Mike at Waving or Drowning? is defining the gospel:
I don't preach a social gospel; I preach the Gospel, period. The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is concerned for the whole person. When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, "Now is that political or social?" He said, "I feed you." Because the good news to a hungry person is bread.
Bishop Desmond TutuThis is the gospel. Period. Anything else is... something else.
That's it folks. Period. Feeding the hungry is the good news and there's no room for those of us who might see the salvific purpose of God's redemptive plan meted out in the Incarnation.
Jesus is not so much man's savior but only his cook.
And don't disagree.
Neanderthal.
Sigh.
Good news, yes. The Gospel, No.
I don’t find anywhere Paul feeds people, and he preached the gospel.
And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:29-31 (NASB)
Paul mentions “something else”. Did he misrepresent the Gospel?
I don’t find anywhere Jesus sent the disciples out to feed people as par to the gospel.
These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. Matt. 10:5-8 (NASB)
Every case of feeding I am aware of was an opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate a sign of His messiah ship.
He said* to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for.” And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons. Mark 1:38-39 (NASB)
When day came, Jesus left and went to a secluded place; and the crowds were searching for Him, and came to Him and tried to keep Him from going away from them. But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.” So He kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea. Luke 4:42-44 (NASB)
Are Christians called to feed the hungry, most assuredly, But Jesus last instruction was to go and make disciples.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matt. 28:19-20 (NASB)
Teaching them to observe. Is feeding teaching? Or does feeding come as a result of knowing, observing and acting?
Posted by: Nicks | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 10:39 AM
Just some random thoughts:
1. I wish Mike would talk about his own personal relationship with Jesus.
2. KP Yohannan, to me, seems to have partnered feeding the poor and preaching the gospel in the most wonderful way. His free book is here.
3. People who see the good news as more than feeding the poor don't wish for the poor to starve, they just see a different solution to the problem. Perhaps instead of pointing fingers the emergent church could take up a mantra of...and some were appointed to be cooks, some were appointed to be preachers. Pigeon holing Christ followers into one job seems...oddly un-postmodern & also seems to stir up ununified feelings.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 11:46 AM
You're not actually addressing the point at issue, though. No one (least of all Desmond Tutu) is saying that the Gospel reduces to a command to feed the hungry. The issue is whether the Gospel requires us to feed the hungry. And Jesus was quite firm about that:
Matthew 5:32-40
“Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me...Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”
The Gospel of Christ is about social justice as much as anything else. If we ignore that, we ignore the heart of the Gospel.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 01:56 PM
John,
First- perhaps I am misreading it, but the post is:
This is the gospel. Period. Anything else is... something else.
Not much wiggle room here.
Second-I think you are putting the horse in the cart. As a result of what I attribute to a typo, the verse you reference is not the text you printed. I suspect you intended to site Matthew 25:34-46, which clearly (in context) contrasts the action of believers (those on the right) to unbelievers (those on the left). Again, the point is that those who have heard the gospel, and are “new creatures” (2 Cor. 5:17), act differently. The Gospel brings men to the point of newness. Newness causes compassion.. Newness causes men to see things the way Jesus sees them. (1 Cor. 2:14). Feeding the hungry is a result of the gospel, it is not the gospel.
Peace and all good,
Nicks
Posted by: Nicks | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 02:32 PM
I have been wrestling with an article by Rob Bell over at Christianity Today (trying to figure out how to post it), and some parts of it may be apropros:
The Gospel message, what Jesus did for us and what should result from that, is so much more than feeding His sheep. The Gospel message should change lives, to the point that worship and service to the Lord comes naturally ... delighted to do it! When we bring our human agendas (you should be feeding the poor! that money on toys could be better spent supporting missionaries! how can a hypocritical sinner tell others what to do?) into applying the Gospel to our lives, we dilute the power of the message.It's the adventure of a lifetime ... and beyond.
Posted by: MarcV | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 03:26 PM
There are two parts to this; milk and meat. Milk is knowing God will provide, that He has compassion, learning to trust. Meat is learning/being transformed to do His will, discipleship, submission & Joy.
This is exemplified by the myth of the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus had compassion. He told the disciples to feed the crowd. Then, when they claimed they could not, He did. It looks like confirmation of the need to feed.
Afterward, Jesus words about their not understanding the meaning of the loaves and fish, say it is more than mere feeding, more than simply giving people what they want. I will try to find time to amplify this on my blog. Look for "The Myth of the Feeding of the Five Thousand".
There is a vast difference between giving people what they want, and what they need. God gives us what we need. The devil gives us what we want.
Posted by: Presbypoet | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 04:44 PM
Yes, Nicks, I missed off a 2 - look at the linked passage and you'll see you got it right. Thanks for the correction!
The point that still seems to be being missed in these comments is that we cannot dispense with feeding the hungry. I totally agree - there's more to the Gospel than that. But, if we remove that action from the Gospel, we are going against Jesus' own words. The actions of the righteous will include feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned - whoever and wherever they are. For when we do it to them, we do it to Him.
So a Gospel without a social aspect is no Gospel at all - just as much as a Gospel that only has a social aspect is no true Gospel. Desmond Tutu was correct - and Mike was, at worst, guilty of overstating the case. Read the Tutu quote again:
"The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is concerned for the whole person"
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Thursday, December 08, 2005 at 05:30 PM
John,
Who are the righteous? They are those that already have heard and accept the gospel.
If you are saying that Salvation equals faith plus works, I do not agree.
My point is that faith equals salvation plus works.
How would you answer the Phillipian jailer?
Nick
“Faith alone saves, but faith that saves is never alone” Johnny Calvin.
Rick- thanks for allowing this discussion to proceed uncensored on your site.
Posted by: Nicks | Friday, December 09, 2005 at 06:54 AM
Nicks,
I think you're trying to draw too fine a line there. Salvation, faith and works are all wrapped up together - none of the three is optional. I suspect that we agree there.
So, if salvation and faith will produce works, these words of Jesus are saying that if we fail to produce good works (if we do not feed the hungry, to minister to the whole human being) then our faith or salvation must be lacking. To proclaim the whole Gospel then requires that we declare the need to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Which is what Desmond Tutu was saying! A Gospel that is devoid of good works is a partial Gospel - for (as you said) Christians are to be remade, new people who bring forth their fruit in good works.
I'm not quite sure why people object to this - are you saying that we ought not, in fact, to feed the hungry? Because that's hard to maintain in the face of Jesus' words AFAICS. No one is saying (not even Mike) that feeding the hungry is all there is - he was responding to Tutu's assertion that Christ dealt with the whole person. As well as teaching, we must feed. As well as feeding, we must teach. Read the whole of Tutu's quote, not just one sentence. The emphasis is on the whole person - not simply their body, but not simply their "soul" either.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Friday, December 09, 2005 at 03:16 PM
John,
My objection is in the defining of the “Gospel” as having something to do with works. At some level, one’s faith may be measured by their works, but who is qualified to make that evaluation? Our old friend the thief on the cross did not participate in any good deeds, yet was assured a place in paradise, based on his understanding of the nature and character of Jesus and His death.
Yes, Christians should be involved in every manner of good deed. Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, protect the oppressed. But that is not the gospel. It is the outworking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in a believers life. It is the fruit of salvation. The Good News is the reconciliation of man and God, not the feeding of the hungry.
The “whole person” teaching sounds good, but the point of the Gospel is spiritual, not material. Jesus described is as death to life, darkness to light, born again.
Acts 7 describes a problem in the feeding of the hungry that illustrates the separation between the Gospel and deeds.
Although the services of bread was important and needed to be provided for, the ministry of the word was more important to the apostles.
Again, the question of he Phillipian jailer brings us to the core of the issue. “What must I do to be saved?”
Nicks
Posted by: | Friday, December 09, 2005 at 05:09 PM
There, then, we have a difference of opinion, Nicks. When Jesus proclaimed his mission, He didn't talk about spiritual things. He said that he had come to proclaim freedom for prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour (Luke 4:18,19). Jesus wasn't concerned only with the spirit but with the whole person - indeed, the very notion that we can separate the "spirit" from the rest of a person was invented much more recently.
Part of the reason that the Gospel must contain some of this works stuff is that, without it, the news really isn't very good! The good news is not just (or, indeed, not really) that we can be saved from our sins. The good news is that the meek will inherit the Earth, that the poor will be blessed (especially in Luke's version!). The powerful are to be put down from their thrones and the rich sent away empty (Magnificat). The Gospel is not purely spiritual - it is relentlessly social and political. For, without a social and political aspect, it cannot truly be spiritual. It would only be theoretical.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Friday, December 09, 2005 at 05:39 PM
Part of the reason that the Gospel must contain some of this works stuff is that, without it, the news really isn't very good!
This leaves me asking what place does sin have in this social type of gospel message. The irony I find is that tending to the whole person is often brought up in Christian discussions about feeding the poor. But all too often on closer inspection it appears that physical hunger is actually just a substitution and spiritual hunger takes a turn being ignored leaving the whole person still untended.
Jesus said man cannot live by bread alone. He as much said that ending physical hunger isn't the whole gospel...period.
The people of the church constantly swing from one end of the pendulum to the other. All focus on sin, no focus on bread...then all focus on bread, no focus on sin.
And all the while we feel pious about whichever end of the pendulum we happen to be sitting. I include myself here.
Which brings me back to #3 of my first comment on this thread. Everyone has different jobs to do. Acts 6 is pretty clear:
The trouble is is that like Mary & Martha, one side is busy sitting at Jesus feet and the other is bitter because they feel like they're doing all the work. Again Jesus take on this situation was pretty clear too.
Sorry guys this was a pretty long interruption of your very interesting conversation.
Posted by: Leslie | Friday, December 09, 2005 at 08:20 PM
Mary & Martha passage here.
Posted by: Leslie | Friday, December 09, 2005 at 08:26 PM
But, Leslie, my point is precisely that we cannot ignore either. Saying that some people miss out the spiritual aspect doesn't excuse our missing out the social. Too much focus on the "spiritual" leads us to neglect totally actually caring for our neighbour's physical needs - whereas Jesus commanded us to look after our neighbour and to love her as ourself.
I am in no way trying to say that dealing with sin is unimportant - it is crucial. But we must talk about what a regenerated life actually means as well. It's all very well to say "we will be made new" but unless we talk about what that means, we're just spouting hot air. And Jesus is very clear what it means, in loving our neighbour and caring for their real physical and social needs.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Saturday, December 10, 2005 at 04:59 AM
John, you say we can't ignore either, yet you also say that the gospel message alone isn't very good news.
Yes we are to care for the needy. I know from reading the post on your own blog that you may disagree, but I just don't see anyone disputing that here. The discussion really is that to elevate feeding people to the point where sin & redemption are unnecessary subjects (as was implied in this case with the "that's all the gospel is...period" comment) is another story.
When you say:
I would say:
For what it's worth, I work with kids & see real hunger daily & am passionate to end it. But in reality food is a temporary fix. Life on Earth is temporary, fleeting in fact. The power of the gospel is so much more.
Posted by: Leslie | Saturday, December 10, 2005 at 06:31 PM
John,
True, but I am afraid that what for us is a theoretical difference of opinion, for some is life and death. Not just here on earth, but eternally.
There is a difference between how one gets made new (the Gospel), and the behavior of one who is made new (discipleship).
The Gospel, the good news is that man and God are reconciled. No good behavior, no feeding the poor, no baptism, nothing but Jesus’ subsidiary atonement. A free gift. To add to that is not only not the gospel it diminishes Jesus’ death as insufficient on its own.
What better news is there than man can live for eternity in heaven with God? What better news than
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1 (NASB)
What was the result of the gospel in the first century? Poverty, persecution and hunger. Christians banded together to feed each other. To support each other. It was significantly later that the church had any ability to do the good deeds we are discussing outside the body of believers.
Again, the question of he Philippian jailer brings us to the core of the issue. “What must I do to be saved?”
Nicks
Posted by: Nicks | Saturday, December 10, 2005 at 09:59 PM
I think that Leslie and Nicks are trying to draw too tight a cord around the "Gospel", limiting it to personal salvation only. When we read Jesus' words, however, and when we read what Paul wrote, the sense is not one of personal salvation - or, at least, not centrally. There is much talk of salvation, but it's usually communal - a saved people, a holy priesthood and so on. Indeed, Jesus rarely talked about salvation after death at all. He talked about people being freed from their sin now. To see things only in terms of personal salvation and heaven-when-we-die is too narrow. I do not believe that we can separate (as you seem to want to) "Gospel" and "discipleship". There is no meaningful division between the message that leads to our redemption, the message that means that we grow in faith and the message that leads to our taking action in the world.
I suspect that the entire problem here is that some people want to use "Gospel" for a neatly packaged, discrete entity that brings someone to personal "salvation" and that's it. My point is that this is not the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed, this is not the Gospel that any New Testament writer wrote about. Always and everywhere, we see salvation in corporate terms, and as tied up with regeneration and its outworking - which means nothing less than a new set of priorities and actions. If salvation and action are tied together as closely as they are in the Bible, the question then becomes, why the opposition to talking about them together? It's meaningless to talk about regeneration in the abstract - we need concrete action.
Finally, two points. First, no one here is suggesting that feeding the poor alone is a substitute for a relationship with God through Christ - not Desmond Tutu, not Mike and not me. The problem is that, as soon as someone says that social action is essential to the Gospel, there is a reaction that says "personal salvation is all that matters". And that's what I'm responding to here. It might not be what was meant, but it's how it comes across, because of the over-emphasis on personal salvation.
Second, an answer to the question "What better news is there than man can live for eternity in heaven with God?" How about that we can live in heaven with God right here on Earth? Heaven is where God is - it's not a different world that we go to after we die. It starts here and it starts now. If we're in relationship with God, we're in heaven right now. And that we need to work to bring heaven more fully into being here. That work will never be finished before God makes all things new, but that's no reason not to start. Then, when we are in heaven when we die, it won't be a strange place.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Sunday, December 11, 2005 at 09:19 AM
John,
How do you respond to the Philippian jailer? “What must I do to be saved?”
Nick
Posted by: Nicks | Sunday, December 11, 2005 at 02:21 PM
And with Nick's question I'd like to add what about the Apostles in Acts 6?
I'm genuinely asking. I'd like to know how this view of the gospel approaches the Apostles actions.
Posted by: Leslie | Sunday, December 11, 2005 at 03:00 PM
Nicks,
The Philippian jailer (assuming you're referring to Acts 16:30) is hardly a good example here, because he was asking two questions. First, and probably foremost in his mind "How can I avoid being killed by my bosses when they learn that I've set you free?". The second question, the one to which you refer, is asked of someone who's just caused a miraculous event: "How can I get to know this powerful god?" The answer is "believe in Jesus" - which means "enter into relationship with Jesus" (the root of "believe" is the same as that of "love" - it's got nothing at all to do with assent to doctrines), which means to begin to change - which begs exactly the question I've been asking: change into what? Without an answer to how we will change, there is nothing to indicate what a relationship with Jesus actually means - and, in particular, nothing to tell us what this Jesus is like. The character of Christ is what compels our actions - we cannot love Christ and not act in love of our neighbour (as you all seem to agree). That being so, how can we possibly share Christ without sharing Christ's concerns?
The most important point about this event, though, is that it's not a sharing of the Gospel - it's meeting a question that's already been asked. The hard work has already been done. The jailer is responding and needs only a little help to take that step. The Gospel here has to start with the beginning of the story - the healing of the possessed girl, their speech to defend themselves, their behaviour when captured and imprisoned, the miraculous earthquake. Without the whole story, there can only be a partial gospel.
Leslie,
I don't quite know what you're asking here. Are you saying that appointing deacons to care for the poor in the church was not a social action of care for those very people? Surely, the apostles' actions here are to recognise that they had to act to care for the poor, and also to recognise that they themselves had other tasks as well that meant they didn't have time to do it themselves. Thus, they appointed others who would, under the apostles, take daily care of the poor.
Certainly, I don't think it shows in any way that the apostles thought that their mission didn't involve care for the poor - the answer in that case would have been "Don't bother us with these petty details. We are about God's business." No - the answer is "We are about God's business, so we must take care of these details."
Indeed, if we read the apostles' preaching (such as Peter's first address at Pentecost), his focus isn't on getting into heaven but about changing the people's wicked ways - repent and be baptised. Repenting isn't about getting forgiveness, it's about changing ourselves (with God's grace). Which is again merely to ask, change into what?
So, my question is again how we can possibly phrase the saving news of Christ in such a way as to remove any idea that we must help our neighbour without also removing every hint of who Christ is and hence of why we should want to know Him. That, as far as I can see, leaves only "repent or burn", which is not the Gospel.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Sunday, December 11, 2005 at 05:26 PM
Are you saying that appointing deacons to care for the poor in the church was not a social action of care for those very people?
Why would I ever think that? I’m saying that it’s notable to see the leaders of the church delegating other people to this task so they could focus on ministry of prayer and the word. The two tasks, both vital, are not necessarily inextricably linked.
According to the way I hear you referring to the heart of the gospel, it would seem that the Apostles were pushing the “important” jobs onto others while focussing their own energies on the part that is, as you say, “no gospel at all”.
Why do I find this passage notable? I will say again, it shows me that we are called to different tasks. It seems counterproductive for those who feel called to feed the poor to belittle those who feel called to prayer and ministry of the word, yet it happens a lot these days. It works against achieving that coveted post-modern unity we all long for.
Perhaps it would be possible to grant a tiny bit of the benefit of the doubt that, just maybe, people who feel called to prayer and ministry of the Word have a broader depth of concern than merely “repent or burn”. If it was possible for the Apostles, surely God would make it is possible for people today.
Repenting isn't about getting forgiveness, it's about changing ourselves (with God's grace).
This is a commonly held idea, but it always leaves me wondering what need is there for God if we are able to change ourselves? Isn’t it really like saying, how nice of God to offer us his grace, but really we should do all the tough stuff ourselves.
So, my question is again how we can possibly phrase the saving news of Christ in such a way as to remove any idea that we must help our neighbour without also removing every hint of who Christ is and hence of why we should want to know Him
To my knowledge, no one here is suggesting that. My concern began when you said the gospel message without a good work attached isn’t very good news. I understand that tangibly loving people is the way to show Christ’s love, but to phrase things this way makes me and my works the exciting part of Christ’s death and resurrection. Now I imagine you’d be quick to point out that is not what you meant, and that very well may be, but it is the logical implication of what you said.
I prefer to look at my good works as an outpouring of God’s work in my life. Then I can give all glory to him.
Posted by: Leslie | Sunday, December 11, 2005 at 08:13 PM
John,
Although I am not sure I agree with your exposition, lets go with it, and see if I am following:
First comes the temporal, his physical need. Much like hunger or cold.
Here is the spiritual need. How can I get a right relationship with the creator of the universe. The most high and Holy God? The one who has changed your (Paul’s) life?
Paul only answers the spiritual question. He does it directly and succinctly. Yes, his actions leading up to this sets the stage, as do ours, but first and foremost Paul answers the spiritual question. This is the good news. This is the starting point. How can I have a relationship with God that transcends my temporal condition, just like Paul demonstrated.
Actually, according to the NAS Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries by New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance Project Staff, Robert L. Thomas, Th.D., General Editor Updated by W. Don Wilkins, Th.M., Ph.D. of The Lockman Foundation, the word translated believe is pisteuo; from pistis; from peitho
(The number in parenthesis is the number of times the original word is translated by the listed English word)
pisteuo is translated as follows; to believe, entrust:—believe (118), believed (73), believers (3), believes (29), believing (10), do (1), entrust (1), entrusted (6), entrusting (1), has faith (1).
pistis; is translated as faith, faithfulness:—faith (238), faithfulness(3), pledge (1), proof (1).
And peitho a primary verb; to persuade, to have confidence:—assure (1), confident (3), convinced (7), followed (2), have confidence (2), having confidence (2), listen (1), obey (3), obeying (1), persuade (4), persuaded (8), persuading (1), put...trust (1), put confidence (1), put...confidence (1), relied (1), seeking the favor (1), sure (2), took...advice (1), trust (2), trusted (1), trusting (1), trusts (1), urging (1), win...over (1), won over (2).
It, nor its roots, are ever translated love in the New American Standard. All have something to do with the placing of confidence and trust. Obviously my confidence cannot be in my works, so it must rest wholly on Jesus' works and words.(Jesus lists His three witnesses, His works, the Father, and the Scripture in John 5:36-47)
Thanks for your articulate defense of your position. I suspect that after your reply we should consider moving on to the next polemic.
Nicks
Posted by: Nicks | Monday, December 12, 2005 at 07:44 AM
Leslie,
"According to the way I hear you referring to the heart of the gospel, it would seem that the Apostles were pushing the “important” jobs onto others while focussing their own energies on the part that is, as you say, “no gospel at all”."
Ah, but we're here starting to confuse the jobs of individuals with the whole Gospel of Christ! Of course, we all have our own roles and we each will be more capable of and drawn to different areas. So, I would in no way expect all Christians to be spending every waking hour helping the helpless - just as I wouldn't expect all Christians to spend all day in contemplation.
So each of has our own strengths, but the whole truth of Christ is still there.
"Perhaps it would be possible to grant a tiny bit of the benefit of the doubt that, just maybe, people who feel called to prayer and ministry of the Word have a broader depth of concern than merely “repent or burn”."
I'm not saying that at all. Indeed, I specifically mentioned "repent or burn" only as the logical conclusion of a path that removes everything except the individual from the Gospel. We must, as I've said repeatedly, address the whole person. That means that we should absolutely try to bring people to know Christ - but that we should also try to meet their own physical, emotional and social needs, as well as to show them how they will need to help others themselves.
So, as in the example of the apostles, each of us does what we feel called to - but we preach a Gospel that covers the full work of God.
"what need is there for God if we are able to change ourselves?"
I did add "with God's grace", and I did so quite deliberately! We cannot change ourselves into the people God wants us to be - we need God's grace to do that. We cannot know God through our own efforts - we need God's grace to do that. The fact remains, though, that we do need to change, and that we must want to change, and that we must make efforts to change. Which all emphasises again that we need to know what we are to change into.
"I prefer to look at my good works as an outpouring of God’s work in my life. Then I can give all glory to him."
There, we agree. But if the result of God's work in your life (and mine, I hope) is in part our good works, surely those good works are part of the good news? My worry is that when we say "believe and be saved", that's not enough - it's not the Gospel Jesus preached, the Gospel Paul preached or the Gospel that we actually practice (or at least that we should practice). If we set our boundaries too close around the Gospel, around what we believe to be central, then we impoverish our expression of that Gospel. I fully agree that Jesus came and lived and died and rose again in order to save sinners - but I believe that what that means is that those sinners are to be changed into Jesus' likeness. And that means that the Gospel means that Christ came to turn us into His image. And that means that Christ came so that we would act like He did. And that means that Christ came so that we would do the things He would do. This chain of reasoning (which is really very short - mostly, it is just rephrasing the same thing in a slightly different way) applies just as much as saying that Christ came to save us from our sins, which means that He came to bring us into relationship with God, which means that He came to bring us eternal life, which means that we will never die but will live eternally with God when God makes all things new. Both are true, and neither is sufficient by itself.
If we take only the former, we have the problem you see - a Gospel that is all outward work and no God centre. If we take only the latter, we have the problem I see - a Gospel that is all self-centred and isn't concerned with this world at all. The art is, I think, to find the balance: a place where we can hold both together. And a confidence that lets us accept that other people will express things differently to us but know and trust the same God.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Monday, December 12, 2005 at 04:11 PM
Nicks,
First off, I can't debate the Greek - I don't know Greek, and I'll happily defer to your knowledge.
When I talked about the root of the word "believe", I meant the English word, not whatever Greek words are translated that way. However, the senses of the two are similar enough that the point I was trying (possibly failing!) to make is still true - that the point is not an intellectual assent but an emotional response. To put our trust in someone, to have faith in them, is not an intellectual decision but an emotional one. And this applies to God also - we have faith because our emotions tell us so. Sure, our intellect is involved but the intellect analyses, it doesn't drive us.
Our confidence can never lie in our works - that's quite a different debate! We trust in God, not ourselves.
And, finally, to turn to your first point (!), the issue of which question Paul answers. It is true that Paul answers the second, spiritual, question. The point I was making, though, is that this isn't a clearcut presentation of the Gospel that we can use as an example of what the Gospel is. Not least, this conversation is only the end of the story. It's not sensible to divorce it from the beginning and middle of the stories. The Gospel to this jailer must include all that he saw Paul and friends do. Paul preached the Gospel in his actions and, where necessary, he used words. So the jailer saw healing, concern for individuals, sharing the events of Jesus' life , death and resurrection, confidence and calmness even when imprisoned, all sorts of things. And these help to form the Gospel - which includes the physical, social actions that Paul took in, for example, healing people. Which means, I think, that if this story tells us anything about what the Gospel is, it is that the Gospel is everything that we do - which must contain good works as evidence and demonstration of what we say. Not that our good works have power, but that they talk of the goodness of the God who motivates us to do them, and of His concern for the least of His creations.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Monday, December 12, 2005 at 04:20 PM
John, I find much to agree on in your last comment to me. In fact, well said.
Still as the emergent church develops & I hear people talking about being Christ followers & emphasizing our actions, then I see the pendulum swinging in this direction:
Ah, but we're here starting to confuse the jobs of individuals with the whole Gospel of Christ!
I really agree with where you're going with this statement, but from past conversations I've listened to & participated in, here & elsewhere, it seems to me that this is the biggest potential pitfall of the emergent church. It's human nature to become proud of our actions & for the church to focus on its works may be fine in the beginning, but the probability of it turning into its very undo-ing is great & the consequences are grave.
In principle, the emergent church has so much promise. But, unless everyone proceeds with a clear focus on the truth's of Christ, the church will once again run itself into the ocean like a swarm of lemmings. History has proven the church has a habit of doing this. Repeatedly.
I don't advocate inaction. I'm hoping you see that. I am merely anxious for the church to resist the ever present temptation of putting its faith in human action.
Posted by: Leslie | Monday, December 12, 2005 at 07:43 PM
Leslie,
I'm not really sure how this became about the emergent church. I'm not energent, Mike isn't and Desmond Tutu certainly isn't! The only place it's been referred to in this whole debate is in the (somewhat random) title to this blog post.
Still, if we've managed to explain to one another why we feel the way we do and even come to a measure of agreement, that's a very good thing. This is one of the things I like about blogs - the chance to discuss things with people with very different backgrounds and opinions, and to understand one another better.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 03:21 AM
I suppose labels such as emergent are unpleasantly limiting.
Forgive me if I misunderstood the affiliations of the whatever.
I've misunderstood his list of fellow travelers too: Doug Pagitt, Emergent US, Cedar Ridge Community Church, etc.
Some people think of those guys as part of the emergent movement.
Postmodern conversation is a most slippery fish. The people of the world associate with whatever groups or ideas they wish -- and with that I suppose they bob & weave here & there as they see fit.
But, you're correct. Ferreting out the details & learning more about one another is a good thing. Even better if a bit of agreement can be found.
Posted by: Leslie | Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 07:28 PM
I guess I assume that someone is part of the emergent church if they go to an "emergent church". If they just read the books, that doesn't means they're part of "emergent" - not even if they like them. There are bloggers who certainly are part of emergent, others who observe and comment. I think Mike's one of the latter group. I'm not trying to be postmodern here, just accurate.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 03:09 AM
Realised that I missed the main point - it doesn't matter IMO what label someone wants to wear, or which group we see them as being in. We don't have to assume that everyone who thinks the same way on a particular issue is in the same group. It's not a matter of bobbing and weaving, just that we don't all agree on everything. We might agree on only one thing, or on everything except one thing. One can't assume from agreement on one point that two people agree on everything - especially group labels!
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 03:22 AM
I guess John, I'm kind of amazed at how these last comments of yours in concert with the previous ones really do demonstrate the postmodern discussion model.
A most consistent display.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 01:02 PM
I'm not sure how to take that last comment, Leslie. It sounds rather like an insult, I'm afraid. Which is a shame.
I believe that I have been pretty consistent in what I've said. In my very first comment here, I said: "No one (least of all Desmond Tutu) is saying that the Gospel reduces to a command to feed the hungry. The issue is whether the Gospel requires us to feed the hungry." Which is pretty much where we ended up.
If you're talking about this deal with labels, I'm sorry if I've been confusing. Basically, I find that labels are often used as barriers to discussion or to denigrate someone else's opinion ("Well, they're a liberal, they would say that..."). That's not even slightly postmodern - it's just saying that arbitrary distinctions are often drawn in the wrong places. Far better to discuss specific examples and ideas than blanket categorisations. If you want me to adopt a label myself to describe my approach to faith, the one I find most useful is borrowed from the Anglican Franciscan movement of which I am part - "evangelical catholic". I've never been associated in any way with this thing called "emergent". I've not even read any of "those" books!
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 02:16 PM
I'm quite sure I wasn't trying to be insulting...although I suppose if you're a not a fan of the postmodern emergent church I could see how you might take it that way. I'm sorry. And by mentioning the contents of Mike's blogroll etc. I absolutely did not intend for that to cast any comment on your own emergent affiliations or lack thereof.
I guess I was finding that your discussion about labels (of which I happen to agree with portions) was ironic in light of reading comments on your own blog seemed imply that those who don't embrace a social gospel really embrace a get to heaven only gospel. That too is a label, only maybe with a clunkier name. It is even one that might feel like a bit of an insult if heard while in a sensitive mood.
In fact, as you said before, it sounds a lot like assuming disagreement with other aspects of my belief because of disagreement over this particular point.
Look I don't want to argue and it would seem that since we have returned to the ideological starting point, as you so accurately noted, that this would be a good time to thank you and wish you well.
Take care.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 08:58 PM
Hmm. This might be transient, given that typepad was down earlier today, but we seem to have lost all comments here from the past 5 days. Which would be a shame.
Any ideas where they've gone?
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Friday, December 16, 2005 at 04:15 AM
>>My objection is in the defining of the “Gospel” as having something to do with works. At some level, one’s faith may be measured by their works, but who is qualified to make that evaluation? Our old friend the thief on the cross did not participate in any good deeds, yet was assured a place in paradise, based on his understanding of the nature and character of Jesus and His death.
Point 1: The Western children of the Reformers have traded the Catholic works for a Protestant "understanding". Consequently, there is no solo gracia in Protestantism.
Point 2: Jesus never used the word 'gospel' in the context of heaven or hell. He used it in the context of invoking the presence of God in the affairs of men, including and especially the granting of comfort to society's victims. Paul never used the word 'gospel' in the context of heaven and hell either.
Conclusion: It is an entirely contrived view that makes the gospel into some 'understanding' that assures one of some eternal standing.
My bottom line:
Look, folks, Jesus said to take care of the poor. It's a major theme of Scripture, and it's at the core of how the Bible treats the issue of justice. Who gives a rats ass if feeding the poor is a prerequisite to or evidence of salvation or not? Just go do it. If salvation is truly by grace, then it doesn't matter if Nick or John has part of the equation wrong. What matters is that we follow Jesus.
Posted by: Zossima | Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 06:49 PM
Zossima,
You are completely right about the absence of grace alone in the protestant churches. It's a human tendency to want to earn our way, which is why this issue always reappears.
On many issues I'd join you in saying what difference does it make if one or the other is wrong, but to apply that here reduces the importance and danger of sin for the human soul.
To me, this whole question is like having someone tied to the train tracks with a nearing train's whistle blowing in the distance with the rest of us standing around trying to decide what to do. One wants to untie him before the train runs him over and the other wants to make sure he's not hungry in his final hours.
That doesn't mean I'm endorsing whapping people over the head with their sin, and it certainly doesn't mean we should only feed the Christian poor or not feed others at all. But it does mean that the church these days is getting more and more comfortable with ignoring the harsh realities of our sinful state. Both sides of the debate claim both sides of the equation are important, but emphasize their own pet side in order to compensate for the supposed exaggeration of the other. CS Lewis talks about that here:
Sin is a big deal. And the removal of it is not just freedom from oppression for this short life on Earth, it's means freedom from oppression forever.
Posted by: Leslie | Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 11:25 AM
"One wants to untie him before the train runs him over and the other wants to make sure he's not hungry in his final hours."
Ah, but I've been consistenly saying that I want to untie him from the rails and also feed him supper :-)
Your quotation from Lewis is useful, though, because the question here isn't one of whether it's better to save from sin or save from oppression. The question has always been explicitly whether it's enough merely to save from sin or whether Jesus requires us also to save from oppression.
That is, there's no one here proposing the mere feeding of the hungry, nor anyone saying that merely feeding is better than merely saving. The debate is, and always has been, about whether we should be about saving souls or saving whole people.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 03:34 AM
Leslie, nobody has said that sin isn't a big deal. That's not at stake here. Earlier, I said that at some level it doesn't matter whether one thinks feeding the poor is a prerequisite of or evidence of salvation. I still think that, because it's part of the satanic dichotomy identified in your Lewis quote. (So is 'liberal' and 'conservative', btw.)
That said (again), though, I side with John, as you know. And part of the reason is that I take sin seriously. We in the West look at sin and its consequences from the standpoint of the perpetrators: WE have offended God, our in need of his mercy, etc.
But God's justice in Scripture clearly has another side, that of justice for victims. (Of course, most people are both.) The OT is filled with admonition to and judgment of God's people for their treatment of the poor. And Jesus' own stated mission was Is. 61.
When we are not actively engaged in setting the captives free from the effects of sin, we are not being christian, nor are we communicating the gospel. (And doesn't it make sense that the only way some people are going to realize their own sin is if someone sets them free from the effects of sin done to them?) If we miss this aspect of the gospel, I dare say we're missing the gospel entirely. To reduce the gospel to a set of propositions about how 'my sin' has offended God, claim Jesus' forgiveness, but ignore how my sin affects 3rd world sweat-shop workers (or at best send someone to communicate the convenient 'gospel' of the West to them that they, too, have sinned) is itself sin.
Posted by: Zossima | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 07:55 AM
Zossima,
Prerequisite. That’s the core of the problem. If you make it a prerequisite you have negated Jesus claim of teleo It is FINISHED. Thus you claim some part in your salvation. This is contrary to scripture. And sin is THE big deal.
Notice that the Bible says we are saved to do good works. Not by good works. Who cares about feeding the poor if they are bound for hell? What good was that? Feeding the poor is an evidence of things other than salvation. Paul said in Ephesians it was a sign of pride. Its not only the saved that engage in good deeds.
The whole good deeds thing is one of the reasons the Pharisees missed Jesus. They expected a temporal, physical rescue from bondage. It’s no wonder the account in John 4 has the hills white with harvest. The Samaritans had no such notions. Jesus offered a spiritual, eternal Peace with God.
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5:1 (NASB)
It’s not only we in the West. We HAVE offended a Holy God. We ARE in need of His Mercy. The bible speaks to this from cover to cover.
Why are men subject to God’s wrath? SIN
Precisely. God’s people are held accountable. How do you get to be one of God’s people?
I suspect you are referring to Jesus us of Isa. 61:1-2 quoted in Luke 4:14-20.
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me
As the Rabbi would understand, Jesus was claiming Messiah ship. The word anointed could be translated Messiah.
It is Important to see where He stops reading in Is 61:2
Reads:
To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD A comment on His fist coming
Does Not Read:
And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, A comment on the second coming.
Isaiah would have been understood in context of the setting free of the captives from Egyptian bondage. That was the great event that the Messiah was looked to repeat. That the point of the feeding of the 5000. It was a sign of the messiah to repeat the provision of manna in the wilderness. Isaiah 35 contains a brief summary of what the Jews looked for as evidence of the Messiah.
There are many examples of Jesus fulfilling this as evidence of who He was.
…Nicks
Posted by: Nicks | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 10:20 AM
Nicks,
Be careful in quoting selectively from the NT and hence "proving" that good works are merely a secondary, derivative thing. Try reading the letter of James alongside those passages and see whether his emphasis is the same.
James was so offensive to Luther's belief that good works were essentially worthless that he wanted his letter removed from the Bible! Better, surely, to take it as a corrective to such extreme views. James reminds us that good works cannot be divorced from faith. Faith that does not produce good works is not faith at all, he says. So, we must expect that any real faith will produce good works - which means that we cannot remove feeding the hungry from "believe and be saved". The very act of truly believing in Christ will cause us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and so on.
As has been said again and again here, it is not biblical to say that personal sin is the central part of Jesus' message. He spent much more time talking about and demonstrating love for neighbour than concern for our own eternal fate. This is not to say that there are not important truths about personal salvation (crucial truths [pun intended]), but that they are not the whole truth - indeed, in isolation, they are not the truth at all.
The greatest commandments, according to Jesus, were love God and love our neighbour. Loving God means that we will try to stop sinning, but it means far more than just that negative aspect. It means that we will start to do the things God wants, not merely refrain from the things God does not want. Loving neighbour is part and parcel of that. Loving God means that we will love our neighbour. Loving our neighbour means that we will feed the hungry, clothe the naked and so on. This is central, for it is the meaning of the words.
The only controversy here seems to be the claim that salvation is only about belief, not action. But the Bible says that the two are inextricably linked - we cannot talk about faith without also talking about action. Which is what Desmond Tutu was saying: Jesus is concerned with the whole person, not just their "soul".
In your last comment, Nicks, you're even verging on saying that we shouldn't do good works at all! That, because unsaved people can do good things, we shouldn't bother because they're not "proof" of salvation. I'm sure you don't mean that, but it's how you're starting to come across. No one is saying that good works are what counts for salvation. What we are saying is that, without good works, our faith is worthless and our Gospel powerless. Neither "faith" nor "works" is right by itself. Wneed both faith and the good works that flow from it, for without faith we have no relationship with God and without works our faith is dead.
pax et bonum
Posted by: John | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 11:51 AM
There aren't rules. Sometimes you need to feed, and sometimes you must give the homeless man a cigarette. Other times, you must give nothing.
Why aren't there rules? Because the Bible isn't a rule book. It is a book written by men who heard from God. It is not rules. If you follow all 613 laws, (like the rich young ruler), you still are brought up short by Jesus simple request/answer. If you (addressing this specific young man) are serious. "Go sell all you have and give it to the poor and follow Me".(Luke 18:18-25). Each of us have things that own us. We must be prepared to sell/give them up. That story isn't about giving to the poor, it is about what controls the rich young ruler. It asks us. "Will you give up what owns you?"
This is not doing things to earn our way to heaven. It isn't breaking the law to help illegal aliens sneak into the country. It isn't doing anything. Paul put it so well in his love chapter (1st Corinthians 13:1-3). "If I have not love…"
Jesus didn't heal everyone. He waits two days to go raise Lazarus from the dead. After feeding thousands he tells His disciples they don't understand the lesson of the loaves and fish. God provides. I know this, I live it. It is all about obedience. But not obedience to rules that say Christianity is about healing, feeding, giving. Instead it is about how we become new creation, and in the refining process, we come to be so polished, we reflect Jesus to the world. He asks His disciples to introduce others to Him. The greatest gift you can give to anyone is to introduce them to Jesus.
I find it interesting ; Time's man of the year is Bill Gates, and others involved in "giving". Microsoft is the most powerful monopoly since Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Having stolen billions, the monopolist tries to look like he isn't a thief, by giving some of it away. We are impressed. God isn't. Jesus told the story of the widow's mite. When Gates gives away part of his stolen loot, he is like Ananias, another thief who tried to impress by giving up some of the loot (Acts 5:1-12). He got death. God is not mocked. If the rich young ruler had given away all he had, but not followed Jesus, it would all have been for naught.
The question for us:
Will we surrender all? Submit, then follow Him in fearless, joyful, obedience?
Posted by: Presbypoet | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 06:00 PM
>>Leslie, nobody has said that sin isn't a big deal.
Zossima, I know that you see sin as important. Others don't. Or they say they do, but when then you examine their overall approach it appears that they don't.
Whatever the case, it's a trend I find concerning.
I also know that you and I see the whole justice/salvation thing differently. I still can't reconcile separating the world into two groups of people...the victims and the others. The way I see it, we all start out slaves to sin regardless of our circumstances. The beauty of the faith for me is its equalizing nature...the poorest of the poor and the richest of royalty begin at the same point in the eyes of God.
John,
>>Ah, but I've been consistenly saying that I want to untie him from the rails and also feed him supper :-)
True, you have been most consistent about repeating this John, however I hope you will understand that your diligence in defending Mike's point of view (who is equally consistent in giving a distinctly opposite impression) makes it difficult for me to believe that you really mean it. Either you are saying one thing and meaning another (I hope not.), or you do not read Waving or Drowning very often (a possibility), or Mike is a poor communicator & isn't able to articulate his true thoughts very well. (Although Mike has always seemed pretty articulate to me.)
I'm sure you and I would both agree that in the grand scheme of things, my point of view on your point of view is of precious little value to the greater good.
Posted by: Leslie | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 06:50 PM
John,
I am quite careful in my selection of texts. I have read James many times and find no inconsistency with Paul, or the idea that works are a byproduct of salvation, not a prerequisite for. I have only scanned the comments but it appears that I am the only one regularly and specifically appealing to the authority of scripture. I see many vague references to what Jesus said, and this and that, with very little scripture referenced to support the argument. If I have quoted out of context, or applied faulty exegesis, speak up. In my mind there is no greater evil than to mis-use scripture.
GREAT! You are correct. Any real faith will PRODUCE good works. If I have real faith with no works and die, I go to heaven. For example the thief on the cross. If I have good deeds and no faith, I face as Paul says the wrath of God.
Yes it has been said many times. Got some scripture to support it?
They are inextricably linked. First comes faith. Then comes discipleship. We cannot talk about action until we have spoken of faith. Good deeds without faith is pride.
YIKES ! It’s difficult to communicate this way since there is very little feed back. I’m glad you made this observation.
As you note, I certainly do not mean that we should not be involved in good works. My point is that good deeds are not always an evidence of salvation, since the world will do good deeds for selfish reasons. Believers do good deeds out of the overflow of the heart. Its not out of obligation, but out of gratitude and love. We treat others as we have been treated. With love and forgiveness.
As I quoted before, faith alone saves, but faith that saves is never alone.
Maranatha,
Nicks
Posted by: Nicks | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 07:29 PM
>>the poorest of the poor and the richest of royalty begin at the same point in the eyes of God.
Leslie, I think you'd have a hard time proving this from scripture. Jesus says it is the rich who have a hard time entering the kingdom, not the poor. The OT repeatedly castigates the Jewish people for not caring for the poor.
The fact is, the poor hold a special place in God's heart, not because they are inherently better, but because part of God's justice is that all people have access to the table of society (for both sustenance and fellowship). The poor are not better in and of themselves but they are the victims of rich society's writing of the rules.
Justice for perpetrators only is no justice at all, as any of us who wonder why criminals get to go free after short sentences can attest. God's justice is freedom for perpetrators and freedom for victims, and the freedom of all is found in the blood of Jesus which does so much more than merely bring some ethereal 'clean slate' in some future imagined eternity. It brings the freedom for all to live in the reality of the kingdom right now. And we who have everthing in Christ are to take care of those who have nothing so that they will come to the richness and freedom of Christ and join us in the divine caring of giving all for the sake of God and others.
Posted by: Zossima | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 08:39 PM
>>I am the only one regularly and specifically appealing to the authority of scripture.
No, Nick, you appeal to the authority of a particular interpretation of Scriptures specifically selected to prove desired points. You claim to be appealing to the 'authority of scripture', when you are merely presenting arguments derived from a particular hermeneutic that you have chosen to become somewhat learned in, largely because it is the hermeneutic that your community has embraced.
You claim an authority for Scripture that it never claims for itself (Scripture always points to God as the authority, not itself), then imply that you objectively interpret it on top of that.
>>In my mind there is no greater evil than to mis-use scripture.
Well, scripture would claim many greater evils, unless you are implying that Scripture *is* God. Clearly such an elevation of the Word is elitist, placing proper interpretation of the Word in the hands of the educated. The Word itself holds up the weak and humble, not the learned or rich, as exemplars of God.
I do not take a granular Western proof-texting approach to interpretation, where passages from different parts of the Word are taken out of a historical context, fitted together thematically (according to the interpreter's discression) like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and then back-filled onto the rest of Scripture, which is what dispensationalists and others do to the gospels, and then claim to be objectively discerning the 'authority of scripture'.
Rather than do this, I try to see broad themes in Scripture (part of my natural learning style), such as the repeated intervention of God in space and time to *physically* redeem people. I try to understand the story, not to take a book that is a compilation of stories and letters and turn it into a textbook, as if God can be understood by the scientific method.
I've referenced the story and the themes several times, while you merely appeal to pet passages and a convenient modern interpretation of those passages that requires that the physical (and 'incarnational') nature of God's redemptive activity in the OT and the similar redemptive example of Jesus' ministry be dismissed because "salvation is spiritual".
Posted by: Zossima | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 10:20 PM
Jesus wasn't saying that God placed barriers to entry for the rich. The rich have the resources to trick themselves into believing they don't need God to succeed and so reject him. (A problem the western church has right now.) Aren't the implications of what you're saying that God created rich people so they could be damned? What kind of God would do that?
From Galatians 3:
[...]
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Slave nor free in Christ Jesus. The whole world is a prisoner to sin. Sounds like pretty even footing -- how else is there to interpret that?
Let me add this earlier verse from the same chapter since it seems to also apply to the other stuff:
I don't know. It just seems like lately people are trying to save the poor through their own human effort. It's human nature to head in that direction, and in this case it becomes so ugly: The poor need me. What will the poor do if they don't have me? Somehow it all feels demeaning to me. I don't suppose that's the intention of most, but too often it seems like that's the way it plays out.
Posted by: Leslie | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 10:26 PM
Jesus implied that the 'barriers to entry' are of their own making. If they are damned, it is their own choice, not God's.
>>The whole world is a prisoner to sin. Sounds like pretty even footing -- how else is there to interpret that?
I can't conclude 'even footing' from that. It just says that everyone is a prisoner. It doesn't say that the rich are equally prisoners or equally guilty/culpable as the poor. (Not all prisoners in the prison have committed the same crimes.) And even if it did say that, you would have to reconcile it with Jesus clear teachings that it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom. You would have to reconcile it with God's repeated judgment on Israel/Judah in part for neglecting the poor. It wasn't the poor who neglected the poor. It was the rich.
The 'human effort' argument is not valid. If we know that we are supposed to do something and don't do it (because we're waiting for the Spirit to prompt us or for any other reason), it is sin. Given that billions of people live on less than $2/day, I think we could use a lot more human effort. But I agree that we will not conquer this issue until there is some submission to the divine.
The Calvinism that undergirds your concern about 'human effort' is unmistakeable. Does that Calvinism only bother you if God has indeed damned the rich? Does it bother you if our 'gospel' damns the poor?
Posted by: Zossima | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 11:46 PM
Zossima, first you say:
If they are damned, it is their own choice, not God's.
Then you say:
...you would have to reconcile it with Jesus clear teachings that it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom.
Isn’t it possible to start out on the same footing & have different sets of distractions that keep us from recognizing our need for God?
To invalidate the “‘human effort’ argument” out of hand appears to completely ignore the message of Galatians...and while we're at it, Romans. I don’t think you do completely ignore them, but if you’re going to keep yourself from committing some of same the interpretational mistakes you claim Nick to be making, wouldn’t the broader themes of Scripture have to at least acknowledge some of it? I'm asking; not telling.
Finally, John Calvin wasn’t the first & he wasn’t the only one concerned with human effort. If I didn't know any better, it sounds like the poor are being made out to be the elect here. The way I see it, the rich & poor are damned alike...it is the Lord who offers a way out to all.
But I agree that we will not conquer this issue until there is some submission to the divine.
And here lies my passion. The people will be served when we yield to God. It is why I pray to go there first.
Posted by: Leslie | Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 02:01 AM
>>Isn’t it possible to start out on the same footing & have different sets of distractions that keep us from recognizing our need for God?
Yes, and some distractions are more powerful than others, making it harder for the rich to enter the kingdom. That's why (I believe) Jesus said what he said. And one of the things that makes it hard for them in particular is that they consider their position a blessing from God and consider the position of the poor either the poor's own doing or God's providence (usually whichever is more convenient in the moment).
Leslie, I'm certainly not saying that 'human effort' saves us. But I am saying what the Bible says, which is that to know to do good and to not do it is sin. Period. If I'm waiting for some divine call and infusion of energy to do something that the Bible teaches to do, I am sinning.
I believe that in the Bible, the care of the poor is as normative as telling the truth and being chaste. That is entirely lost on Western believers. And it is sin. Are you telling me that I have to wait for some divine impulse before telling the truth or not cheating on my wife? Of course not. You know that absent divine impulse, I better choose to obey, even if it kills me to do so. And you know that I better do so even if it is all 'human effort'.
>>If I didn't know any better, it sounds like the poor are being made out to be the elect here.
Well, I don't buy into any Reformed notion of election. They certainly aren't more privileged to salvation, if we are defining salvation as substitutionary atonement. But they are more open to it, as Jesus ministry shows, because they don't have the blocks that Jesus indicates the rich have.
But if salvation contains a component of redemption for the condition of people in the here and now, then the poor are a bit more privileged, only because they have farther to go to have access to society's table. That does not make them more worthy. It just recognizes that their current condition is further away in a material sense. And on second thought, the poor aren't 'more privileged'. It should be the privilege of the wealthy (which is me) to give to them.
>>The people will be served when we yield to God. It is why I pray to go there first.
Doesn't God's spirit already indwell us. What are we waiting for? Isn't God capable of pruning us along the way? And does this thinking only apply to serving the poor and not to getting a high-paying job? (I'm asking.) We choose not to begin to serve and use waiting on God as an excuse. I do not look at the church and see even a small percentage of people who would act "if only God will tell us when, how, and where." I see people who are fat on their own success, clinging to their own riches, spouting a false gospel of cheap grace and easy believism, and relegating the clear call of Jesus to be like him with their money and their time to some other dispensation.
I invite you to read a wonderful autobiography of a man who started with conviction and a whole lot of human effort and reached an entire people group in what is one of the most costly yet most blessed lives I can imagine.
Posted by: Zossima | Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 06:41 AM
Zossima,
You are guessing. I grew up in Catholic school for 13 years and learned the doctrine. Some of which I have seen posted on this thread. I came to my current Protestant understanding of faith when I was 30. Each of us is presenting their case based on the hermeneutic we believe to be correct, yet you discount mine as ‘merely presenting arguments derived from a particular hermeneutic that you have chosen to become somewhat learned in’ as though I have been duped into simply repeating some western, modern foolishness. Please describe how your posts are not ‘merely presenting arguments derived from a particular hermeneutic that you have chosen to become somewhat learned in’
The authority of scripture I was referring to was that for use in knowing God and His ways. I thought that was obvious in context. I would point to the text again, as it does claim authority,
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 (NASB)
There are dozens of other ‘proof texts’ on the subject.
My interpretation is open to discussion. Pick the verse I have misinterpreted and lets address it.
Broad themes are great, and necessary. At some point we need the granularity offered by the text. How do we know our broad concepts are correct if we never get to the details?
What do you do when the text openly contradicts your interpretation or understanding? What is the final authority?
Nicks
Posted by: Nicks | Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 07:52 AM
>>Leslie, I'm certainly not saying that 'human effort' saves us.
I understand that. But you have been saying that human effort will save the poor by defining salvation as freedom from earthly oppression and saying that we are the ones to bring this freedom about. (Granted, you include submission to God towards the end – with an entire paragraph plus a linked autobiography of qualifications.) If I play it all out, not just what you say but all that has been said, then I’m left with the impression that when it really comes right down to it, God saves us but we must save the poor...which really relegates the poor to the most unprivileged position of making do with me as a second best savior.
This same tension is lived out within ourselves too isn’t it? We try our best to live a holy life. We work so hard to overcome our sin, leaving ourselves doing God’s job. Because really it is God who cleanses us & yes, prunes us along the way. He the potter, we the clay. “Unless the Lord build the house the laborer toils in vain.”
The only way to side-step casting ourselves as the second rate savior of the poor is if, as you say, salvation is only one of Earthly justice (..."If we miss this aspect of the gospel, I dare say we're missing the gospel entirely."), which returns us to the fact that sin isn’t a big deal after all.
>>Well, I don't buy into any Reformed notion of election.
Me neither, so it would do my heart good if you’d quit tossing Calvinism around like some kind of leprous insult. Loaded shots like that are hard to respond to...and besides, the Calvinists don't deserve to be dragged around just because you disagree with me. :)
Posted by: Leslie | Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 10:24 AM
>>If I play it all out, not just what you say but all that has been said, then I’m left with the impression that when it really comes right down to it, God saves us but we must save the poor.
Leslie, once again, I don't understand the chain of thought. Throughout Scripture God calls and redeems people to be his representatives for others. Yet you are all but disclaiming that call, responsibility, and privilege. How is it second rate if a poor person experiences Christ in me?
Logically, then, it must be second rate for any person to experience Christ in me. We should shut down churches and ministries and just let God do all the work.
First you accuse me of giving the poor a preferred election. Then you accuse me of giving the poor a second rate redemption. I'm confused ; )
>>But you have been saying that human effort will save the poor by defining salvation as freedom from earthly oppression and saying that we are the ones to bring this freedom about.
I have not said that human effort will save the poor. I've said that waiting for God is not an excuse for not acting on behalf of the poor. I have not defined salvation as merely freedom from earthly oppression, but I am disclaiming any notion that it is merely eternal forgiveness. I've not said that we are the ones to bring this freedom about, for I've consistently maintained that it is grounded in the work of the Christ and in the justice of God.
I did not mean to offend you by 'tossing Calvinism around', but whether or not you subscribe to Calvinism, things you have said evidence its influence. Hence, my comments.
Posted by: Zossima | Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 08:22 PM
>>Each of us is presenting their case based on the hermeneutic we believe to be correct, yet you discount mine...
Nick, you don't like it when people are dogmatically pious about their hermeneutic? Touche. Neither do I.
Interestingly, my journey is almost opposite yours. I grew up in rigid fundamentalism and have journeyed away from the hermeneutics you have moved toward.
>>Please describe how your posts are not ‘merely presenting arguments derived from a particular hermeneutic that you have chosen to become somewhat learned in’...
I can't. I make no claim to have the correct hermeneutic. I am presently convinced that yours is wrong, yet I have journeyed enough to know that mine is likely not right. Jesus said to love God, not to have a correct hermeneutic. It matters less and less to me as days go by. I care more about prayer these days.
>>How do we know our broad concepts are correct if we never get to the details? What do you do when the text openly contradicts your interpretation or understanding? What is the final authority?
Those are all great questions. Let me first state that I have not encountered anyone who doesn't selectively interpret Scriptures. But I, like you, find certain assumptions useful in dealing with problematic passages. But my assumptions are probably very different than yours. I have the capacity to get granular. I've spent most of my nearly 40 years in the Word, most of that from an evangelical approach to the Word. I learned much from that which I think has served me well in being able to validate a different interpretive approach.
The fact of the matter is that I differ from you and Leslie quite radically in my understanding of the nature of God, the nature and manner of God's redemptive work, the nature of truth, etc. Yet as much as I disagree, I find the differences to be evidence of an amazing God and evidence that salvation truly is by grace.
Posted by: Zossima | Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 08:36 PM
Zossima,
Quite the contrary, I would be very disappointed in the quality of the discussion if you where not dogmatic. It would demonstrate a lack of confidence in your position. If you believe what you say has eternal consequence, you can be nothing but dogmatic, and I don’t want to spend a bunch of time discussing these things with someone who does not have confidence in their position. It does not stretch my thinking or theirs.
My point was your characterizing of my comments with terms like:
‘merely presenting arguments derived from a particular hermeneutic that you have chosen to become somewhat learned in’
Tell me what you think, and back it up with something we can talk about. Comments like this do nothing to support your point. Tell me what I have misquoted, misapplied or taken out of context, and lets hammer it out.
Nicks
Posted by: Nicks | Wednesday, December 21, 2005 at 08:43 AM
>>Leslie, once again, I don't understand the chain of thought.
I believe God is real and active in the world today. Maybe our naturalist, don’t-believe-in-ghosts society sometimes forgets that while he also grants us the privilege of taking part in his purposes, he also works directly in the world. When people see Christ in me, I think of it as secondary to the joy & peace of experiencing him directly.
That doesn’t mean I don’t want to show people the love of Christ (with food or whatever the situation calls for). Good things happen when people share. But I feel strongly that striking out on our own just makes a mess. Church history is full of instances where the church passionately pursued some sort of “good work” and then hind sight reveals the damaging myopia that was present.
Do we really know what’s best for the third world? Some say debt relief panders to corruption and keeps people in Africa trapped in poverty. Do we know that’s right? Do we know it’s wrong?
Unless we submit to God first we will find ourselves yet again rushing in trying to do something, anything, to fix the problem and because we haven’t yielded to God we will deliver a myopic solution. History repeats itself because no one pays attention when it happens the first (and second and third) time. When we look back and find out our efforts once again actually contributed to things being worse in the long run we will only have ourselves to blame. In our human wisdom we think God will take too long so we surge ahead blindly. That doesn’t mean I don’t seize an opportunity to help when I find it...but he must lead the way.
>>First you accuse me of giving the poor a preferred election. Then you accuse me of giving the poor a second rate redemption. I'm confused ; )
Women are complicated aren’t they? Soon I will post a does-this-make-me-look-fat type post on Brutally Honest just to watch all you guys turn pale and scatter to the four corners. For the record I’m not ‘accusing’ you of giving the poor a second rate redemption...I think of it as a consequence of turning them into the preferred elect who are needing to be saved by us. :)
>>I have not said that human effort will save the poor. I've said that waiting for God is not an excuse for not acting on behalf of the poor. I have not defined salvation as merely freedom from earthly oppression, but I am disclaiming any notion that it is merely eternal forgiveness. I've not said that we are the ones to bring this freedom about, for I've consistently maintained that it is grounded in the work of the Christ and in the justice of God.
Perhaps this isn’t intended, but at times your passion for freeing people from earthy oppression overshadows everything about the redemptive work of Christ.
You didn’t offend me by calling me a Calvinist. It’s just tricky to know what to do with a name like that when it isn’t mine.
Not that it’s a big deal really, but I grow more and more comfortable with Luther’s ideas every day – “I cannot by my own reason or strength come to God or know him.”
The more weak and feeble I get, the more God looks competent enough to solve my problems and the problems of the world.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, December 22, 2005 at 02:25 AM
Leslie, please tell me how you see submission to God occurring? It seems to me that submission is about making ourselves available. Can't that happen by being active? Why do I have to wait to serve someone? I think that there are people/churches that need to stop what they're doing and pray for a season, and I think there are people/churches that have been waiting so long that waiting is itself an excuse for not taking care of the needs in their midst.
>>Do we really know what’s best for the third world? Some say debt relief panders to corruption and keeps people in Africa trapped in poverty. Do we know that’s right? Do we know it’s wrong?
I don't think there's any evidence that "debt relief" panders to corruption. But there's plenty of evidence that the debt itself was deliberately structured to keep African dictators in power and buy their loyalty in order to keep communism out of those countries (among other reasons). We also know oil-for-food and other "aid" programs have been corrupt.
But on the other side of the coin, we know that building wells and teaching people to farm and providing micro-loans so that woman can buy fabric to make and sell clothes works.
It seems evident that there is a very different intent in what works and what doesn't work. I'm quite libertarian (surprise, Rick), so I'm drawn to the private sector initiatives, particularly from Christian organizations and missionaries.
>>Perhaps this isn’t intended, but at times your passion for freeing people from earthy oppression overshadows everything about the redemptive work of Christ.
Well, this is the root of where we disagree: The redemptive work of Christ is about freeing people from "earthly oppression", not merely providing a forgiveness for sins committed that will only be realized in some future "eternity". It seems to me that you (and Nick) have essentially thrown out the story of redemption throughout the OT, gospels, and yes, even Paul (for whom the word 'gospel' is never about substitutionary atonement but rather the good news that Messiah is the true king instead of Caesar), to come to your conclusions about what the "gospel" is.
>>“I cannot by my own reason or strength come to God or know him.”
Amen. But just as that doesn't mean that I choose not to think about him, preferring to wait for him to plant some thought, it also doesn't mean that I don't act until he chooses to move my feet.
As always, my best to you.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 28, 2005 at 12:03 AM
>>Leslie, please tell me how you see submission to God occurring? It seems to me that submission is about making ourselves available. Can't that happen by being active? Why do I have to wait to serve someone?
Submission is definitely unpopular for sure. I just don’t know if lack of it negates the concept altogether. Action is great, but if we move ahead without God’s leading it becomes something else. God wants to help people. Waiting for him doesn’t mean productivity ceases. I’m just thinking it’ll creating divinely powerful blessings.
>>I don't think there's any evidence that "debt relief" panders to corruption.
Who knows about evidence, but there is definitely debate. Coming from Africans themselves. The BBC, Africa Economic Analysis, and IPN quote Africans raising red flags. Agree or disagree, it points to the fact that the answer may not be as simple as first thought. Many say farming subsidies in the US and EU are what’s keeping Africa (and Canada!) from participating fully in the world economy. No one ever throws a Cancel the Subsidies concert. Trickier to market. :)
>>But on the other side of the coin, we know that building wells and teaching people to farm and providing micro-loans so that woman can buy fabric to make and sell clothes works.
True, but the debate usually heads elsewhere. As certain segments of the church get more politically active (at least up here) protesting G8 & Make Poverty History and all that, the people who don’t buy in to this as a solution are sometimes painted as having a narrow vision of salvation.
I don’t know. In Canada the church has a big black mark on its pages of history when it tried to 'civilize' the Native people here. At the time, it surged ahead because they were sure they knew the best way & simply ended up enslaving these people in a downward spiral of misery that many have yet to rise up from. The church isn’t the only one to blame in this case, but you see what I mean?
Reading these articles and others like them make me feel that the church is just tooling up once again to be a white knight, only to once again make people more dependent for even longer. I see it as the lack of submission you drew attention to earlier.
>>Well, this is the root of where we disagree: The redemptive work of Christ is about freeing people from "earthly oppression", not merely providing a forgiveness for sins committed that will only be realized in some future "eternity".
The word merely, and the quotes around eternity lead me to ask...do you believe we will reconvene in heaven someday? I understand eternity starts now and all that, but which to you is more significant: your life here, or your life in the hereafter. Earlier you agreed sin was a big deal. Why is it a big deal to you?
>>It seems to me that you (and Nick) have essentially thrown out the story of redemption throughout the OT, gospels...
It’s always been my understanding that the people of the OT were waiting for the Messiah to come...possibly a result of myopic Sunday School teachers I s’pose. Faith in this promise that he’d be sent was credited to them as righteousness (as in the case of Abraham). They looked ahead, we look back. You may say I interpret it differently & see the Messiah as having a different role, but I’m not tossing it out. Isn't part of the reason many Jews didn't accept Christ as the Messiah was that they were expecting more of a liberator of earthly oppression? If not then why was he rejected by parts of the Jewish faith?
I think earthly oppression and sin are inextricably linked. But, we never truly free until we are free from our sinful state.
>>It also doesn't mean that I don't act until he chooses to move my feet.
I might be miscalculating the double negative, but are you saying your own feet know better?
>>As always, my best to you.
Thank you, and the very same to you.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, December 29, 2005 at 12:59 AM
Leslie, I'll conclude my thoughts on acting versus waiting with the following:
* There are certain things that God has set out for man to do without him writing on the wall first. Among these are work and caring for our loved ones and neighbors. I include the care of the poor in this, as I believe that is scriptural.
* That is not to say that caring for the poor can be done in ungodly ways. It most certainly can, but then I would argue that obedience to God is not the objective and that the care of the poor does not actually result.
* There are things that God has clearly designated as sin. Among these, I believe the Bible is clear, are included not caring for the poor.
Hence, I conclude care of the poor is something that I must do and for which I do not need any special instructions.
With regard to 'debt relief', the articles you cite are about financial aid, not 'debt relief'. Debt has been a huge contributor to where these nations are. Debt relief can help them immensely, as it frees up huge portions of GDP for investment and/or for healthcare. The problem, though, with debt relief and other types of aid, is the strings that Western business and Western governments can attach.
>>Reading these articles and others like them make me feel that the church is just tooling up once again to be a white knight, only to once again make people more dependent for even longer. I see it as the lack of submission you drew attention to earlier.
I really appreciate your comments here. I agree. I would suggest that the Church's efforts in the past haven't been truly altruistic (for example, the Church's role in the Spanish looting of South America).
>>do you believe we will reconvene in heaven someday? I understand eternity starts now and all that, but which to you is more significant: your life here, or your life in the hereafter. Earlier you agreed sin was a big deal. Why is it a big deal to you?
Let's leave the issue of heaven and hell for another day ; ) Sin is a big deal because first and foremost it is an offense against our righteous God. Second, it is an offense against others. As I've stated previously, I believe there is a whole lot of 'economic sin' that goes unrecognized by the Church. It is not creating a just society and not caring for the poor, as God has directed in the Word.
>>Isn't part of the reason many Jews didn't accept Christ as the Messiah was that they were expecting more of a liberator of earthly oppression? If not then why was he rejected by parts of the Jewish faith?
I think Jesus was quite the social revolutionary. He said love your enemies. He said to carry the backpack of the soldier who is oppressing you twice as far as asked. The problem with Jesus was that he wasn't the liberator they envisioned. They wanted someone who would lead the bloody rebellion. Jesus challenged the status quo through nonviolence and service. (Our modern examples would be MLK and Ghandi.) Such behavior is always a challenge to the ways of the world, because it cannot be co-opted by power and material goods.
(Of course, Jesus' rejection is more complicated than that. For example, he posed a threat to the Pharisees' convenient relationship with the Romans. But none of that undermines Jesus stance as a social revolutionary.)
Look, I know that liberal theologians (and that term has a very definite definition within theology) have made Jesus into some sort of social worker. I don't want to fall into that trap. He died to restore us to fellowship with God. But part of that, the inauguration of the kingdom, the establishment of an eschatological community---people who would live as if his return had already happened (I believe this is what Heb. 11:1-3 are getting at)---is wrapped up in the freedom to bring freedom to others, including the oppressed, the freedom to enact God's standards of justice for those who have experienced the most injustice.
I just cannot separate the forgiveness aspect of the cross from the reconciliatory and redemptive actions of changing people's physical condition.
>>I might be miscalculating the double negative, but are you saying your own feet know better?
No way. But when I make my feet available to him by starting to walk, he'll redirect my feet.
Posted by: Zossima | Thursday, December 29, 2005 at 10:03 PM
>>With regard to 'debt relief', the articles you cite are about financial aid, not 'debt relief'.
Zossima, BBC quoting Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda:
Tunde Obadina at the AEA:
And the IPN:
Look, I’m not necessarily endorsing all this, but to ignore these ideas is irresponsible. The fact that many of these thoughts are coming out of Africa itself should make them even more worthy of consideration. They are smart enough to know what’s best for themselves.
>>I would suggest that the Church's efforts in the past haven't been truly altruistic.
I would suggest that the efforts of the Church as a whole in this area are not entirely altruistic today either. Sometimes it reminds me of the high priest praying loudly on the street corner...as though we think if enough people see enough of us doing enough good then things will change. Look at me!!!! It has the potential to turn into the ultimate arrogance.
>>Let's leave the issue of heaven and hell for another day ; )
I didn’t ask about hell. But if you don’t want to talk about heaven then I’m good with that.
Thanks, I’ve enjoyed chatting with you.
Posted by: Leslie | Friday, December 30, 2005 at 12:01 AM