There’s something else that concerns me about our rush to send relief to disaster areas. I’m wondering if we aren’t focusing a bit on the wrong things.
Again, I know that I’m running the risk of sounding calloused and uncaring. I recognize the need to reach out to hurting people. But I’m wondering if the materialism of the culture we are living in hasn’t made it easier for us to focus on physical things than spiritual ones.
Look at the society around us. Have you noticed that spirituality has nothing to do with wanting to help out with disasters? I’m not saying that makes it bad; I’m saying that it’s not something uniquely Christian.
But didn’t Jesus say to help the hurting? Of course he did. But never at the expense of our mission to the world. The unique thing that we have to offer is the good news of Jesus Christ. We’ve got to hang on to that, even as the world drives us to focus on physical things (good and bad). We are called to focus on the unseen, not the seen, on the eternal, not the temporal.
I’ve often wished that we could somehow see the pictures of the spiritually starving, with bloated souls longing for nourishment. I’ve wanted to be able to show the earthquake of sin, the hurricane of wrongdoing that devastates family after family. In a materialistic society, we are moved by physical suffering and economic loss. We understand lack of food and water. Everyone is touched by these things, not just Christians. It’s part of survival, the “herd instinct” that makes someone dive into a swollen river to try and save a stranger.
We need some priorities. We need holistic programs that serve body and soul. We need to be willing to stick to longterm efforts, rather than jumping from emergency to emergency. If we feed and heal and house and clothe, yet don’t lead people to Christ, are we really doing them good in the long run? In the LONG run?
In 21st-century America, it’s easy to raise money for relief projects. Christians, non-Christians, everyone wants to give to help. At some point we need to ask ourselves, should the church look just like the world in this? Do we not have something more to offer, something more important?
If not, we should probably shut our doors.
Tim said, “But didn’t Jesus say to help the hurting? Of course he did. But never at the expense of our mission to the world.”
I am not to sure that is the way it works, I once heard a preacher say, and I agree “it makes my job much easier, if I first heal and feed the body, before I confront the spirit” .
Jms:2:15: If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16: And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Tim, I think you’re spot-on here. You’re not talking about an either-or or a which-comes-first situation. The church shouldn’t be scrambling about making a lot of noise and sparks like the world does, to look like we’re doing something. I think Haiti is a good example, though, of where we may have actually been close to getting it right. We already had people like Roberta Edwards, with boots on the ground, doing holistic work. When the disaster came, there was no need to scramble and try to re-invent the wheel.
The Internet gives us the opportunity, unrivaled in human history, to stay connected to our units in the field. Our people should be kingdom outposts, tightly connected in a 1 Cor 12 way to one another, so that resources are flowing freely back and forth. The abundant spiritual resources bursting forth in the mission field; the abundant material resources bursting forth in the more established areas.
Tim,
Some good thoughts. I do believe we need to provide relief for the physical, but we certainly shouldn’t neglect the spiritual. Carry this thought a little further. I’ve wondered if we could have avoided some of the wars we have been in if we had pursued a more aggressive evangelism before the outbreak of hostilities? Have no way of knowing for sure, but it is cause for wonder. I do know I’d rather send Bibles than bullets.
Tim,
I must disagree at this point. You say, “But didn’t Jesus say to help the hurting? Of course he did. But never at the expense of our mission to the world. The unique thing that we have to offer is the good news of Jesus Christ. We’ve got to hang on to that, even as the world drives us to focus on physical things (good and bad). We are called to focus on the unseen, not the seen, on the eternal, not the temporal… If we feed and heal and house and clothe, yet don’t lead people to Christ, are we really doing them good in the long run? In the LONG run?”
Correct me if I am wrong, but your assumption makes a dichotomy between the physical and spiritual. I believe this is wrong. The good news Jesus preached was the inbreaking of God’s kingdom reign upon earth – that the earth would once again begin take shape according to the will of God rather than the rebellion of people. This good news involves all of life rather than separating the physical and spiritual while subsequently elevating one over the other. So yes, when we feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, visit the sick, etc…, we are doing them good in the long run.
What we do not need is a Social Gospel, which emphasizes the phyical to the neglect of the spiritual, or an Evangelical Gospel, which emphasizes the spiritual to the neglect of the physical (often employing the physical as a means to the spiritual). Instead, we need the gospel Jesus preached which does not separate the physical and spiritual but realizes that the problems of one are the result of and cause of problems with the other (e.g. Pysical Spiritual).
A couple of years ago, I had a Christian asked if I were a homeless invidual which would I rather have, food, clothing, and shelter, or the hope of eternal life? My reply was that I would want the Kingdom of God. BUt that is hard to understand apart from the platonic lenses that continue to prevail in our culture. However, I am not accusing you of being a platonist. We all struggle (and I do too) to see beyond the platonic philosophy that has nothing to do with the biblical revelation of God and the world he created and seeks to redeem.
Any ways, I keep recommending this book to people…if you get a chance, get a copy of Christopher J. H. Wright, “The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative,” Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2006. Wright, who is an Old Testament Scholar, offers a robust biblical theology of God’s mission throughout the Bible and does a wonderful job of showing how from God’s promise to Abraham, to the giving of the Mosaic Law, to the Abrahamic covenant fulfillment in Jesus that God makes no distinction between the physical and spiritual but instead both are related to each other in the fulfillment of his mission. The author offers a stunning critique of both the Social-Gospel movement and the Evangelical Gospel movement. I also think you would find some of N.T. Wright’s work helpful.
Any ways, I hope you don’t mind a little more disagreement. I am convinced that our dualism has nothing to do with the Bible and biblical mission. Yet I struggle with it…I hardly know how to speak about redemption, Kingdom of God, etc…without the *platonic* catagories of physical and spiritual yet Jesus seemed very apt at proclaiming his mission without such distinctions (cf. Lk 4.16-21).
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
I don’t mind disagreement at all, especially respectful, well-thought out disagreement.
I’m seriously not trying to downplay the physical. As I said, I think we need holistic outreach. Problem is, it seems that the only needs we are anxious to address right now are physical ones. And we seem to do it motivated by the same spirit that those of the world do it.
I would love to see everyone as excited tomorrow about an opportunity to provide spiritual support in Timbuktu as they are today to provide relief in Haiti. When we focus only on one or the other, only the physical or the spiritual, that’s when I see red flags.
Again comes my question, if we give people physical comfort and never tell them about Jesus, have we done them any longterm good? If they can get exactly the same thing from a Buddhist, in what way have we portrayed Christ to them?
In the same vein, it would be heartless to go to a group of starving people and try to preach to them without first addressing their physical needs. That would not be Christlike, either.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I think a question that needs to be address is what motivates us to serve others? For some, it is seeing the perilous conditions others are forced to live in. Though such a motivation is not entirely wrong (for God was in part motivated to serve Israel after recognizing their deplorable status; see Ex 3.7-8), this is not what motivates God to mission. What motivates God to mission is that the world would be reconciled to him and each other, reflecting his nature which is seen in holiness, justice, and love (again, I refer to Wright’s “The Mission of God”). Therefore, the church, which is called to participate in the mission of God, must be motivated for the same reason and this is more than just being concerned about the perilous conditions of others; it is being concerned that the Kingdom of God would break forth – God’s will done on earth as it is done in heaven. I believe that when the church is motivated by this concern, it will be equally concerned about helping those who suffer because of diaster (e.g., Haitian earthquake) and/or those who suffer because they are living under a life of deception (as opposed to living a life under the truth of Jesus’ Lordship). Therefore when we find a person who is hungry, we will feed them and when we find someone suffering from the lies of the evil one, we will tell them the truth…and often, this will be the same person.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Well said!
If we really cared about the lost souls in this world wouldn’t our pulpit preachers flee our church’s pulpits and stop lecturing the saved and ask for funds to “GO” to Haiti so that they could take both the food the church collects and give the Gospel to Haiti that we have to hear every Sunday?
I seriously just don’t get it?
Clay, I have often wondered why preachers spend so much time trying to make perfect Christians, Just teach people to be Christian, and let God make them perfect. I agree with you the way to teach people to become Christian is by example.
Tim: I agree with your post 100%. (the end is near!)
H Clay McCool: So the saved don’t need the Gospel preached? And if those darn preachers would just leave the pulpit all the world’s problems would go away and Christians would get off their butts? And I’m sorry, but if you consider the Gospel something you “have to hear” then you have made clear what it’s worth to you. Unreal.
As to the post: I’d like to add that if we only feed and clothe and house tons and tons of people who are without Christ and do not proclaim to them the Good News of forgiveness of sins, then we are not showing love but a mighty lack of love. It makes us feel good; and it gets them through another day or so, but when it comes down to it, we don’t love them because we are not telling them the good news. It is actually quite disgusting behavior. Fattening the calves for the fire, if you will.
Rex: You I have been through this before. I believe we have the confusion of a)the Gospel, with b)the fruit it bears in believers within themselves and throughout culture. They are not equal. Even Jesus makes clear as to the primary/paramount purpose of His coming. For example:
“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic— ‘I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home’” (Mark 2:9-11).
So that you know Jesus has authority to forgive sins he heals somebody. Which was more important here; the healing or the fact that Jesus could forgive sins? Which one was subservient to the other? Which one served the purpose of glorifying the other? He didn’t have to do that.
And Paul, very explicitly, defines the Gospel as “that Christ died for our sins…” (1 Cor 15:1-3) not “that poverty and violence be eliminated.” This is the whole point of Jesus’ discourse in John 6:25-34. When you confuse the two “breads” people will only come for their fill of the physical and miss Him completely. They will value the gift and not the giver.
I do not believe the Scriptures teach us that social justice, for example, is where it starts; but that it is fruit that occurs and practiced by those who are born-again.
And while I appreciate the words in trying to separate what you referred to from the prosperity gospel; I think that equating the forgiveness of sins to “feeding the hungry” in importance comes dangerously close to the prosperity gospel and/or a form of moralistic deism.
Which brings me to this point. If we rush off just to feed a bunch of unbelievers like the rest of the world; while we have those in Christ who are starving to death in many nations, we are acting sinfully. Look at Jesus and His explicit judgment on those who do not care for his disciples (Matt 25:31-46; see also Gal 6:10). And if our mission trips are encompassed only to dig a well for the thirsty while missing the message of the everlasting living water; we have failed miserably and have accomplished nothing.
Lastly, the argument against the “platonic Greco-Roman understanding of Scripture” is historically and intellectually bankrupt; especially when it’s used as a scapegoat to explain away any reading of Scripture that regurgitated liberal dogmas don’t agree with.
Grace be with you –
Let me qualify that last statement so as not to paint so broadly. I’ll say when the “platonic” argument is used as a bat against any reading of Scripture that disagrees with the dogma; then it is historically and intellectually bankrupt. I’m NOT saying to Rex that he is intellectually or historically bankrupt. I definitely do not believe so. (wanted to make that clear).
Jr.,
WIth all do respect, you’re proof-texting again just to support your dogma. When Jesus healed to showhis authority to forgive in Mark 2, it was neither about healing or forgiving…it was done to show his authority which Mark tells of to sustain his argument that Jesus is the Son of God.
Paul’s citation of the gospel in 1 Cor 15 is not an ehaustive list of reasons why Jesus died and was raised (and there are certainly other reasons Paul states himself elsewhere in scripture). Paul’s point was not even about why Jesus died and was raised. His point was the fact that Jesus did die and was raised and he was making this point as the basis for upholding the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, a problem the Corinthian church was struggling with.
But here is the fact, Jesus preached the gospel and the gospel he preached was the inbreaking kingdom of God. I am not saying this has nothing to do with salvation from sin but the kingdom scope is not limited to simply forensic justification from sin. The fact that we have so much subsequent writings in the NT from Paul dealing with forensic salvation is because of the occasional nature Paul was dealing with, namely the question of how both Jew and Gentile could be saved and belong to each other as one body; a question church’s were dealing with. But such occasional nature does not narrow the original scope of Jesus’ gospel, it only tells us which angle within that broad scope than many of the later first-century churches were dealing with.
So to be clear, I am not arguing that we stop preaching to people the aspect of the gospel which brings them from being lost into faith. I am saying that to elevate either the Social-Gospel or the Evangelical-Gospel above the other is to distort the Kingdom-Gospel Jesus preached and lived out – a gospel that demonstrated God’s reign upon the earth by telling people the truth about their sin and calling them to repentance because their lives a part of the lies of a fallen world; ministering to the sick and poor because such realities belonged to a broken world that God is redeeming and renewing; a mission that freed people the demons which posessed them because the evil one would no longer have his way in the world; etc…
The Kingdom Gospel is what our world needs…not the Social-Gospel which trivializes the need to preach repentance from sin nor the Evangelical-Gospel which makes physical ministry subserviant to the other aspects of the gospel.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Thanks, Rex. I appreciate your words and spirit. I just believe that without the forensic, the rest is fruitless and pointless. One must follow the other or else Christ is meaningless. I do not deny our call on how to live in and minister to a broken and fallen world as you have well stated; but without the primacy of the forensic, that ministry of service is nothing but moralistic, legalistic, and feel-goodism. This is because that ministry, on its own or as primary, doesn’t need Jesus to be successful.
There are plenty of Christ/God-haters that do very “good” things to and for the outcasts in the world; but at the end of the day what have they actually accomplished when their primary motivation is thus set on the glory of the created world (be it themselves or those they serve, including the planet) and not toward the glory of the Creator of the world? That is what sets us apart in our deeds in the power of the Spirit. Our God is a Jealous God. Jealous for His Name, His Glory, and His Praise above all other things. Therefore intentions and motivations do matter.
In the eyes of God, “all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” because our iniquity takes us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
Have a great weekend, Rex. Grace be with you –
Rex, and Jr, if you look at what you are both saying. If Christians intend to bring souls to God, we had better not let Satan out work us in recognizing, and caring for the needy. Jr. is right, Satan works hard to influence those in need, Rex is right, we better not let it happen, we are now behind, we have some catching up to do.
Jr., If an atheist feeds a hungry person, that atheist is doing the will of God here on earth as it is done in heaven even if that atheist denies the existence of God. I want to avoid terms like “primacy” when referring to particular elements of the gospel because such depiction elevates one aspect over the other. In the end we are left with some who would give primacy to the social dimensions to the neglect of the spiritual dimensions while others would elevate the spiritual to the neglect of the social. Jesus did neither. He was able to intergrate both aspects because they both were of equal value to the good news of God’s kingdom. And more importantly, Jesus was able to intergrate these dimensions in ways where we often find the dimenions blended together rather than delineating distinguishing boundaries between the two as has been done with the difference between the rather contemporary Social-Gospel and Evangelical-Gospel movements.
But to be clear, I am not wanting the church to ignore speaking the truth in regard to sin, justification and sanctification.
I believe that an honest examination of both scripture and the perilous eperience of our broken world will reveal that we (humanity) are both victims (victimization) of the principalities and powers and also sinful participants (accusation) in the bidding of the ppwers. This is what Jesus seemed to understand as well which would explain why he preached the inbreaking reign of God’s kingdom and then followed that by a call to repentance and faith. Not surprisingly we find Jesus ministering to people – setting them free from their victimization – and also telling them to “go and sin no more” – demanding that they repent of their participation in the sinful ways of this world and live out a life under the rule of God. And ultimately, this life that is free from victimization and accusation is not possible without the death and resurrection of Jesus.
The Apostle Paul seems to sum up how the death and ressurection of Jesus has effect the social and spiritual – our victimization and accusation against us – when he writes to the Colossian church “And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncrircumsicion of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demand. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it” (Col 2.13-15, NRSV).
And to that I say, Praise God!
Grace and peace,
Rex
Jr said
So the saved don’t need the Gospel preached?
Clay responds:
Yes we need the Gospel preached but not to us.
We have the inspired word to guide strengthen and direct us.
We have one another to encourage edify and uplift us, to confess
our sins to and to pray one for the other.
What you think followers of the Christ threw their hands up in despair at Troas as Paul left?
Followers that are struggling daily with sin and resisting the Devil
need one another and immersing themselves in the word and prayer not a Pulpit Preacher.
The lost need the Pulpit Preacher, the lost need the Gospel.
How many times must a saved person hear the Gospel as if they
hadn’t heard it 2 or 3 hundred times already?
What happened to encouraging and edifying one another Jr?
Read 1 Corinthians 14:26ff and show me the Pulpit Preacher
in their midst or is 1 Corinthians 14:26 the part of the Gospel
I need to hear?
Jr continues:
And if those darn preachers would just leave the pulpit all the world’s problems would go away and Christians would get off their butts?
Clay responds:
Well you just might be surprised Jr. how many that would once
they figure out they are essential to the spiritual growth of the body as they actively minister to one another, that is if the elders would
allow them to assemble in one another’s homes in the name of the Lord as the early church did.
Jr. continues:
And I’m sorry, but if you consider the Gospel something you “have to hear” then you have made clear what it’s worth to you. Unreal.
Clay responds:
That verges on being ugly Jr. :)
But I forgive you, I understand the mind set of PPPreachers that
have not yet grasp that a follower may actually know how to read and just may read his own bible and quite possibly reads it more than the PPPreacher does.
Do you honestly believe the PPPreacher is the only one in the congregation that can read. We’re no longer in the 1950’s Jr.
Perhaps your church is still infantile but I suspect we all don’t need
what you think we do.
So “GO” Jr. Go “spread” the Gospel and let’s see if it still works?
If it’s still important and necessary to go spread the Gospel as it once was, say to Haiti for an example whyyyy we could even sell our church buildings and return to where the early church assembled and let you guys take the funds from the sale and meet both of their needs.
If we shouldn’t send funds there because we’re not sure what may happen to them then this seems to me to be the perfect answer, that is if Jr still desires to “GO”
Grace and peace, Clay
Clay: I’m not sure what that was, as almost every single line was a straw man I never argued. But it’s all good; hope it was good for you to let all that out.
Oh and by the way, I’m not a preacher. But I love to hear the Word preached well.
Peace.