OK, real life caught up with me. I just couldn’t get any posts done the last few days. I hope to get caught up soon.
I’ll share a thought that might lead others to say something significant (since I don’t seem to have significant thoughts these days). I was thinking the other day about the fact that Luke and Acts are basically two volumes of the same work. Essentially, Luke’s gospel was written in two parts.
So doesn’t it make sense that we should see in Acts Luke’s view of how the gospel was lived? Not just his idea, but his account of how the church did just that. It’s also his teaching of how the gospel was intended to be lived, for like all historians, Luke presents the events in a way that conveys a certain message.
What we don’t see is the benevolent society that some would make of the church today. Yes, the early Christians shared among themselves. Yes, they healed people. Yes, Paul spent major amounts of time raising money for the poor Christians in Jerusalem.
But where are the feeding trips? Where do we see the Christians doing major social projects directed at outsiders? Their priority was preaching and establishing churches. They did not forget the poor and they did much good. But that was not their focus. Their focus was on spreading the good news of the kingdom of God.
Why would that not be our focus as well?
Am I missing something here?
Umm… when there are 20 Christians in a city of a couple hundred thousand, the potential for “major social projects directed at outsiders” is considerably limited, compared to now, when Christianity is believed to comprise about 1/3 of the world’s population.
Sometimes the number of workers available defines what kind of work will be done. Also, in a world where Christian and hypocrite are often seen as synonymous, there’s a considerable amount of benevolent work that needs to be done to undermine such claims.
Also, after the first couple of chapters, Acts focuses directly on the ministries of Peter and Paul, not the day-to-day activity of the early churches. The APOSTLES “focused on spreading the good news of the kingdom of God.” We don’t know how the early congregations incarnated that mission – except that we know in Rome that the church did things like gathering in “exposed” babies and cared for grievously wounded gladiators that had been dumped in the street by their owners.
What about the idea that Acts also records the gospel being accepted by the poor in a relatively stable society that had very little contact with the outside world? The situation now, where many many Christians (in the West, anyway) are far more materially wealthy than their ancient counterparts, begs the question of how to use those resources. Jesus specifically commanded that such wealth be given to the poor – would you rather it be given to evangelists?
Finally, the way you present the matter begs the question of the nature of “the good news of the kingdom of God.” Is it mostly fire insurance, or is the good news that God is on the move an actual force for peace and justice and love?
It is also interesting that in all of Acts, the preaching going on never once referred to anything regarding the Sermon on the Mount (of course, realizing they did not have a text of it – though the apostles where there to hear it – still nothing was preached concerning “how to love your neighbor” in regards to the actual Gospel message). Why? Because the Sermon on the Mount is not the Gospel. It may be a product of the Gospel taking root via regenerated hearts, and/or a sign of Kingdom here/not yet, but it’s not the Gospel.
“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” – Who is he talking about here? Anybody on earth?
Before anyone brings up the Good Samaritan, I would encourage a reading of Jacob Jervell’s work on it and what he writes concerning what Luke is doing in Luke-Acts in regards to the Jews and Samaritans. He shows that Luke does not use the Samaritan material in an illustrative way for Gentile Christian readers. Jesus came to unite Israel first; to be their King; then and only then could the Gospel go to the Gentiles. (Notice the preaching in acts focuses on Jesus being King of Israel). Jervell really shines a light on how Luke depicts Jesus’ actions with Gentiles (like how He’s always excusing Himself from connection), yet He was more than willing to engage with and speak of Samaritans. Ever wonder why the “good Samaritan” wasn’t instead a “good Gentile soldier”? The story has little to do with doing good deeds for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do. It has a much deeper meaning than that in the Luke-Acts, Jews-Samaritan paradigm.
What I’m saying is, I don’t think the answer to “who is my brother” is “everybody in the world.” Like Jesus when He speaks of the coming judgment and talks of giving cold water to drink; He refers to giving it to one of His disciples, not everybody in the world (this text, along with the Good Samaritan, is abused to the hilt).
Don’t mistake what I am saying. Like Tim, I recognize our need to be kind and beneficial and a blessing to the needy and to others in general (and even intentionally!), but our main responsibility to the world is in obeying the Great Commission; preaching the Gospel, baptizing new believers, and teaching them to obey God (discipleship) – as we should also obey. If we do this well enough, the hypocrisy charge will be without merit.
Grace to you –
Jr
Nick, I don’t believe in a fire insurance gospel. But I have serious problems with “mission efforts” that could just as easily be done by the United Nations as by the Kingdom of God. Yet I talk with Christians who have no such qualms.
We also need to see that many of the churches described had more than 20 members. The lack of even ONE mention of a general feeding program deserves some careful thought. Again, I’m not against helping physically, but not as our main focus nor a standalone activity. It’s part of a holistic outreach.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Jr,
It’s a tough topic to nail down, at least for me. Our brotherhood is full of pendulum swings; we tend to go “all or nothing” in one direction or another. Service without testimony can’t be the church’s mission to the world.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I believe the book of Acts ought to be read as a theological work informing us how the gospel went from the Jews to the inclusion of the Gentiles. Still, Acts is a historical document which gives us some historical insight to early Christian life (1st century)…but it does not tell us everything about early Christians life. I say that to say, that if we are seeking historical inquiry of early Christianity in order to better inform us of how Christians communities should live today then we need to read other non-canonical historical documents about the early life of Christians. That will allow us to have the fullest picture available to us when it comes to determining how early Christians went about practicing hospitality and generosity towards others. Of course, we still need to keep in mind also that we are living in a different culture than the early Christians and therefore the form in which their function was carried out may not be the most expedient form for carrying out the same function in our own culture.
Grace and peace,
Rex
I think that is a natural pendulum swing away from the years upon years of “dunk ’em and dump ’em” mission efforts.
As does the lack of even ONE mention of establishing universities… publishing commentaries on the Scriptures… purchasing church buildings…
Unless you’ve got the kinds of signs and wonders that accompanied the apostles in your pocket, I’m going to stick with promoting outrageous self-sacrificial benevolence as the SIGN that accompanies the preaching of the gospel. The preaching itself was not the sign. The fact that the preaching was accompanied by the transformative power of God was the sign – and in the absence of supernatural signs, LOVE (self-sacrificial, truth-telling love) must be the primary sign.
Rex, I think in some ways the Gospel of Luke serves the same function. In both books, Luke is showing how Jesus came to include the Gentiles in the covenant community.
I agree that Luke wasn’t laying out a picture of everything early Christians said and did, but I think we have to learn from the priorities of those that walked with Jesus.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Nick,
Pendulum swings, though natural, are still harmful. When driving, overcorrection is often deadly. It’s not too healthy in church life, either.
As for universities, commentaries, etc.… it would be a mistake to make those things the focus of the church. I’m talking with college students who think going overseas as a church-supported missionary and merely working with the Boy Scouts is a good thing. They don’t see service as something that accompanies preaching. They see it as something that replaces it.
Again, I point to our mission trips. We take kids overseas and let them build houses, and some of them never spend one second interacting with anyone. When that happens, it’s not surprising that they think service is the only mission of the church.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I know I’m relatively new to the scene, but I don’t remember hearing this sort of complaining when ‘door-knocking campaigns’ were all the rage. If personal evangelism (here construed narrowly as verbal proclamation rather than the incarnational style that I understand to be inherent in the term) were the primary focus of the earliest church — not merely the apostles and those so gifted by the Spirit — why is there only one verse in all of Acts describing PE (Acts 8:4)? For that matter, why is Luke’s Great Commission preaching passage in passive voice? Also, look at Peter’s encapsulation of the mission and lifestyle of Jesus in Acts 10:37-40.
Matthew’s Great Commission passage tells us that the primary focus of the church is disciple-making, not personal evangelism and church-planting. Tim, I don’t have any argument with your passion for the gospel being preached or with your important concern that it is being ignored by benevolence trips. What does concern me, though, is that the way you present the argument tends to play into the traditional church categories of benevolence and missions, which are always at war in the local church budget. I find those categories ineffective at describing the life of the early church, a life of incarnational disciple-making according to the spiritual gifts given each member of the body. It is not a cop-out to say that not all Christians are gifted for evangelism, and I get really frustrated with the kinds of guilt-inducing sermons we usually hear on the subject.
Seems like it’s pressing it a bit to say there’s only one verse about personal evangelism; how do you discount all of the other times that Christians taught non-Christians about the gospel? Maybe I’m not understanding your point.
Rather than a separation between benevolence and missions, I’d prefer thinking in terms of local outreach and external church planting. Both are necessary. Neither replaces the other.
I think that everyone is enabled to share the story of what they’ve received. They may not be able to teach someone all the ins and outs, but I think that everyone is capable of saying what God has done for them. I agree that the attempts to make people learn some “gospel plan” intimidates people to the point where they think they can’t share anything.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Well the book is called “Acts.” So I would suppose there would be some acts to go along with our preaching (but not eliminating fruit bearing by every branch, the Lord’s commission of John 15). Otherwise the book could just be named “Preaching” or “Missions.”
I think assuming the “work” must be of the church can lead one to abdicate his personal responsibilities as a believer. The church should be the collective testimony of the believers not a substitute for personal testimony and action. If believers would live Christ, I’m sure you would see radical transformation everywhere Christians lived and went.
Show them to me. Show me where in the book of Acts (discounting 8:4) a “typical” Christian not specifically empowered for evangelism teaches a non-Christian about the gospel. I’m definitely open to being proved wrong, but there is a reason that the fathers called it “Acts of the Apostles,” even if I’d prefer they have called it “Acts of the Holy Spirit,” since He is the main character from beginning to end.
1000% agreed. That’s why I think groups like Kairos and Stadia are very important right now, and they are a couple (out of many) options towards which you could point those kids whose goals you’re concerned about. Your concern resonates deeply with me, because you’re right – and Jay Guin has blogged exhaustively about how badly our local churches need to revision the entire mission.
YES! That’s exactly right, but that’s *not* what our preachers call evangelism, esp. when they’re haranguing the membership about it. It’s always, “how many people have you invited to the gospel meeting???” or “how many Bible studies did you set up this week???” along with a strong dose of “You obviously don’t love Jesus!!!” And we’ve been powerfully steered away from telling people that God has done ANYTHING for us besides wash away our former sins. The brotherhood has been locked into a ‘fire insurance’ mode for most of its history. Most believers that I know are NOT capable of telling someone “what God has done for them,” because the way they’ve been taught to think about God prevents them from such subjective claims. We are the people of TRUTH, not the people of TESTIMONY.
That’s why your Hope for Life work is so special and important; we need a reframing of the question – a renewal of our minds when it comes to what the Good News really is.
Nick,
OK, now I see where you’re coming from. It’s not so much a question of whether people were involved in personal evangelism, but as to whether that involvement lines up with what many preach today.
My colleague, Steve Ridgell, is doing a wonderful seminar called “Sharing Our Story.” He’s even doing some classes on that tomorrow at Harding. It’s all about helping people see the naturalness of sharing stories about God, both from the Bible and our own lives. I think you’d love it.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
I agree that we must learn from those who walked with Jesus. I assume that is in some way a case for learning from scripture as well, which I have no problem with and I am sure you do not either. My only concern is the idea that some have which believes our calling as Christians is to replicate a carbon-copy of what the first century Christians did in the exact manner they did it without any consideration of how the difference between their culture and ours might figure into the hermeneutical question.
It’s really a question of form and function. There are obviously somethings in which the early Christians did in which we can make a strong case for the exact form being necessary to the function (e.g., baptism). But in other cases (e.g., “greet one another with a holy kiss) it seems pretty clear to most people that maintaining the function does not necessitate the same form. So the question about missions. I think we need to ask first what was the function of early Christian missions and then ask to what degree do we need their form in order to carry out the same function. Assuming that at some point we will conclude that in some aspects a different form will be employed to carry out the function, one further question seems warranted. If we are functioning in a different form, does that form allow us to maintain the integrity of the gospel? That is a question I am really asking about the way most congregation pursue “benevolence” ministries to individuals with physical needs. I am not sure any more that having a business/budget approach to charity isn’t bringing harm to the integrity of the gospel.
Grace and peace,
Rex
[Speaking of something never once mentioned in Acts: αγαπη]
I agree with Tim’s take on a particular point: “I’m not against helping physically, but not as our main focus nor a standalone activity.”
If I may take it a step further, I think a passage of scripture that deals with this issue well is John 6, particularly v26-29.
They were coming to Him because He fed them and not because they treasured His message (i.e. Him). And notice when He nailed the message further, “many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him” (v.66). But to those who the Father drew to Him: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (v.68-69).
As it is written, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (v.29).
So this is one fear with the pendulum swing of service minus Gospel (or even placing them on equal footing); and it is the case I see similar to John 6. It can slip into idolatry. “You gave me bread? You dug me a well? You built me a house? Sure! I’ll take Jesus!” That’s idolatry, not Gospel. They end up wanting the bread that perishes and none of that which gives life.
I think we need to keep this in mind when conversing about the primary mission of the church.
Grace to you –
Jr
Tim,
i think it may have been the focus of a select few to establish churches. But how does Acts represent the focus of the average member? i don’t know that we get a ton of information about that, but there’s some. And it doesn’t seem like everyone’s focus was precisely the same as Paul’s.
–guy
Christopher J.H Wright suggests (rightfully imho) in his book “The Mission of God” that we must not ask what is the “primacy” of God’s mission but what is the “ultimacy” of God’s mission. All this talk about serving people’s physical needs vs. preaching to their ‘spiritual’ needs is really a moot point when we understand that God’s redemptive work is bigger than just getting people “saved.” Of course, some might disagree with that notion of God’s redemptive work. If that is the case, I simply say they need to read Wright’s book and be ready to respond to him because his approach is biblical theology (rather than systematic theology) and his argument is not only very coherent but is also based on thorough and comprehensive exegesis of both the Old and New Testament scriptures.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
I think we have to go through and look at Jesus’ statements about the purpose for his coming. They all need to be a part of the church’s mission if we are going to continue Christ’s mission. The purpose that has to loom above all others is the cross. Everything we do must bear the shadow of the cross. If my ministry would be the same whether or not Jesus died on the cross, then something is terribly wrong with what I am doing.
Again, I’m not saying that you are saying that, but I am in dialog with students who would be just as happy doing nice things for people the rest of their lives even if those people never came to know that Jesus died for them. That can’t be.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
I agree with you. I think the students you speak of are students, who though they may have grown up “in church”, are still in need of being converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Because those who truly believe that Jesus is the way, truth, and life, must then believe that others need to hear of that same way, truth, and life.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex: You nailed it.
I know this is a bit late to the party; but Tim, what you speak of in your last comment is something that I think dips into the psychology of our culture in these days. Andrew McAfee at the Harvard Business Review recently wrote this article “Gen Y’s Most Perilous Trait?” concerning the Narcissism Epidemic. I’ve seen literature concerning this issue more and more lately.
In and apart of that whole discussion in relation to this discussion here is the following thought that I’ve been tossing around in me head:
Feeding people is easy; building homes is easy; people like us when we do it; it’s non-confrontational; it makes us look good; it makes us feel good (all of these things feeding the narcissism); it demands little; etc., which is why, perhaps, in these days there is more push toward that and less of the urgency of preaching the Gospel (or dumbing it down, or softening it into a palatable/utopian message, or twisting it into a message about what we do, etc.).
But because the Gospel has claims that are unique, exclusive, and demanding (see Jesus in John 6); we have to be willing to, like Jesus, lose butts in the seats; to be hated; to be rejected; to be called “intolerant”; etc., and this call on us does not play well in our current self-esteem driven, “tolerant” culture that we are entrenched in and influenced by.
That may or may not have something to do with it; but more importantly is that in just as much that faith without deeds is dead, deeds without faith is worthless; and in regards to other people (“happy doing nice things for people the rest of their lives even if those people never came to know that Jesus died for them”) is truly, brutally, and probably unintentionally unloving.
Grace to you –
Jr
Wow, Jr, those are powerful thoughts. I may have to steal those.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Jr. said, “…lose butts in the seats…”
No pun intended right?
Tim: I once heard a pastor say concerning others using and/or referencing his material, “If my ammunition can fit in your gun; pull the trigger.” In other words, fire away!
And Rex, it took me a second; but that was funny. :)