Tonight something new developed in our survey of the NT. The tremendous miracles Jesus is performing produce vast crowds to hear him preach and to bring the sick for healing. But a note of opposition clearly begins to emerge.
We began with the healing of the leper, "I will, be thou clean." Usually, when one should touch or be touched by a leper, it makes the clean unclean. In this case, the clean made the unclean clean. Was this a beginning point of Pharisaic opposition? Did they view Jesus as flouting the law? There is no indiction, but the first mention of the Pharisees comes in the very next pericope, the healing of the man let down through the roof. Here Jesus says, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." This definitely sets the Pharisees off.
Then come these events: the call of Matthew and the banquet at his house, filled with sinners. Next, the question about fasting (some speculate that the banquet at Levi's house occured on one of the Pharisee's regular fasting days, a Monday or a Thursday). Then the Disciples dare to 'harvest' grain on the Sabbath and the Lord declares himself the Lord of the Sabbath. But the biggest confrontation is the healing of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. The Pharisees are waiting for Christ to do something. (Did they make sure the man would be in the synagogue that day?) But Jesus heals the man with only a word. How can they call it "work", yet clearly Jesus did something, and he purposely defied them. The Pharisees go out and make an alliance with the Herodians to destroy Christ.
In this atmosphere, with crowds all around who follow superficially, and a new threat of opposition, Jesus names his twelve apostles. He intends that they be with him, to learn of him, that they be sent out to preach, and that they be given signs, marks of their association with him. He is calling them to a life of service in the midst of opposition.
It should be no surprise to us when there is opposition to biblical ministry. "As men come to know Christ, they react to him one of two ways: total devotion or total opposition." There is no middle ground. The only way to have a seeming middle ground is to preach a phony Christ who is only a caricature of the reality.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
A little Time Travel
Oh, for a WayBack machine! This morning I took a little trip back in time, just over 28 years to be exact. I found myself sitting in the Founders Memorial Amphitorium at Bob Jones University listening to some men who are stars in my fundamentalist firmament. First, the rich, poetic speech of the late chancellor of BJU, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. He was introducing the speaker for the Thursday evening service at Bible Conference, March 27, 1978. The speaker was the brilliant and blunt J. B. Williams, speaking on the subject of Maturing in the Faith.
I don't recall exactly where I was seated in the Amphitorium that evening, it seems to me that it was a little to the right of the center aisle, about a third of the way down on the main floor. But I vividly remember this particular service. The message made a great impact on me. It is one of the few I ordered on audio cassette (you know, the technology of dinosaurs). I have listened to this message at least a dozen times over the years.
I have to admit, part of the appeal of Dr. Williams (and Dr Bob, for that matter) is their sense of humour. But J. B. Williams was an exegete of the first order, in my opinion. The content of this message is timeless because it is thoroughly biblical, opening up the Word of God in its full power and glory. The strength of the message is the Word.
Dr. Williams introduced his subject by talking about the great problem in the churches: not doctrine, but immaturity. The pulpits of the day, he says, are filled with men who entertain their people rather than feed them. Here is a sample, transcribed as accurately as I can:
The thing that interests me in this sample, however, is how prescient it is. If the 1970s was a day of clowns and entertainment in the pulpits, what is today?
Dr. Williams proceeded to preach a message based on this outline:
Today, a good deal of the carping criticism towards fundamentalism is given by a vocal set of young men who level many charges against fundamentalism including a failure of expository preaching. There are bitter men of my generation that join in this chorus. I am astounded that they do so. I don't know who they were listening to back then. I suspect they weren't listening to anyone, except their own rebellious hearts.
While a student, I was exposed to the preaching and teaching ministries of some of the world's finest expositors and Bible teachers. I was taught a love for the Word of God and a philosophy of ministry that put God's Word first and careful exposition and application at the heart of biblical ministry.
Was every preacher like this? Well, of course not. There are all kinds in the ministry, and God can use the fellow who is mostly topical just as well as the more expository preacher, if that man is surrendered to God and faithful.
But overwhelmingly, if your heart was given to hear it, the message of faithful expository preaching was available in the 1970s. Believe it, brother, it was there. Better yet, dig up some of the tapes and give a listen. You will find in those long ago pulpits men who were concerned about building the spiritual lives of the people who heard them.
I suspect that most of this complaint that fundamentalism lacks "expository preaching" is a complaint centered around a slavish devotion to the preaching of certain evangelicals who happen to espouse the latest theological fad. The fundamentalist movement is full of men who spend hours in the Word of God and then faithfully deliver it in their pulpits, Bible studies, home visits, and coffee shop fellowships. The charges against fundamentalism in this regard are baseless. Those who make them should repent of their belligerence and open their ears to the solid preaching that is available in the fundamentalist pulpits of the world.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I don't recall exactly where I was seated in the Amphitorium that evening, it seems to me that it was a little to the right of the center aisle, about a third of the way down on the main floor. But I vividly remember this particular service. The message made a great impact on me. It is one of the few I ordered on audio cassette (you know, the technology of dinosaurs). I have listened to this message at least a dozen times over the years.
I have to admit, part of the appeal of Dr. Williams (and Dr Bob, for that matter) is their sense of humour. But J. B. Williams was an exegete of the first order, in my opinion. The content of this message is timeless because it is thoroughly biblical, opening up the Word of God in its full power and glory. The strength of the message is the Word.
Dr. Williams introduced his subject by talking about the great problem in the churches: not doctrine, but immaturity. The pulpits of the day, he says, are filled with men who entertain their people rather than feed them. Here is a sample, transcribed as accurately as I can:
"We have a real problem. I'm persuaded that much of the problem we have today stems from the fact that our people just haven't grown. The average preacher (and I'm talking about the average now), the average preacher doesn't even have a vision of the importance of the Word of God let alone the development of the people.I suppose some will shudder in horror at Dr. Williams' blunt eschewing of politically correct speech. I relish it. We live in a day when so-called fundamentalists are so infected by the spirit of our age that the preachers mince around dealing with problems with all kinds of euphemisms. I suppose people are just supposed to 'get it', but I much prefer the blunt, direct approach of Dr. Williams.
"We're in a day when it is very popular to be a clown — use the pulpit to entertain. Whatever the audience requires, give it to them. Whatever will draw a crowd, give it to them. You can't develop Christians by being a clown. Not even a sanctified clown!
"I don't know where we get all of these weirdo ideas we have. Maybe it's because we are putting weirdos in the ministry. We cannot develop good strong Christians that will stand sufferings and theof adversities unless we build them up in the faith.
"And you can't do it with claptrap, with entertainment. The only way you can do it is to get somebody with their stupid nose in the Bible, and let's develop some people."
The thing that interests me in this sample, however, is how prescient it is. If the 1970s was a day of clowns and entertainment in the pulpits, what is today?
Dr. Williams proceeded to preach a message based on this outline:
I. The Stages of Spiritual GrowthThe thrust of the message is that for stable churches and stable Christian lives, we need to have growing, maturing Christians. Dr. Williams pointed out that you can be a Christian for 40 years and still not be "out of the triangular pants stage spiritually". The primary means of spiritual growth is the Word of God. You must be in the Word, thinking about it, hearing it, applying it, living it every day.
II. The Mechanics of Spiritual Growth
III. The Benefits of Spiritual Growth to Maturity
"Young people, if you develop in Christian life, in the maturity, you've got to get with it with the book and really live in it. Be taught in the Word. Understand it. And then when you do you will begin to increase your capacity for life. Increase your capacity for the things God would like to give you."I have often thought of Dr. Williams concluding remarks and have actually used them as an illustration in my own preaching on numerous occasions:
"Now you can't ... we can't have a service tonight and I give the invitation and you come down and get matured here tonight. And [you] go out tomorrow and say, 'Hey, a wonderful thing happened, I matured last night down there.'This message is simply a solid biblical exhortation to Christian growth. I have drawn on it personally again and again over the years. It really is a sample of most of the preaching I heard when I was developing and training as a young preacher.
"There are some dough balls that do it that way, but you don't do it that way. You've got to get with it and stay with it. Two years, three years, four years, five years, whatever it takes, mature in the faith. You can stand all the adversities of life. You can stand in the devil's world, this generation in which we live and be a real soldier of Jesus Christ. The greatest need in your life is to mature in the Christian faith."
Today, a good deal of the carping criticism towards fundamentalism is given by a vocal set of young men who level many charges against fundamentalism including a failure of expository preaching. There are bitter men of my generation that join in this chorus. I am astounded that they do so. I don't know who they were listening to back then. I suspect they weren't listening to anyone, except their own rebellious hearts.
While a student, I was exposed to the preaching and teaching ministries of some of the world's finest expositors and Bible teachers. I was taught a love for the Word of God and a philosophy of ministry that put God's Word first and careful exposition and application at the heart of biblical ministry.
Was every preacher like this? Well, of course not. There are all kinds in the ministry, and God can use the fellow who is mostly topical just as well as the more expository preacher, if that man is surrendered to God and faithful.
But overwhelmingly, if your heart was given to hear it, the message of faithful expository preaching was available in the 1970s. Believe it, brother, it was there. Better yet, dig up some of the tapes and give a listen. You will find in those long ago pulpits men who were concerned about building the spiritual lives of the people who heard them.
I suspect that most of this complaint that fundamentalism lacks "expository preaching" is a complaint centered around a slavish devotion to the preaching of certain evangelicals who happen to espouse the latest theological fad. The fundamentalist movement is full of men who spend hours in the Word of God and then faithfully deliver it in their pulpits, Bible studies, home visits, and coffee shop fellowships. The charges against fundamentalism in this regard are baseless. Those who make them should repent of their belligerence and open their ears to the solid preaching that is available in the fundamentalist pulpits of the world.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Monday, September 04, 2006
Time for the 9/3 Sunday Summaries
Well, we had an unusual week this week. In our Thru the NT series I am handing out study guides on Sunday for the next week's chronological Bible reading. The messages I preach on those passages will come on the following Wednesday and Sunday. So my study guides are a week ahead of my preaching.
I decided this week to go ahead and write my messages early in the week, then do the study guide for the following week. It was quite an interesting process since I wasn't writing the sermons with a deadline looming. I think I took a little longer than I expected to write the messages, but I managed to finish them all by Thursday. Then it was Thursday evening and all day Friday to study and prepare the Study Guides. Amazingly, I was all done by 4:30 pm on Friday. I didn't know what to do with myself. I think this is the first time in 21 years of ministry that I have had both Friday and Saturday evenings really free. I played a game with my wife and two kids Saturday night, but I was so discombobulated from my new luxury of being able to play a game on Saturday night that I lost. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!)
Well, to the messages. We are just beginning the Lord's ministry, so message #1 was Elijah that Should Come, the ministry of John the Baptist, from the synoptic texts: Mk 1.1-11, Mt 3.1-17, Lk 3.1-22. The proposition of the message was this: The answer to the despair of the world is found in the singular focus of John the Baptist’s ministry: preparation for the coming of God’s beloved Son. The world in which John the Baptist began to minister was a corrupt cynical oppressive world, especially for the Jews who would not go along with the Roman policy of tolerance to other religions. John began his preaching in AD 27, "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Lk 3.1). (Tiberius began to reign in AD 14, but he was co-regent with Augustus - his step father and father-in-law - from AD 12, hence the date.)
John's preaching had two themes: Repent - someone's coming. His preaching caused a sensation, and drew large crowds of the serious, the curious, the official, and the cynical. But they came. And many of them turned to God, including Roman soldiers. But John's aim was to turn men to the one who was coming, the one whom he knew the moment he approached, and then had confirmed by the sign of the dove and the voice of God from heaven.
John lived in a despairing world (not unlike our own) and pointed men to the only answer to despair: Jesus Christ.
Message #2 was Tempted Like as We Are, on the temptation of the Lord, Mk 1.12-13, Mt 4.1-11, Lk 4.1-13. The central idea of the message was this: The keys to victory in temptation is walking in the Spirit and employment of the Word. We find this approach modelled by our Lord. He experienced the empowering of the Spirit and approval of God at the Baptism, then 'immediately' the Spirit 'drave' him into the wilderness(Mk 1.1). Luke tells us he was 'full of the Holy Ghost' [an interesting phrase only used by Luke on six occasions] and both Matthew and Luke say he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. The whole episode was purposeful and preparatory for the ministry to come. I observed that this was probably the last time on earth that the Lord experienced any meaningful solitude. After this, he would always be surrounded by people. In the temptation, the Spirit filled and prepared Lord withstood the temptations by the Word of God, blazing the trail for us to follow. Temptation can be overcome, we need to be spirit filled and employ the Word in our defense.
The afternoon message covered the rejection at Nazareth, the calling of the fishermen to full time training, the casting out of a demon on the Sabbath, the healing of Peter's mother-in-law that afternoon, the healing of many who came after the Sabbath ended that evening [how late did he stay up?], then finally the Lord stealing away 'a great while before day' (Mk 1.35) for prayer. On Peter's discovery of him, he simply says, I must go from here to preach elsewhere. The message was entitled Ministering In His Own City from Mk 1.14-39, Mt 4.12-25, 8.14-17, Lk 4.14-44. The proposition was: The first lesson of discipleship is that the beginning of discipleship lies in genuine faith in Christ.
Through all these experiences we see contrasted sincerity and insincerity. The insincerity comes from those who are following Christ for what they can get out of him or for simply the sensation of seeing miracles. The sincerity comes from the disciples. They have known Christ now for about 6 months (see John 1.19-4.54). They are with him off and on in this period, but they believe in him. They see him rejected in Nazareth, see him heal the nobleman's son [from Capernaum] in Cana, and then shortly thereafter is the marvelous catch of fish in Lk 5. Simon realizes he is in the presence of something much mightier than himself and begs the Lord, "depart from me, for I am a sinful man." The Lord tells him not to fear. The next day (as I see it) he comes and makes the call recorded in Matthew and Mark to leave their nets and follow him. Of course, they do. They are the sincere followers, but they still don't understand his mission.
As the many in Capernaum throng the house that Sabbath night, the disciples are impressed. They are still expecting the Messiah to take charge and to create a new order, with Israel in charge of the world. When the crowd is up early, the next morning, they think this is a good thing. Let's get busy and 'catch the wave', keep the momentum going. The Lord says, in effect, 'No, I am not interested in the crowd. I came to say something to Israel, and I'm going to say it.' So this is the first lesson of discipleship: The first lesson of discipleship is that the beginning of discipleship lies in genuine faith in Christ. In other words, don't be impressed with a lot of superficial commitments. Look for those who are genuine, who are sincere.
All in all, another great day in the Lord's house. We have a big week ahead of us. Next Sunday will see us whip through the Sermon on the Mount in two messages! Can it be done??? We'll see.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I decided this week to go ahead and write my messages early in the week, then do the study guide for the following week. It was quite an interesting process since I wasn't writing the sermons with a deadline looming. I think I took a little longer than I expected to write the messages, but I managed to finish them all by Thursday. Then it was Thursday evening and all day Friday to study and prepare the Study Guides. Amazingly, I was all done by 4:30 pm on Friday. I didn't know what to do with myself. I think this is the first time in 21 years of ministry that I have had both Friday and Saturday evenings really free. I played a game with my wife and two kids Saturday night, but I was so discombobulated from my new luxury of being able to play a game on Saturday night that I lost. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!)
Well, to the messages. We are just beginning the Lord's ministry, so message #1 was Elijah that Should Come, the ministry of John the Baptist, from the synoptic texts: Mk 1.1-11, Mt 3.1-17, Lk 3.1-22. The proposition of the message was this: The answer to the despair of the world is found in the singular focus of John the Baptist’s ministry: preparation for the coming of God’s beloved Son. The world in which John the Baptist began to minister was a corrupt cynical oppressive world, especially for the Jews who would not go along with the Roman policy of tolerance to other religions. John began his preaching in AD 27, "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Lk 3.1). (Tiberius began to reign in AD 14, but he was co-regent with Augustus - his step father and father-in-law - from AD 12, hence the date.)
John's preaching had two themes: Repent - someone's coming. His preaching caused a sensation, and drew large crowds of the serious, the curious, the official, and the cynical. But they came. And many of them turned to God, including Roman soldiers. But John's aim was to turn men to the one who was coming, the one whom he knew the moment he approached, and then had confirmed by the sign of the dove and the voice of God from heaven.
John lived in a despairing world (not unlike our own) and pointed men to the only answer to despair: Jesus Christ.
Message #2 was Tempted Like as We Are, on the temptation of the Lord, Mk 1.12-13, Mt 4.1-11, Lk 4.1-13. The central idea of the message was this: The keys to victory in temptation is walking in the Spirit and employment of the Word. We find this approach modelled by our Lord. He experienced the empowering of the Spirit and approval of God at the Baptism, then 'immediately' the Spirit 'drave' him into the wilderness(Mk 1.1). Luke tells us he was 'full of the Holy Ghost' [an interesting phrase only used by Luke on six occasions] and both Matthew and Luke say he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. The whole episode was purposeful and preparatory for the ministry to come. I observed that this was probably the last time on earth that the Lord experienced any meaningful solitude. After this, he would always be surrounded by people. In the temptation, the Spirit filled and prepared Lord withstood the temptations by the Word of God, blazing the trail for us to follow. Temptation can be overcome, we need to be spirit filled and employ the Word in our defense.
The afternoon message covered the rejection at Nazareth, the calling of the fishermen to full time training, the casting out of a demon on the Sabbath, the healing of Peter's mother-in-law that afternoon, the healing of many who came after the Sabbath ended that evening [how late did he stay up?], then finally the Lord stealing away 'a great while before day' (Mk 1.35) for prayer. On Peter's discovery of him, he simply says, I must go from here to preach elsewhere. The message was entitled Ministering In His Own City from Mk 1.14-39, Mt 4.12-25, 8.14-17, Lk 4.14-44. The proposition was: The first lesson of discipleship is that the beginning of discipleship lies in genuine faith in Christ.
Through all these experiences we see contrasted sincerity and insincerity. The insincerity comes from those who are following Christ for what they can get out of him or for simply the sensation of seeing miracles. The sincerity comes from the disciples. They have known Christ now for about 6 months (see John 1.19-4.54). They are with him off and on in this period, but they believe in him. They see him rejected in Nazareth, see him heal the nobleman's son [from Capernaum] in Cana, and then shortly thereafter is the marvelous catch of fish in Lk 5. Simon realizes he is in the presence of something much mightier than himself and begs the Lord, "depart from me, for I am a sinful man." The Lord tells him not to fear. The next day (as I see it) he comes and makes the call recorded in Matthew and Mark to leave their nets and follow him. Of course, they do. They are the sincere followers, but they still don't understand his mission.
As the many in Capernaum throng the house that Sabbath night, the disciples are impressed. They are still expecting the Messiah to take charge and to create a new order, with Israel in charge of the world. When the crowd is up early, the next morning, they think this is a good thing. Let's get busy and 'catch the wave', keep the momentum going. The Lord says, in effect, 'No, I am not interested in the crowd. I came to say something to Israel, and I'm going to say it.' So this is the first lesson of discipleship: The first lesson of discipleship is that the beginning of discipleship lies in genuine faith in Christ. In other words, don't be impressed with a lot of superficial commitments. Look for those who are genuine, who are sincere.
All in all, another great day in the Lord's house. We have a big week ahead of us. Next Sunday will see us whip through the Sermon on the Mount in two messages! Can it be done??? We'll see.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Still thinking about social responsibility
I appreciate the two comments given to my last post. I agree that it would be good to have a solid biblical theology of ministering mercy. I doubt that I will be the one to write it!
Nevertheless, we do need to at least talk about the subject a good bit more. Fundamentalism is facing challenges of attrition today. Some are attempting to woo young fundamentalists to a new position. Some young fundamentalists are asking questions of fundamentalism that they think are new and probing (not realizing that they are the same questions that have been asked of fundamentalism for at least the last sixty years). The questions do need to be addressed, to some extent at least.
One of the areas where fundamentalism is being challenged is this topic of social responsibility. The charge is that funcamentalism has abandoned social responsibility. Whether this charge is true or not, I think most (all?) fundamentalists would agree that any Christian heart should be moved with compassion for those who are in dire need. We should care. But what should we do?
In our city, we have a number of people who live on the street. Some do so out of rebellion (mostly runaways), some are mentally deficient and our laws say they cannot be institutionalized against their will, some are hopelessly addicted to drugs and irresponsible living. Some Christians have attempted to minister to them. One of them is called the Mustard Seed Street Church, it is connected with the Baptist Union of Western Canada [a liberal group, although I have a conservative cousin who pastors one of their churches]. I met the pastor of this group after preaching a funeral for one of our older ladies. They have a food bank that is fairly well supported by our community (not just the Christians). They provide 'back to school' hampers for underprivileged children, a Christmas dinner, and have recently added a center to help addicts recover from their addictions (at a farm in a community about 45 minutes to an hour from town. In a recent newsletter, the pastor said about the ministry of the farm, "We are a Christian organization but the Christ-experience only comes by invitation and not force."
I don't offer this information to critique it, but as an example of what Christians are typically doing in the social responsibility area. I imagine most major cities have one or two ministries like this. Some of the things they do are surely helpful in some ways. The addiction recovery center is probably a vital ministry, although I am not sure what kind of Christian faith the "Christ-experience" (optional) will produce.
When it gets right down to it, when we think of responsibility to help the poor, this kind of ministry is usually what is meant. There are other avenues of social action (often far away) like disaster relief, the world AIDS crisis, famine in xxx country, etc. There are ministries like the crisis pregnancy centres. But when it gets right down to personal involvement in the needs of the local community, the ministry will take a form something like the Mustard Seed. Such a ministry, even if run by thoroughly orthodox believers, is frustrating, difficult, very very costly, and occasionally witnesses small signs of victory.
When you read the complaints of some against fundamentalism for our supposed lack of compassion, the question that lurks in my mind first is this: What are the complainers doing? What ministry of social concern are they personally involved with? Or are they just complaining? Second, what are they suggesting we should change? Should we join in support of existing programs, along with the feel-good liberals (and make no mistake, the leaders of the Mustard Seed are liberals)? Should we attempt to open 'competing' ministries?
These kinds of complaints, it seems to me, are what were behind the complaints of the new evangelicals as articulated by Harold Ockenga. I offer the quote from Sidwell that I offered before:
With all of that said, we do need to do what we can to help those whom the Lord puts before us and need help. It will be frustrating, costly, and often fail. But we should do what we can. And we should attempt to devise means that are truly centered in the gospel, that truly lift people beyond the ruts that they are in (usually by a series of bad personal choices).
I am going to do some reading on this, I put a couple of books on hold at our public Library. (One by Marvin Olasky, no less, in the liberal Victoria public library! I'm surprised.) I will write more on this later. There are more things to be said, even without the research. With any luck, the research will give further fruitful ideas for discussion.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Nevertheless, we do need to at least talk about the subject a good bit more. Fundamentalism is facing challenges of attrition today. Some are attempting to woo young fundamentalists to a new position. Some young fundamentalists are asking questions of fundamentalism that they think are new and probing (not realizing that they are the same questions that have been asked of fundamentalism for at least the last sixty years). The questions do need to be addressed, to some extent at least.
One of the areas where fundamentalism is being challenged is this topic of social responsibility. The charge is that funcamentalism has abandoned social responsibility. Whether this charge is true or not, I think most (all?) fundamentalists would agree that any Christian heart should be moved with compassion for those who are in dire need. We should care. But what should we do?
In our city, we have a number of people who live on the street. Some do so out of rebellion (mostly runaways), some are mentally deficient and our laws say they cannot be institutionalized against their will, some are hopelessly addicted to drugs and irresponsible living. Some Christians have attempted to minister to them. One of them is called the Mustard Seed Street Church, it is connected with the Baptist Union of Western Canada [a liberal group, although I have a conservative cousin who pastors one of their churches]. I met the pastor of this group after preaching a funeral for one of our older ladies. They have a food bank that is fairly well supported by our community (not just the Christians). They provide 'back to school' hampers for underprivileged children, a Christmas dinner, and have recently added a center to help addicts recover from their addictions (at a farm in a community about 45 minutes to an hour from town. In a recent newsletter, the pastor said about the ministry of the farm, "We are a Christian organization but the Christ-experience only comes by invitation and not force."
I don't offer this information to critique it, but as an example of what Christians are typically doing in the social responsibility area. I imagine most major cities have one or two ministries like this. Some of the things they do are surely helpful in some ways. The addiction recovery center is probably a vital ministry, although I am not sure what kind of Christian faith the "Christ-experience" (optional) will produce.
When it gets right down to it, when we think of responsibility to help the poor, this kind of ministry is usually what is meant. There are other avenues of social action (often far away) like disaster relief, the world AIDS crisis, famine in xxx country, etc. There are ministries like the crisis pregnancy centres. But when it gets right down to personal involvement in the needs of the local community, the ministry will take a form something like the Mustard Seed. Such a ministry, even if run by thoroughly orthodox believers, is frustrating, difficult, very very costly, and occasionally witnesses small signs of victory.
When you read the complaints of some against fundamentalism for our supposed lack of compassion, the question that lurks in my mind first is this: What are the complainers doing? What ministry of social concern are they personally involved with? Or are they just complaining? Second, what are they suggesting we should change? Should we join in support of existing programs, along with the feel-good liberals (and make no mistake, the leaders of the Mustard Seed are liberals)? Should we attempt to open 'competing' ministries?
These kinds of complaints, it seems to me, are what were behind the complaints of the new evangelicals as articulated by Harold Ockenga. I offer the quote from Sidwell that I offered before:
"Third, Ockenga also issued a 'summons to social involvement' and a 'new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.'"While I am not accusing all of the complainants against fundamentalism of being closet new-evangelicals, I think some (perhaps many) of them are. Their complaints are political, not religious. They want to re-order the 'polis' of fundamentalism and remake it to fit a new paradigm. They don't realize, I think, that the paradigm isn't new anymore and that the emphasis on social do-goodism can and will become an all consuming effort that eventually loses the gospel in the process.
Mark Sidwell, The Dividing Line, p. 117-118
With all of that said, we do need to do what we can to help those whom the Lord puts before us and need help. It will be frustrating, costly, and often fail. But we should do what we can. And we should attempt to devise means that are truly centered in the gospel, that truly lift people beyond the ruts that they are in (usually by a series of bad personal choices).
I am going to do some reading on this, I put a couple of books on hold at our public Library. (One by Marvin Olasky, no less, in the liberal Victoria public library! I'm surprised.) I will write more on this later. There are more things to be said, even without the research. With any luck, the research will give further fruitful ideas for discussion.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
