered religious education, or do other evangelistic work in local schools. Where invited (as is the case in Philadelphia), they can and should respond to the request of the civil government to offer spiritual and educational mentoring to local students.
Philip G. Ryken is the senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is the author, most recently, of What Is the Christian Worldview (P&R, 2006).
Tony Payne
One is hard pressed to think of a word from Scripture that calls local Christian congregations to see cultural transformation (of the kind envisaged in your question) as part of their God-given work and mandate. Then again, one is hard pressed to think of many things at all in the New Testament that are given to local gatherings (considered as such) to be their work or mandate. D. B. Knox was fond of pointing out that, in the New Testament, the activities of the local congregation (as a congregation) do not go beyond loving, Spirit-filled fellowship with one another around Christ based on the heavenly gathering of which we are all members, and mutual edification as we look forward to the Day of his coming (see e.g. Heb 10:24-25; 12:18-24; Col 3:1-4f.).
Of course, because of our heavenly fellowship in and with Christ, and because of our desire to love and do good to all people (especially the household of faith), we will band together for all manner of purposes, in all manner of associations, both short- and long-term, depending on our opportunities and circumstances.
Prayerfully proclaiming the gospel will remain the chief of these purposes—not least because Christ has commissioned his people specifically to do so—but it will not be the only one. Tackling besetting social and cultural problems (such as a failing education system) may well be a good purpose that Christians work together on, and Christians have famously done so throughout history. But, as far as I can see in Scripture, it is not the particular responsibility of the local congregation, viewed as such.
Tony Payne is publishing director at Matthias Media and the author of multiple books.
Stephen Um
All peoples, institutions, and groups are interested in changing, renewing, or transforming society by impressing their core values on the culture. For that matter, we cannot help but make an impact on our culture. The minute anyone opens his mouth, he is speaking in a particular language, from a particular cultural context, with a particular worldview vision of morality and various definitions of what he believes to be the "true", the "good", and the "beautiful." As such, no one should be led to think that he is not "getting into the public square."
In addressing the question, "Is it the church’s responsibility to embrace or assume the civic responsibility of the state (e.g. education, the poor, social injustice, the arts, etc.)?", we need to consider the following. The church does not have any juridical authority in the city/state public square, but that does not mean that the Church ought to stay out in the periphery. The church does have the responsibility for acts of mercy and for engaging our community with acts of social justice (cf. Jas. 1.27). Paul states that "as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Gal. 6:10). He is clearly referring to a deed ministry that should be shared with all people as they have need. James says that true religion is this: "to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (Jas. 1.27). In other words, it is the church’s responsibility to pursue both public compassion and personal piety. For example, although a failing school system is not the civic responsibility of the church, the church could get involved in "doing good" by perhaps coming along side of the local school in providing after-school tutoring.
Unfortunately, some activist or fundamentalist groups have thought that they should either assume the responsibility of the state (whether conservative or liberal) or impede the government’s involvement in the lives of individuals. However, the gospel calls individuals in the church to pursue the common good in our culture and to enter into the public square by encouraging and promoting gospel values and by engaging in an incarnational/grassroots strategy for cultural renewal and community development. This is not to suggest that social action, political involvement, or pursuing the common good is a replacement for evangelism.
What does this gospel response look like? There is to be an integration of faith and vocational calling in bringing cultural renewal. Thus, the church and its members should cultivate friendships with people in their neighborhoods, join clubs and associations, and partner with organizations that are also involved in acts of mercy and social justice. In other words, because the ministry of the gospel is both a ministry of word and deed, we can actually promote the public witness of the gospel by pursuing the common good and engaging in acts of social justice.
Part 3
Stephen Um is the senior minister of Citylife Presbyterian Church in Boston, Massachusetts.
November/December 2007
©9Marks
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Toned Down Gospel
Darrell Kehler came to GFC and we were richly blessed by having him share with us 10 things he learned in the 10 years he and his wife Elaine spent in Bolivia. Darrell and Elaine Kehler are Missionaries in Bolivia. He gave us a "Great Commission Quiz" that we filled out - multiple choice - and we were quite shocked at some of the answers. I can't find the complete Quiz at the joshuaproject.net site but I found some Great Commission Statistics.
Thank you brother Darrell for blessing us by the Grace of God
Joshua Project
Thank you brother Darrell for blessing us by the Grace of God
Joshua Project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)