Just to be clear, I am not against working for societal change, helping the poor, or ministering to the sick. I am hugely for all these things. But the idea I’m toying with is that maybe these things do not constitute the mission of the church. Certainly, we love our neighbor as ourselves in obedience to Christ, which will entail different individual callings and different responses depending on the situation. We are called to do good to all people, especially to those of household of faith (Gal. 6:10). So we need no excuse to love others. Praise God for Christian doctors, teachers, and relief workers all around the world. But it seems to me the mission of the church, what God wants to accomplish on earth through us, is not the meeting of all human needs nor the transforming of all cultures, but the discipling of all nations.
From here.
To me, the issue is not whether Christians should be in favor of societal change of all type (i.e., social justice). The issue is whether or not that is the mission of the church as the church.
Interestingly, in the gospels, we see Jesus leaving certain places before all the people were healed. We see him in certain places intentionally not doing miracles of healing and restoration (Matthew 13:58). We see him in one place leaving only crumbs for the dogs, so to speak, and that only after a heart-felt appeal for mercy (Matthew 15:21-28). And then there’s the comments of Jesus about Tyre and Sidon that if he had done certain miracles there they would have repented (Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13). How staggering is that to our theology? Jesus did not do the very thing that he knows would have brought repentance. Did he not want these people to repent?
These should be thought provoking for anyone who thinks seriously about the mission of Jesus and social justice, and the mission of the church and the gospel.
We can debate the reasons for these passages and other like them, but it seems that Jesus’ mission was not complete social justice. He left some thing unjust, for various reasons.
While that might not make you think, it does make me think …
9 comments:
Well, I think you're headed in the right direction, Larry. But the answer is simple. As your buddy from Bob Jones University (or, as some in the network say, "The University") said some years ago - "The Gospel is still the answer." (Dr. Jim Berg). Dr. Berg is right on the money. The gospel is still the answer to social problems.
The Great Commission is still the Great Commandment to the church. Let's win people to Christ. The Gospel is what society desperately needs. When we change a heart, we change a life (see James 5:20).
What does that changed life DO, Mark? Does it do anything differently? And, in so doing, does it change anything around it?
Larry, you say: "The issue is whether or not that is the mission of the church as the church." What do you mean?
If you mean that there is a difference between the sabbath gathering for the liturgy of word and sacrament and the work which results from that gathering, fine. Not sure who would disagree.
However, if you mean that it is wrong for a gathered portion of Christ's church to have a group impact on its neighborhood, then I'd have to disagree.
In one sense the church is ALWAYS the church. That doesn't mean that the different spheres of authority don't have sole right to certain privileges and responsibilities -- Only the church may administer the sacraments, Only the state may bear the sword, Only the family may rear children, etc. However, it does mean that the members of Christ's body are always members of his body -- and that membership is of higher priority than any other membership. Therefore, Christ's body will have a body impact on the world around it.
I can't see what your comments about Jesus' work have to do with the matter at hand. Jesus obviously didn't complete his work during his first advent. He launched his kingdom, he did not complete it. The fact that he didn't do certain things at a particular point in time is not evidence that he wants it to never be done.
Furthermore, one must always be careful using the "What did Jesus do?" argument. I mean, Jesus walked on water, are we supposed to do that? He didn't marry, are we supposed to remain celibate?
Keith
Thanks, Keith, A quick response
I am speaking of hte mission of the church as the church. In the NT, that mission is to make disciples. It is not to pursue social justice in any of its various forms. AGain, we are talking about the mandate, the mission given by Jesus.
I don't think it's wrong for the chruch to have an impact on the neighborhood. I think that is great. But what is the mission? Make disciples.
REgarding Jesus work, it is not about Jesus completing his work. It is about the fact that Jesus did not pursue complete social justice. So I agree that the WWJD argument is flawed. Those who say essentially "Jesus pursued social jsutice so we should" are often omitting the fact that Jesus did not always pursue social justice.
It has nothing to do with what should "never be done" or some such. It is about the fact that many people are claiming "incarnational ministry" that is based on Jesus' life. And I find that fatally flawed for reasons such as I gave above, among others.
Thanks Larry,
Again, though, what do you mean by "as the church." When are Christians not "as the church"?
The mandate and mission given by Jesus was to disciple the NATIONS and teach them to obey EVERYTHING he commanded. It was/is not just to "win" individual souls.
That you've heard flawed "incarnational" arguments, I have no doubt. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Jesus was always just in every way (even if he didn't set all things right instantaneously) and that he is currently guiding all things toward the day when all things will remain always just. If we are in him, we will be a part of that.
Keith
I am speaking of the church "as the church" not as individuals, in other words the corporate mission of the church. I, as a believer, may choose to do any number of good things for people, but that is not the church doing it. An individual is not the church.
I think the idea of "winning individuals souls" is a greatly flawed idea of the biblical mandate, the Great Commission. I posted an introductory post on that here a few weeks ago.
Third, I think Jesus was just in every way (again, that should be unsettling for those who think the eradication of social injustice is the mission of Jesus ... It clearly wasn't). I think he is guiding all things toward a day of complete justice (which is why i think the kingdom is still future). But I don't think that is what he commanded the church to be pursuing now.
In other words, Jesus has different plans for different places and different times, and I think there is nothing wrong with recognizing that.
>"I, as a believer, may choose to do any number of good things for people, but that is not the church doing it. An individual is not the church."
But can these good things be done only by individuals? Would it be wrong for a group of Christians who worship together (a local congregation of the universal church) to decide to teach reading to poor kids in their neighborhood? Would it be wrong for this group of Christians to feed the poor in their neighborhood? Etc?
It appears that I was correct in how I understood your original point. To you "church as church" is anytime the body does something together, and that doing things together for "social justice" is not ok.
A different approach is to say that the group is to give itself to word and sacrament on the Lord's day, but it can and should do other good work, as a group, on other days of the week. This good work is a part of obeying the mission Christ gave the group/church.
I just can't understand the separation of kingdom work and church work that you posit. If Christ is guiding all things toward the day of complete justice, how is it that he and we weren't/aren't working toward it now -- in what meaningful way are we "going toward"?
Christ is either progressively bringing his ends to pass or he isn't. If His command is such that we are to be just fine with injustice now -- not resisting, opposing, or trying to remedy it at all now -- but someday, poof, he will introduce complete justice, His "different plans for different places" would appear to be completely detached from one another. Scripture, though, seems to reveal a progressive development of a unified plan.
Christ began the kingdom and he is brining it to its fullness.
Little chance we'll agree here. Your dispensational position, is too different from my position. So, I'll just leave it at that.
Thanks for the interaction.
Keith
I think good things can and should be done by groups. I think teaching poor kids to read is a great thing to do. I have often wanted to do community tutoring through our church.
But my point is that while such activity is good and worthwhile it is not the mandate of the church.
We can be an obedient church and not do it. We cannot be an obedient church and not make disciples. The reason this is is because true social justice can only come through disciples. If we make disciples, the rest takes care of itself ... by ones, twos, three, and larger groups. But the mandate isn't to feed the hungry or tutor elementary kids. The mandate is to make disciples. Disciplship may be shown by these activities.
The issue, as I see it, is what is required. It is required that a church make disciples. It is not required that a church pursue social justice.
It is however required that a Christian pursue social justice in his own world. Again, the issue is the mandate. I don't know of any mandate for the church to pursue social justice in the world. IOW, I don't think "this good work" is part of obeying the mission because I don't see where the mission includes "this good work."
For the church (or those not in the church), there is not any "kingdom work" per se going on now.
As Daniel says, the kingdom comes as a crushing stone; not as a gradual inbreaking. I just don't see that these good things that we should do are kingdom acts, as the Bible describes the kingdom.
Perhaps it would be, in a way, similar to me going out and screwing my grill together and then claiming to be doing automotive work. Why? Because both grills and cars have screws. Never mind that they are two different purposes. There is a difference between getting gas for my grill and getting gas in my car. Both are useful, good things to do. They are not the same thing.
So it is with kingdom work and church work. Both are good things, but I see no biblical indication that they are the same.
Let me respond by quoting a bit
Christ is either progressively bringing his ends to pass or he isn't.
True, but what are his ends? His ends are not only the kingdom. It is bigger than that. It is his glory among all creation.
If His command is such that we are to be just fine with injustice now -- not resisting, opposing, or trying to remedy it at all now --
Just to be clear, you are not responding to something I have said.
His "different plans for different places" would appear to be completely detached from one another.
I wouldn't say completely detached, but certainly fundamentally distinct.
Scripture, though, seems to reveal a progressive development of a unified plan.
I would say again, yes, but the unified plan is the pursuit of his glory among the nations. It is bigger than the kingdom. '
I too appreciate the interaction as always. I like the pushback.
"the unified plan is the pursuit of his glory among the nations. It is bigger than the kingdom."
This is, as they say, as distinction without a difference. How on earth will his glory be shown "among the nations" in all fullness other than through His reign as king? And, if he reigns as king, he must be reigning over a . . . kingdom.
Peace.
Keith
IT is shown through creation (Psa 19:1-6; Romans 1:19ff.). It is shown through salvation (Eph 1:3-14). It is shown through God's work in the OT era with Israel (Isaiah). It is shown through all manner of things that are not the kingdom.
I agree that if he reigns as king, he must be reigning over a kingdom. That is a key point in understanding the kingdom of God.
Post a Comment