When talk of addressing environmental and physical poverty starts up, why do some people automatically think such activities are taking place to the detriment of addressing spiritual poverty?
It's a great and unfair assumption, a bias of some kind I don't understand. It's about as fair and accurate as someone believing that Billy Graham, because so much of his public life is about conversion, doesn't care about or do anything about the almost 30,000 children under the age of five who die every day from poverty related causes. Unfair.
Where do these assumptions and fears come from?
Here was my response:
Shaun,What do you think?
Thanks for the comment. I think church history, especially of the early 20th century has caused some (probably rightly so), to be defensive when it comes to these talks. Early 20th century liberalism wanted to "expand" the Gospel to mean caring for the poor, etc. Just a few years later all the Gospel meant for those folks was doing works of social justice. The Gospel of substitution and imputation was left far behind. It was too "narrow".
So I think it is wise to keep this church history in mind as a caution, lest we repeat their error, all the while embracing a robust Biblical view that says without apology, "The Gospel has implications! Eph. 2:8,9 has verse 10 following it!"
We are a community of word AND deed and may we never separate the two. I am not comfortable with saying that the Gospel IS helping the poor, but I am very passionate about people living out the implications of the Gospel through ministries like Compassion, adoption, IJM, etc.
Does that make sense?
9 comments:
Spot on Zach.
We DEFINITELY need to care about the poor, the widows, the orphans and so on.
It just needs to be seen as a fruit of the gospel working in the life, not the gospel itself.
Thanks, Z. That helps. But your response is still a bit illogical to me. Here's my understanding in a nutshell. Please teach me if I'm incorrect.
1)Some Christians in the past have made the mistake of making the gospel all about freedom for the oppressed, sight for the blind, good news for the poor. Sure. I agree. And I agree that they're mistaken in doing so. But, it's also my belief that right now most American Christians make the gospel all about forgiveness of sin and what will happen to them when they die. Also mistaken. So, if I read a blog post in which someone talks only of how God has rescued us from sin and death through the resurrection of his son Jesus, the Christ, and how God has prepared a place for us after death, am I justified in assuming that such a blogger does not believe God also cares about physical and community restoration right here and now? Is it fair to fear such a blogger is believing only half the gospel?
2) "Caring about the poor" is not merely the fruit of "the gospel working in the life, not the gospel." It is part of Jesus' gospel. "Good News" and "gospel" are translations of the same Greek word: euangelion. Rulers had gospels or Good News - important proclamations they made. Jesus' proclamation in Mark 1:14-15 is "The time has come. The kingdom is here. Repent." Nothing about the poor. Nothing about sin. Nothing about where we go when we die. BUT, when Jesus details what the kingdom is (his rule) he emphasizes all three as components or dimensions. All three are the gospel: God reigns now and forever - in us, through us, for us and in spite of us.
The gospel is a multi-faceted gem that shines from every angle, but its substance, to put it simply, is news. Very special news, but news.
News isn't something you do, it is something that you hear, and believe, proclaim. The news will change what you do, but the news isn't what you do.
I would not have an incomplete gospel if I failed to mention the fact that from the beginning God has planned on wedding his Son to the Church, yet this is just another sparkle in the gem. It's not simply where you are going when you die, but it is profoundly attached to Christ's death and resurrection.
Let's look at what Paul says the gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
It's about Jesus death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins.
Yes Jesus heals people. Yes he feeds people. But this is not the gospel. These are implications of the gospel.
Not to belabor my point, but how would you proclaim caring for the poor to the poor? "The kingdom of God is here! Repent. Be cared for!"
It doesn't really make any sense.
Instead we can say, "we are all spiritual beggars who have received the riches of Christ, therefore the non-poor ought to provide for the poor just as Christ who is rich become poor for us, and the poor ought to glorify God that they will be released from poverty and their father will provide for them."
Shaun,
Great thoughts. I don't have time to respond much right now, but will. I would say listen to Dr. Carson's talk that I sent you. Great stuff to think through on this issue.
z
Thanks for that, Ben. I think the "disagreement" here is largely semantic - or, I should say, the product of my inability to articulate what I think you and I both believe. However...
our wedding with Christ is future and our advance of the kingdom in both the physical and spiritual realms is right now and accomplished fully only by Christ in the future. In that sense, caring for the poor (to pick an example) is more central to the Good News NOW.
As for how I'd proclaim the good news to the poor? Well, Jesus did it by quoting Isaiah. Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed
What is the good news he preached to the poor? Forgiveness of sins? Future home in heaven? Nope. He told them he came to give freedom (I think you can argue both physical and spiritual), healing and justice.
So, to the poor, I'd say "Good News! God hears you! He remembers you! He has set you free from sin and death, and he, through his people, is setting you free from injustice, separation, poverty and sickness. You have an Advocate, a Power, a family and a Hope."
This is the gospel preached in the third world today. I've only heard the other kind (heaven and forgiveness only) preached in the first world. Coincidence?
Thanks again, Ben. You guys really are teaching me, forcing me to think through what I believe, face the questions still unanswered and training me to communicate this Good News more clearly. Thank you.
At the moment i'm reading "Christian mission in the modern world" by John stott. I'm not very far in but it looks like it could be a useful response to the topic.
Shaun,
I don't think I really have a problem with anything you wrote below. It's true. There are dangers at every turn if you fall off on either side. But what you wrote doesn't say that the Gospel IS the act of freeing someone from poverty. I don't think I hear you saying that, am I correct? As has been already said, Gospel = NEWS. Freeing someone from poverty is not news. It's an act and an implication or effect of the Gospel. What is interesting is that if we don't agree on the pathway, or destination is the same. We both want to see kids get adopted, cared for, justice served, etc...
You said:
"Forgiveness of sins? Future home in heaven? Nope."
I do think this is a bit reductionistic since we know in other places in the Gospel that he did preach repentance, sin, heaven to the poor.
I think a good exercise is to view how Paul and Peter preach the Gospel in the book of Acts. Might shed some light on the subject.
One other quick thought. We should let Luke define what he means by "poor". In Luke 6 John the Baptist is not sure about the real identity of Jesus and has some of his boys go ask Jesus if he is really the Messiah. Jesus' response points to his deeds as evidence that he is the Messiah. Seems as though these deeds are NOT the Gospel, but flow from his identity. They are not his identity, but are an implication of it and should give all who see them an indication of who he is.
Also, check out that Tim Keller piece that I emailed to you. Both him and Carson have thought long and hard about these very complex issues.
More more to say. That's all I got for now.
I agree that the deeds of Jesus flowed from his identity. But if that means those deeds can't then also be counted as part of the gospel then neither can his death and resurrection. Those are deeds also flowing from his identity.
His identity, in part, is savior. What he does, therefore, is bring salvation. Sozo. According to Strong, it means: to save, i.e. Deliver or protect (literally or figuratively) -- heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.
That certainly MUST include forgiveness of sins, restoration of relationship with God, the indwelling of the Spirit, assurance of eternal life. Yes yes yes! BUT, it also means Paul was talking salvation when he said Jesus came to "redeem all things."
In Kingdom Ethics by Glen Stassen and David Gushee they write it better than I've been able to say it so far - I apologize:
[The later Prophets have a] deep yearning for salvation, in the deepest and most holistic sense of that word. In Isaiah, it is based on God's forgiveness, and it is eternal. It includes deliverance from oppression and injustice, from guilt and death, from war and slavery and imprisonment and exile. It includes peace and justice and forgiveness. The promise is that salvation is coming - for Israel and ultimately for the world, for societies, for families and for individuals. This is where the hope of the Messiah is located in the Hebrew scriptures. The Old Testament hope of salvation is not merely for an eternal salvation in which our disembodied souls are snatched from this vale of tears. Nor is it merely for physical justice while fellowship with the presence of God's Holy Spirit is ignored. To the extent that Christians adopt any kind of body/soul earth/heaven dualism we simply do not understand the message of Scripture - or of Jesus. God's salvation is the kingdom of God, and that means that - at last!-God has acted to deliver humanity and now reigns over all of life, and is present to and with us, and will be in the future. The New Testament will bring a greater emphasis on eternal life, but it will not negate the holistic message of a deliverance.
Yeah, what he said ; )
Shaun,
Thanks for giving that quote. I agree. Like I said before. I like the fact that we'll both hopefully end up in the same place. Perhaps the words we use to get there will be a bit different, but that is cool with me I think. Just remember to keep those historical dangers in mind. And yes, there is a danger as well of being Christians who only have a "me and Jesus" faith.
z
Post a Comment