Something to think about…
Here’s an interesting article from byFaith. Any thoughts?
How did you select your church?
I have asked a number of people this question over the past few years and have received a wide variety of responses. For many people, music style seems to be very important. For others, solid fellowship is the number one priority. The more intellectual types usually stress sound doctrine.
But rarely does anyone give an answer that is even remotely along the following lines: ?I attend my church because it embodies the fullness of Jesus Christ, ministering in word and deed to the whole person just as he did.? Yet, this is the type of answer that many of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation would have given.
John Calvin: ??there must be deacons who care for the poor.?
For example, most people are aware of John Calvin?s profound theological contributions, but few are aware that he was instrumental in reviving the role of the deacons in developing an organized program for meeting the temporal needs of the poor. Among other things, Calvin?s deacons provided housing and emergency assistance to the poor; they ensured that the local hospital was helping all people regardless of their ability to pay; they assisted people with financial planning; they paid for the education of those who could not afford it; they provided job re-training for those who were out of work; and they offered loans and technical assistance to low-income persons so that they could start their own businesses.
When was the last time that you encountered a board of deacons like that?
For Calvin, none of this was optional. Rather, it was what the scriptures mandated. Calvin went so far as to say: ?Do we want to show that there is reformation among us? We must begin at this point, that is, there must be pastors who bare purely the doctrine of salvation, and then deacons who have care for the poor.?
Similarly, when John Knox, the great reformer, founded the Reformed Church of Scotland in the sixteenth century, he instituted a holistic approach to poverty in which local congregations cared for both the spiritual and temporal needs of all the inhabitants in their parish.
Unfortunately, the Reformed Church of Scotland?s concern for the poor gradually disappeared until Thomas Chalmers revived it in the Nineteenth Century. Chalmers divided the parish of his congregation into quarters, with each quarter being cared for by a ministry team consisting of an elder, a deacon, a Sunday School teacher, and a lay evangelist. The poor were provided with the gospel, education for their children, emergency relief, and assistance with finding employment. As a result of all Chalmers? efforts, a more holistic approach to ministry was revived in the Reformed Church of Scotland.
Finding the balance between word and deed
Like Thomas Chalmers, we live in an age in which the church has failed to keep a proper balance between the word and deed aspects of its ministry. Indeed, one could argue that most churches often decide to do one or the other. But anything short of a full-fledged, integrated, word and deed ministry fails to fulfill the mandate that Christ has given to his church.
Unfortunately, for much of the twentieth century, the evangelical church retreated from social concern, defining its task more narrowly. As a result, it is not prepared to accomplish its God-ordained mission. Let me illustrate with an example?a contrast, really?of two churches which, in principle, ought to be very similar. They hold to the same doctrinal positions on all the hot-button theological issues: the inerrancy of scripture, predestination, eternal security, infant baptism, covenantal theology, eschatology, and even the form of government. In fact, they hold to virtually the same creeds dating back to the time of the Reformation. Yet, from God?s perspective, these two churches are as different as night and day.
The first is a U.S. mega-church with property valued in the tens of millions of dollars. Sprawling, beautifully landscaped lawns surround its stately buildings. The weekly bulletin is as thicker than many magazines, detailing the events that will be held for the church members during the upcoming week. And what a line-up it is. All the evangelical superstars perform here: contemporary Christian musicians, born-again athletes, best-selling Christian authors, and the greatest theologians of our century. The church is known for its concern for doctrinal purity, often hosting conferences in which the finest scholars debate the intricacies of the original languages.
Not far from this mega church is a ghetto. Recently, some black folks from the ghetto tried to attend this mega-church but were turned away at the door. Upon further review, the leadership of the church determined to take measures to discourage black folks from ever attempting this again. It is likely that you have heard of this church. God has too. In fact, He has His own name for this type of church: ?Sodom and Gomorrah.?
Isaiah 1:10 10 Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah! 11 “The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?” says the LORD . “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats?17 learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.
Ezekiel 16:49 ” ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
The second church is one nobody has ever heard about. Located in a squatter community in Manila, the Philippines, it has very limited financial resources. The facilities are simple, the budget is tight, there are no fancy bulletins, and no famous guest speakers. They do not have much. But they have Ate (?big sister?) Purita, a poor widow with five children who wants to bring the fullness of Christ to the destitute in their community. And they have the hearts to follow her lead. The result: 232 of Manila?s least desirable citizens are encountering the healing ministry of Jesus as expressed through the words and deeds of His church.
It is likely that you have never heard of Ate Purita?s church. But God has. In fact, He has His own name for it, calling this type of church: ?City of Righteousness? and the ?Repairer of Broken Walls? (Isaiah 1:26; 58:12).
Two churches. On paper their doctrinal statements are nearly identical. God calls one of them ?Sodom and Gomorrah? and the other one the ?City of Righteousness.?
What name does God use for your church?
July 13th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
Alright, I’ll go ahead and post my thoughts…
I think the author’s evaluation of the two churches was a bit extreme, especially since he based it on only one criteria. Having said that, I think his overall point is a good one; we need to minister the gospel in word and deed.
July 13th, 2004 at 8:45 pm
I’m concerned that there is a mega-church within the US that would deny anyone entrance to their services. Obviously, not a Christian approach.
With that said, we had a sermon this last Sunday on Corinthians 14 (a series about tongues) where our pastor started out jumping down to verses 36-38 (I think) where Paul makes a rather sarcastic comment to the church at Corinth asking them whether they were the “authors” of Scripture. The point was made that often as new Christians we are studying the Bible to find the answers to our questions on various issues, but as we grow older in our faith, we often begin intermingling our feelings and current culture with Scripture. Our responsibility is to look to the Bible for the answers to the culture’s (or our) current issues or concerns. As our culture moves more rapidly away from the absolutes and direction of the Bible, we will find ourselves, as believers, increasingly marginalized and even persecuted.
On the other issue about caring for those in one’s parish, I think that began to change drastically in the 1930’s as the federal government took over more of the social safety net from local churches and societies. As incomes were taxed more heavily, the church often abandoned helping the poor and the widows and left the majority of those functions to the State.
But I agree with the article, that the church should be appropriately involved as a source to help those in need within their congregations at least.
July 14th, 2004 at 9:26 pm
Tor, I sent you an email in response to your comment, but I’ll respond here too for the benefit of any eaves-droppers.
I think your comment touches on a common view amongst evangelicals. I asked Brian Fikkert, the author of the article, if he had any information about when this shift in the church’s social concren took place, and if so, if he had any ideas about its cause. In response he sent me an article he had previously written on the subject. To summarize, he says that it took place at the begining of the 20th century, when evangelicals began fighting liberals on the fundamentals of the Christian faith. The liberals were primarily concerned with the “social gospel”, which basically reduced Christianity to social oncern. In reaction, evangelicals (quite naturally, in some ways) distanced themselves from social causes. He notes that this all took place before the rise of the welfare system in America. He also challenges Christians to consider what we are doing now. If we don’t need to care for the poor in our own country because of state programs, why are we not caring for the poor in other countries that don’t have developed welfare programs? The statistics he provides on the level of giving to this end are quite sobering.
I would be hesitant to limit the church’s support for the poor, etc., to those within the congregation. Consider The Parable of the Good Samaritan. There is no indiaction in the text that the man was a believer, nor even that he was a Jew; it just says “a man.” It is also a verifiably fact that one of the significant causes of the eventual acceptance of Christianity in the Roman world was Christian’s concern, not only for other Christians, but also for those in need who made no profession of faith.
July 15th, 2004 at 12:26 am
Thanks for the article. I was surprised to find the liberal church influencing the outreach of evangelicals at the first part of the twentieth century even before our available resources were continually more co-opted by both federal/state governments (income taxes, social security and medicare taxes) that began in the 20’s and has grown ever more confiscatory.
And I agree that our “missionary” outreach must extend beyond our specific congregations (note, I said “at least”).