“It seems like their entire mission in life is to listen to everything that I say, Ken Silva says, other people like Mike Ratliff, John Cardwell… and to dissect every word we say and even sometimes twist it aroundâ€
This was Mike Corley’s quote from today’s show concerning our website. I would like to rephrase this and send it back.
“It seems like their [Mike Corley, Ken Silva, etc.] entire mission in life is to listen to everything that Bell says, Erwin McManus says, other people like Rick Warren, Dan Kimball… and to dissect every word they say and even sometimes twist it aroundâ€
He then goes on to say that the difference between his site and ours is simply that “he contends for the faith.” Have you been on CRN.com? I see very little of contending for the faith and heaps of “dissecting words” and “twisting them around.”
Corley then goes on to challenge us to prove him wrong with scripture and verse. This coming from a man who in the same broadcast did a whole critique piece on Northeast Church’s methodology without using a single word from scripture. In fact, in the whole one hour, show he had A verse. The problem is that when someone makes a critique of someone without any biblical backing, it is hard to give a biblical rebuttal using scripture. When someone makes blanket statements about someone or some ministry, we have to return with simple evidence that these accusations are not true, using scripture and scripture usage when possible.
I found it comical that Mike used this example: please give me chapter and verse when you argue against me that Jesus is the only way or that Mormonism, Hinduism or Buddhism is wrong. Does anyone remember any “mock site†having a problem with these issues? No, we all agree on these. It is the painting of anything that looks different than you as emergent and attacking methods rather than the message preached that we take offense. It is when people are trying to give the message of Christ and you try to hinder it, that we take action.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
64 Comments(+Add)
Nathan,
Since you just stated to someone that you “welcome inquiry” here’s an opportunity to demonstrate it:
In this post you said, “It is the painting of anything that looks different than you as emergent and attacking methods rather than the message preached that we take offense.”
What is the “message of Christ?” Isn’t the message that you yourself are preaching the “whole gospel” versus “the gospel?” Isn’t the “whole gospel” according to you “the gospel” plus social reformation?
Look at all you’ve written previously and tell me how I CAN’T draw that conclusion.
And isn’t this part of what Ken Silva thinks that Erwin Mcmanus is preaching?
Is a person justified or not justified based on how much social reformation they accomplish? If not, how can there be a “gospel” versus a “whole gospel?”
Welcome back Amy. You lost me on this one, would you mind rephrasing?
Just to make it clear – I’m not interested in defending Ken Silva. There are some very basic value differences between you and the other writers on this site and other people such as myself. In the end, I don’t think it matters how kind, logical, scripture-based, a person tries to be while disagreeing with you. In the end, those issues will remain.
(That is not to say someone who disagrees with you shouldn’t try to be kind, etc . . .)
Amy…
Why is it the “gospel plus social reformation” why the separation… we are to be like Christ who brought justice to us… in turn are we not to bring justice to others…
I know most in “reformed theology” think justice is just the wrath of God to the wicked… but in the bible it is much more… it is leveling the scales… it is feeding the poor, caring of the widows and orphans… maybe just maybe loving an aids patient… which are the modern day lepers…
Why has justice been placed outside the gospel and when we point that out… we are told we are watering it down…
I am not saying this is your view… but these are the questions i have every time I see gospel + social action… to me they are inseparable…
blessings,
iggy
Joe,
Nathan should understand what I’m talking about. He’s the one who uses the phrase “whole gospel,” as well as I believe “complete gospel” and “gospel in its entirety.”
Iggy,
I am saved because Christ died for my sins, not because of my works.
Our response to the love and mercy that God has shown us is to show love and mercy to others. We were undeserving of the forgiveness we have received. In turn, we should show forgiveness, mercy, and compassion to those around us. How is this done? Preaching the Gospel? Yes. Helping the poor and opressed? Yes. We should take every opprotunity when showing love and compassion to others to tell them of the love and compassion shown us through Christ.
Ok, well Amy, since you don’t want to seem to answer me, I’m still going to answer you. Speaking for me, the issue isn’t that I’m preaching the whole Gospel (of course I think I am) and a person who is more conservative than me isn’t. My problem with the site is that they attack the person without supporting what they say. I have many good friends and we disagree on what the whole Gospel is, but we don’t attack each other. I have friends who believe the Sunday night service is a vital part of spiritual growth, I personally think it’s the church’s attempt at being culturally relevant 200 years ago. If Ken just put out there what he believed, then I wouldn’t care all that much. Team Pyro does it all the time and I tend to disagree with some (many) of their conclusions, but you won’t find too many posts here taking it apart bit by bit. This is because usually they show you how they came to that conclusion.
Where did any of us (Nathan included) say that someone is justified based on how much social reformation they have accomplished?
Amy,
I do think that helping widows and orphans is part of the scriptures… yes. It is not a part of the saving gospel message.
When I say “whole gospel” I am affirming that those of us in the emerging church do not leave out, are ashamed of or shy away from ANY part of the gospel message. Ken has said many times that we leave out the less attractive stuff (sin, hell, consequences)… that is just nonsense. So “whole” and “complete” are not referring to the social gospel as the missing component. it is showing that we are not ashamed of any part of it.
What is the message of Jesus Christ? I don’t have enough time to write out an exhausted explanation. So I refer you to the doctrinal statement that Ken Silva, Erwin McManus, Rick Warren, and myself affirm publicly. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp.
After reading this in its entirety, let me know if you still have problems with my doctrine.
the web site is http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
adding the period at the end of the link made it bad
Amy, I’ve been thinking about how to say this and I can’t come up with a better way than just strait to the point.
You seem kind of “chippy” on this one?
I don’t understand the bifurcation of “social issues” from the proclamation of “good news”.
I haven’t heard anyone–even classic liberals who really don’t exist anymore–believe that justification comes from works, but our “social works” are an outworking of the truth of the grace of God in our lives. They are also Gospel proclamation in deed, not just word.
It seems to me that people who are against “social gospel” are really against “corporate, systemic” application/proclamation of the gospel.
It’s ok to have private ethical expectations based on your receiving of grace (i.e. become a Christian) so long as they are personal. Don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t have sex outside of marraige, don’t slander or gossip–unless you are discerning and standing for the Truth, etc. (sorry, that was snarky)
But it seems that the larger communal ethics are all jammed through an individualistic filter. It is an incomplete understanding of the scope of the effects of the Gospel, but the corrective to it in no way claims that works is the path to salvation.
it seems there is some confusion on the Gospel vs. the living out of the Gospel, the invitation of God to then live out the Gospel and thus proclaim it in EVERY sphere of human life.
Does that make sense?
The gospel is that Jesus the sinless Son of God, died on a cross as the complete payment for the sins of the world. On the third day He rose from the dead and all who by faith embrace those truths as their own can be forgiven and have everlasting life.
Let us be completely frank. People have been saved under the preaching and gospel presentation of MacAurther, Warren, Graham(me), Wesley, Finney, and many others whose presentation and emphasis of the gospel varied somewhat. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is the illuminating agent.
But we must be careful not to alter the presentation of who Jesus is. If a person embraces Jeus because he or she desires relief from earthly problems, that is very dangerous. Many, and I mean many, of today’s preachers give altar calls after identifying a laundry list of problems facing people today and presenting Jesus as the solver of those problems. I have heard it personally thousands of times.
And people stroll down the aisle, repeat a prayer offered by a counselor, and are immediately assured of their eternal destiny and lined up for a future baptism. And we wonder why a typical church can record two hundred baptisms for a fiscal year and only be able to locate 8 converts still attending.
The gospel is simple but also easy to misrepresent.
agreeing again Rick. Should this be happening this often:)
The fact of the matter is, we all have our own “emphasis” that we put on the gospel message. Some make him the solution to life, others make it out to be a “get out of hell free card and still others make it much too complex in the exegesis that they give of it.
Ironically people criticize Mosaic all the time for not having enough alter calls. We don’t do that because we are afraid of people getting offended. … just a little joke!! We only do it but once every two months because we know that it has such a small “success rate.” People find Christ through the relationships with believers they meet, and the time in the word and example that they have with them.
What bothers me about the “anti-social gospel” argument is that usually there are social issues that those critics are concerned about. Abortion is a social issue. How is that more important then AIDS? Many conservatives will choose who they vote for just on the abortion question alone. Isn’t outlawing abortion “social reformation”?
I am at a straight betwixt two about altar calls. I can see their use and I can see their misuse. We are sometimes so anxious to record a person’s salvation “moment” that we may just abort the process that the Spirit is still undergoing in a person’s heart by eliciting a premature committment.
I do not know the exact day of my conversion, but I know the month. Why? Because that was the month me heart and life changed and I was saved on a mountain overlooking NYC. And that was a culmination of a six month process as the Holy Spirit drew me. We want the salvation drive through window, not the slow roaster cooked all the way through!
Matt, you raise an excellent point. All social and moral issues must be addressed within the confines of Jesus’ name (cup of cold water). So the people that vote on the basis of issues like that and then reject any Biblical emphasis on the poor etc. are trying to have it both ways.
God’s agent of reform is never the ballot box, the New Testament was written before the carnal cauldron called Democracy came into vogue. My personal view(here comes a real hand granade) is a Christian should not particpate in a fleshly system that joins hands with a rainbow coalition of religious and non religious people, and whose system operates on obscene amounts of money used to bribe people’s minds with falsehoods and exaggerated promises otherwise known as lies.
I have stopped voting years ago and yes, I do not complain because the country of which I am a citizen has nothing to compain about. Our King is perfect, sovereign, and eternal and I draw my life from Him, not the reverse. And our King is not elected, WE ARE!!
The funniest altar call story I have is this. I was visiting my aunt and uncle’s church, which is rural, very small, and very conservative. The pastor preached about how evil the world was. There was no application for those already saved. It was, I guess, supposed to make us all feel self righteous. At the end, the organist kept playing “Just as I am” and the congregation kept glancing at me, hoping I’d walk the aisle.
The other funny thing was that the church had a political liaison. He got up before the sermon and told everyone stuff he’d read on the internet and how the gays were going to take over the country if we weren’t careful. They were all about “social reformation†I guess.
good insight Matt. Christians will literally kill for gay and abortion social reform. But when it comes to actually doing what the scriptures say… sick, widows, orphans, poor… it isn’t their responsibility.
I am looking forward to this election and seeing what Christians will do. The only one for any type of abortion/gay reform is a democrat. And, the only “Christian” that may be on the ballot is a democrat woman. Should be fun to see what happens.
Who are you referring to, Nathan? I think Rudy’s a Christian.
John Kerry could be too.
Who will conservative Christians vote for if Romney gets the Republican nomination?
What is ironic too is that I heard the altar call was developed by Finney as a means to get names of the converted to mobilize them for social reform issues driven by churches of the time–child labor reform, etc.
If true, then the precious altar call was not some “contextualized” methodology for private, individualistic evangelism, but for the express purpose of enacting the liberating life of God for the weak and poor.
hmmmm……….
Just a thought
Not Kerry, who’s the guy who’s wife has cancer…John Edwards! Good thing I’m an alien here!
Although the “anxious seat” was popularized by Finney, it was for evangelism. Finney was an outspoken critic of slavery though.
Matt – I agree with your Romney comment seeing he espouses an antichrist doctrine. I watch with amazement how the golden calf of the Republican Party has now morphed into bringing forth candidates who no longer hold to the social issues that drew some Christians. Why? Because the party never was committed to those issues only being elected.
Watch as politically active Christians swing in the wind next year not”knowing who to cling to, when the rain came in”.
I think this comes back to defining salvation as something that is “personal” rather than in a holistic context. Yes, Jesus died to save us from the consequences of sin, and take us out of that, if you will, but we are also saved into the Kingdom of God. I think the problem comes when we make it into an either/or false dichotomy.
As far as alter calls go, I have really come to hate them, for the most part. I guess I got sick of seeing guys a grew up with get “saved” about a dozen times. Hopefully one of them stuck
Seriously, I’ve never had an alter call at any of our services, and hope never to. The majority of people that have come to know Christ through our ministry have done so in one of the cell groups. And this is coming from someone in a denomination that loves alter calls (AoG) – so go figure.
Amy,
I see I’m getting in late, but I would say that the “whole gospel” is what Paul preached:
The message of the ‘kingdom of God’ includes, at its basis, the first mission given to Abraham, and then reiterated by Peter:
God blesses us so that we may bless others, and caring for the poor, the sick, and the oppressed is at the core of the teaching of the kingdom. How you love your neighbor – especially those who are the least ‘lovable’ – is a demonstration of your love for God.
Rick,
I had to laugh
You don’t like the Beatles, but you’re an Elton John fan?
Chris, I wondered who would be the first to recognize that quote. You, of course. And the Beatles were my favorite group years ago. Oh the vestiges we’ve left behind.
For what it’s worth, here is why I am confused about what the gospel is according to you, Nathan. My apologies for not having a link to all of them. I simply don’t know how to do it. (Parenthesis I’ve added)
In a comment here you said:
“When I say “whole gospel†I am affirming that those of us in the emerging church do not leave out, are ashamed of or shy away from ANY part of the gospel message. Ken has said many times that we leave out the less attractive stuff (sin, hell, consequences)… that is just nonsense. So “whole†and “complete†are not referring to the social gospel as the missing component. it is showing that we are not ashamed of any part of it. ” You also affirm the SBC doctrinal statement.
Yet before you said:
If Jesus came and had no intention to preach a social gospel as well, then he would have never healed the sick, given sight to the blind, made the lame walk, or even bring back the dead. ”
and
“Your problem is that Jesus did not use this method. (sharing the gospel before a “cup of cold water”)He didn’t make people believe in Him before He healed them. (I wasn’t suggesting this.) It was through the healing that they came to faith. Imagine Jesus saying, “Ok, I will heal you, but first you must accept me as your savior.†You are looking this as an “either, or†subject. The fact is it is both. You can give someone a drink of water in the name if the Lord. YES, the gospel is where it begins. It inspires and encourages those of us who are followers of Christ to be more like HIM. To show HIS love to the sick, broken and downhearted. ”
Now, I do believe that the gospel will offend some, and it will be a stumbling block to some, but that shouldn’t be out focus. WE should work on presenting the gospel IN ITS ENTIRETY without offending or confusing every non-believer that comes across it. I don’t think that you are doing this Amy. It is just a side thought. ” (So according to your definition today I leave out “sin” “hell” etc when I present the gospel?)
On another level, my confusion goes beyond “social gospel” to something more:
From your personal testimony:”When I gave my life to Christ it was not to go to heaven or avoid hell or even to have my sins forgiven; it was for one reason above all the others – Jesus could change me to become like him in his character and in him my life would not be wasted. For me the gospel was a call to live a heroic life marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice.”
This is central to the heart of Mosaic. Jesus didn’t die just to get us out of trouble. His death was the price for our lives – so in him we become fully alive. As followers of Christ we live to love and love to live. Jesus pulls us out of a life of mediocrity to live a life defined by passion and compassion.”
What bothers me about this is the downplay on “having my sins forgiven.” I just don’t really understand this. Jesus paying the price for our sins is the heart of the gospel.
Regarding verses oft used to promote social reformation:
“cup of cold water” in context refers to ministering to fellow Christians
“doing to the least of these” – Matt 18- in context is talking about “brothers” Cf. I John where brothers refers to believers.
The passages in the NT talking about helping the poor, widows, etc, are primarily dealing with those in the church aren’t they? And those who don’t work, don’t eat.
A better NT passage to use when considering our responsibility to non-believers may be the Good Samaritan passage, where “neighbor” is basically anyone we come in contact with who has a need that we can meet. I think one can stretch the “Good Samaritan” principle to trying to help those who we wouldn’t normally come across, whether in this country or abroad.
If we’re going to take that principle, as well as other scriptures relating to love, then we need to be willing to take an honest look at the NT examples in Acts. The people went out and preached the gospel – that was what they were commanded to do. “Social” needs were met as people became a part of the church.
Does that mean that one never helps those outside of the church? I believe not – but consider the NT emphasis.
Ok, round and round we go… but here is my response.
1. The “social gospel” is a term used by many theologians. It is referring to the social responsibility we have as believers… clothe the naked, take care of the widows and orphans, feed the hungry. I never said that this was necessary for salvation. it is our duty as a believe, but salvation is not contingent upon it.
2. “I don’t think that you are doing this Amy. It is just a side thought. †(So according to your definition today I leave out “sin†“hell†etc when I present the gospel?)”
When I said “I don’t think you are doing this” in my comment it didn’t have some alternative meaning of “you are doing this”. Even so, I was talking about people leaving out the social part of the gospel, not hell or sin.
3. I NEVER downplayed “Jesus paying the price for our sins”. I said that I did not follow Christ just so that I could have my sins forgiven and go to heaven. Many people think of their salvation as a “get out of hell free” ticket. I don’t… I take it much more serious. Thru Christ my once ugly and unregenerate life is transformed into something beautiful so that I can in turn go and show the world who God is.
I don’t follow Christ just so that my sins can be forgiven and go to heaven… I follow Him because of who He is and so that I may show his glory to the world around me.
Amy,
consider the fact that pretty much EVERYONE Jesus healed, fed and helped was not a Christian at the time. Some had never even heard of him. That is a N.T. emphasis to consider as well.
Chris,
It’s a huge stretch to take words God spoke to Abraham and apply them to the church.
So are you saying that “the kingdom of God” that Paul preached is “social justice?” If so, why didn’t he and the other apostles do a better job changing Rome? Why didn’t Jesus get rid of slavery? Why did Paul spend so much time teaching and establishing churches, who were taught to take care of their own, instead of promoting crusades to feed all the hungry people outside of the church?
Why would have Jesus cared about healing people? Why would have Jesus cared to feed people? Why would James write Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, to keep? Why show the world the compassion of Jesus when we are fine and dandy in the comforts of our four walls and a steeple?
Amy, I am beginning to not follow your logic as much as you seem to not follow mine.
the “my brothers” of the least of these is not a line drawn to deal with only Christians.
It is the endorsement of the naked, hungry, imprisoned, sick, etc. as the brothers of Christ. It dignifies their status in a world where they are forgotten, rejected and seen as cursed of God. Christ overturns this.
The practice of the early church was to care for the poor without regard to their status in the church–early records from the Church Fathers show this. Unless you consider that a perversion or a wrong headed idea by those instructed by the Apostles themselves.
Amy,
I guess Peter must have thought it a stretch, as well, since he used this same scripture in Acts 3:25
I would also point to Matthew 25:41-46
Also, I would consider the instructions on the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) in Leviticus parallelled with Pentecost in Acts. At the end of the Leviticus instructions is this:
This celebration (Pentecost) was a celebration of the harvest brought by God, and it was considered to be blasphemy to Him that provided for you if you did not make provision for others.
In the Acts account of Pentecost, the last verses are these:
I would also consider Jesus’ brother James words on the subject to matter:
Nathan,
1. Then why use terms like “whole gospel?” It’s simply confusing. Also “the social gospel” is used differently than by different people; for example, it is used in place of “the gospel.”
2. Probably my misunderstanding. Sorry about that.
3.”I said that I did not follow Christ just so that I could have my sins forgiven and go to heaven.” Perhaps that’s what you meant before, but not what you said. Sorry I misunderstood your intention.
As for this, “consider the fact that pretty much EVERYONE Jesus healed, fed and helped was not a Christian at the time. Some had never even heard of him. That is a N.T. emphasis to consider as well,” – - that is a good thought. It is also good to consider that one of the reasons Jesus did these things – miraculous things -was to show that He was the Son of God. He was not trying to create the kingdom of God of the type that people expected. He did not bring social justice. He did not get rid of the evil rulers. He did not feed all the hungry (even though he could have) or heal all the sick (even though he could have.) He died. He rose again. That was his emphasis. He died. He rose again. And we are to go into the world sharing that good news. Can we heal while we do it? Yes. Can we feed the poor while we do it? Yes. But meeting men’s physical needs is not the heart of the gospel.
It is also good to see just how Jesus’ close followers carried out his instructions. They did have miraculous gifts as well such as healing and casting out demons, which helped people to believe that the message they gave was true. But they were not on an endless healing mission, even though theoretically with their miraculous gifts they could have traveled all over the world to heal many more people than they did. Their primary emphasis was sharing the gospel, and instructing people about Christ and how to live for him.
Here’a a question for you: What was the purpose of Jesus and the apostle’s “good works” – healing, casting out demons – was it not to show God’s power and God’s compassion? Then, if we are to do good works, even “non-miraculous” ones, that show God’s power and compassion to unbelievers, how can we mix with those who are doing Satan’s bidding?
Also, what about the people who did not have miraculous gifts of healing and casting out demons? It seems that the instructions in the NT were living a life that pleased God, and treating their brothers with love. I don’t see anywhere where they are taught to go out and feed all of the hungry, or take care of all the sick in order to create “a kingdom of God” on the earth. Were they however expected to be “Good Samaritans?” Definitely yes.
I’m not against good works and don’t mean to come across that way. But I don’t believe that a Christian’s goal is to bring social justice to the world especially sans gospel, and especially if one does it in an unbibical way (and as we have already discussed, we disagree over what is biblical in terms of Christians and non-Christians working together.)
People seem to get stuck on those verses in ephesians 2:
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
Yes we are saved by God’s grace, through faith, and certainly not by our good works, sometimes we forget to read the next verse:
10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Basically, we are save by grace, through faith, TO DO GOOD WORKS–including social action.
I don’t know if this was already addressed today — I was working so didn’t have time to post after some earlier comments.
Chris,
Acts 3:25 is addressed to the “men of Israel,” Abraham’s descendants. God is talking to the Jewish descendants of Abraham. There is no conflict in this passage and the original passage addressed to Abraham.
Matthew 25 – See Matthew 25:40 – I think this passage is talking about either fellow Christians or Jews. Compare “brothers” to passages in I John that talk about showing love to brothers. (Look at I John 3:14, 15) (For Jews, see Niv study bible note.)
Acts 2:44-45 – Is there any reason to assume (other than association with Pentecost) that this sharing went beyond church? I’m not saying it didn’t or shouldn’t have, just wondering – the passage doesn’t reveal this and there isn’t anywhere else in the NT where believers are providing for unbelievers (or is there?)
Lev 23:22 – and many other passages in the OT talk about looking out for the poor. Even Joseph could be seen as one who unknowingly had a mission to save the starving, both his own and other people. The main point of the story is that he saved the Jewish people.
Yes God cares about the poor, the sick, and so forth. I am not saying he doesn’t. But see what I said to Nathan about how this seems to be carried out in the NT.
To go from Old Testament concepts of mercy and justice to worldwide social justice working hand in hand with whoever, setting the gospel somewhere off to the side, if it’s there at all, is just plain wrong. I’m not arguing for “just tell them the gospel, and let them starve.” You are arguing for worldwide social justice working hand in hand with anybody, I believe.
I heard this on NPR the other night, on an hour focused on African-Americans. They were going over the relatively high statistics for Aids among African-Americans. Then they began to complain about the “faith sector.” Bottom line: the faith sector teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and they need to be re-educated. The secular group has prepared “sermons” for the pastors; they need to use them.
Amy,
I understand what you’re saying as far as some liberal leftist groups have taken on social change as some sort of civic project, and the when Christian take part in these things, it creates strange bedfellows. I totally understand where you are coming from. I think that we have to be careful about who we are doing things with, and for what end purpose. Many leftist groups seems to be trying to bring about a Communist utopia rather than trying to bring glory to Jesus.
I think we need to first decide what the Gospel is. Yes the fact that Jesus died for people’s sins is foremost, but I think the broader context has to be the Kingdom of God.
Luke 9:6 says,”So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.”
This was before Jesus died, yet here they were preaching the gospel. So what were they preaching? I believe the same as Jesus and John the Baptist had been saying, “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” It was asking people to follow Jesus by faith into abundant life. The gospel was/is about the Kingdom of God where Jesus is King and everyone including the sick, poor and outcast were/are invited. I just don’t see this dichotomy that you seem yo be presenting.
Amy, I can’t say if our job is to change the world, but my job is help people and present the gospel, and sometimes the best way to present the gospel is by helping people. If I am supposed to model Christ, then I must exercise the same compassion and love that he did (even to the rich ruler who couldn’t choose Jesus over stuff).
I don’t know what the technical definition of “whole gospel” is. I do know that Silva claims a lot of people don’t preach it and his followers say things about AIDS resulting in death (or something like that). To follow Christ is to be like him, to believe in him and represent him. That, to me, is the “whole gospel”.
Amy, a little while ago you commented on a pregnancy prevention ministry that you are involved in (please forgive me if I don’t have all the details right). In your heart, what compels you to be involved in this?
deborah
Amy,
“I am saved because Christ died for my sins, not because of my works.”
Yes we all are.. I ma not sure as to why you are stating that to me… I never said YOU were not… I was stating that social justice is part of the Gospel and not the Gospel +…
After salvation we are saved unto doing the good and perfect works of God… and that is the working out of our salvation… these are not our works but His… in that those works are also the working out of the Gospel.
So, what is it you are trying to say to me?
Be Blessed,
iggy
The social gospel is not actually a part of the gospel (Jn.3:16) but is an often neglected part of the result of the gospel. Many people are correct when they say that so often when a person becomes a believing follower of Christ he is encouraged to work on his own life and not fully versed as to what a Christ follower’s ministry is to the world. They are told that missions is preaching but never really instructed as to the Biblical entourage that should accompany preaching.
James especially is clear.
Deborah,
If you read carefully what I’m writing here as well as the whole discussion in the place where I mentioned the pregnancy issue, you will see that I am not against good works. I am against the whole idea that the Christians purpose is to reform the world, especially if we are working together with anybody to do it. The gospel can become secondary, of absolutely no importance, or the meaning of it can become skewed. As I pointed out before, I specifically don’t understand how a pastor like Rick Warren can work with someone like Obama. Have you ever read about his involvement in abortion? Yet Warren invited him to the conference supposedly because he “had an AIDS test in Africa.” When leaders of social reformation do such things, how can we expect the whole “movement” to stay pure, pleasing to Christ. I for one don’t want to be linked to a gospel that treats the unborn (and in the case of Obama, not only the unborn, but the born from batched abortions who are still alive after the fact, but left to die outside of the womb.)
In demonstrating compassion towards others, which is a Biblical principle, it’s wrong to ignore other Biblical principles.
The project I mentioned before is directed towards young girls in another country, many of whom are getting pregnant without even knowing what’s happening. (No intro to sex from their moms, many not exposed to movies, etc, boys roaming around . . . .) Many of them are not Christians, or have little bible knowledge. The first time I got interested in it was when I went with the ladies in my church to visit the new mothers in a hospital. A couple of the new mothers were perhaps 12-14 years old; they looked incredibly sad. I heard of only two weddings that I or people I knew went to while I was in that country (5 years) that wasn’t a wedding of necessity. A friend of mine took a boy who was illegitimate and had a physical defect – without my friends intervention he would have been pretty much an outcast. People told me that the babies born with no fathers are “second-class.” Then I learned that many of the women in my church never talk to their daughters about the basic facts of life – fear, embarrasment, etc.
It was at a women’s meeting, after I talked about the biblical principle of older women in the faith leading younger women that some women started crying talking about how they find it difficult to even talk to their own daughters about sex, purity. I suggested something I could do to help them be able to talk to there daughters, and they liked the idea. I wouldn’t define the project as “pregnancy prevention” but rather as understanding God and his plan for purity. I don’t plan to introduce birth control. I believe that presenting the gospel is essential to the project. It is the Holy Spirit who enables people to turn away from “lusts of the flesh.”
I don’t separate my life into “sharing the gospel” and “good works.” When God redeems a person, if that person is not compassionate in his heart towards other people, and if that compassion doesn’t translate to some kind of involvement in other people’s lives, whether they be physically, spiritually, or emotionally needy, then I think that something is wrong with that person’s relationship with God.
Iggy,
Some people say that living a life of obedience is part of the gospel . . . or holding to certain doctrines is part of the gospel . . . or, being baptized is part of the gospel. If, in talking about those things people start using the term “whole gospel” what would you think? Nathan brought up the term several times in contrast to the gospel. So I’ve been trying to understand what he really means.
And if you go back to that whole discussion, I think that what some believe here goes way beyond “doing good works.” I think it goes more in the direction of “let’s reform the whole world,” bring God’s kingdom on this earth. I believe in doing good works -but I don’t believe that a Christian is commanded to go to all the ends of the earth to make everything “level.” I do believe that by bringing the gospel to people they sometimes end up having “better” lives materially and physically, as a result of learning to work by Christian principles, as a result of having been given a “start” by other Christians who may bring such things as literacy, schools, hospitals.
The gospel according to I Cor 15 is Christ death, burial, and resurrection. I do good works because Christ lives in me – I am not justified by those works. I could never do enough works to balance the scales.
I’ve got to ask this: “Is it wrong to use birth control?” Assuming you’re married?
Amy,
You said:
1) There were no people there besides Jews; 2) We are ingrafted into Israel, per Paul’s message in Romans 11, and Abraham (and his covenant with God – to walk blameless and to be a blessing to others) is at the root of that tree.
To be more clear, Paul in Galatians 3 writes:
This promise to Abraham includes the VERY FIRST promise made to Abraham – that he would be blessed by God, and that through him (Abraham) those blessings would be passed on.
Just to be clear that this is NOT just Jews, Paul concludes:
You wrote
v. 45 seems to indicate that it went beyond just the believers.
As for Paul’s view on social justice, besides v. 28 above, Paul also writes in Colossians 3(referring to believers):
This verse and Galatians 3:28 were devastatingly progressive thoughts for the world in which they were said. Talk about social justice – this was radical!
As for the Kingdom of God, I’ve started writing on the subject on my blog a couple of months ago, and I’m still poring through material on the subject, trying to sift a fully adequate understanding. As for its importance, it is mentioned 102 times in the gospels and 28 times in the remainder of the NT, and Paul seems to treat “the message of Jesus Christ” and the “kingdom of God” as two messages with equal importance:
This would make sense, because what we often minimally call “the gospel” is what we are to believe, and “the kingdom of God” as how we are to act it out. In Jewish thought at the time (and I can give a number of references, if you would like) through today these two messages are called hagadah (”Knowing/Understanding/Believing the Word”) and halakah (”Doing the Word”). Rabbi Abraham Heschel commented on the balance between these:
This is the same debate we are having here. You observed to me/asked me:
If you believe that is what I think, you are wrong. No more than you are saying “just tell them the gospel, and let them starve” am I saying “feed them and don’t bother telling them the gospel”. I just happen to disagree that the latter is analogous to Obama speaking at Saddleback on AIDS.
BOTH are important.
If you will indulge me for a moment to go into social science rather than arguing this from scratch based on Exodus, Leviticus and the Epistles, I’d like to quickly bring in “Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs” (which I agree with, in concept, though I disagree with parts of what he considers “homeostasis”). Basically, there are certain “Physiological needs”, which need to be met before people are capable of meeting “Safety needs”, which need to be met before people are capable of meeting “Love/Belonging” needs, etc. (see the article from Wiki – it explains it fairly well, and you can probably guess where I diagree with some pieces).
However, I see that God acts in a similar manner with His people, and that the truth observed by Maslow has always been there – and it is God’s truth.
The most basic need people have is to breathe – which is why we consider the Right to Life to be so important. If people are fighting for their very lives (the basest of “Phisiological Needs”), they will not be able to expend the effort required to meet a “Safety need” (such as the “security of morality”). [I would also note that moving downward does not work the same way as moving upward, as Maslow noted.]
In the SPECIFIC case of the AIDS crisis in Africa (and I talked with another missionary from the region in the past week since our last discussion), we are talking about a true life/death situation that is all about Physiological needs on a level rarely seen in North America. We are talking about how to deal with hundreds of thousands of orphans, some infected and some not, with no real means of survival without assistance.
In the same way that God saved his people from Egypt and from starving in the desert during their journey to Saini before He gave them any commandments (hagadah), I see us being asked to physically save these people, even if it means working with others who do not believe exactly as we do (but not in a manner that is sinful), before they will even be capable of actually listening.
However – when we are talking about meeting any needs beyond the purely physiological needs, I think it is much more important that we are more intentional about who we partner with (and that we consider more beyond just religious belief).
I do not see your stance on Warren allowing Obama to speak at a non-Church function for a true rescue operation as all that much different than Ingrid’s post yesterday about “WELS Lutherans are instructed that they should not even pray with someone of another denomination, including fellow conservative Lutherans” – Ingrid just took the same concept to an extreme…
[As a pure aside, I've had a number of more liberal Christians point out to me that Obama, who claims to be a Christian, opposes the war in Iraq, which has (depending on whose figures you believe) cost as many, if not more, lives as abortion in the US during the same time period. I doubt we'd be talking about this if Warren had President Bush speak at Saddleback instead of Obama, which suggests that we may be hypocritical for placing more value on some lives than others...]
Chris,
I don’t have the mindset to do your long post justice right now – it’s a beautiful day outside, after a couple days of rain, and I’m having the only two days we’re taking for spring break. Just looking at it quickly I imagine we’re not going to agree on the passages related to Israel/Jews.
This: “However – when we are talking about meeting any needs beyond the purely physiological needs, I think it is much more important that we are more intentional about who we partner with (and that we consider more beyond just religious belief).” is exactly what the PEACE plan is supposed to be about- physiological and spiritual needs. I wrote a story about the possible consequences of Warren’s “partnering with anybody” philosophy back when I first heard about it. Maybe one day I’ll have the guts to post it on here.
.
Amy, let me pose a question:
Suppose a neighbor’s house was burning. You and another neighbor, who is an atheist, saw that your common neighbor was trapped in the house. Would you work with your atheist neighbor to rescue your trapped neighbor? Or would you wait till your Christian friends showed up?
Joe,
Regarding birth control, first of all realize that the project I’m talking about is for unmarried girls. From my perspective, introducing birth control while teaching about purity before marriage is an oxymoron.
As to whether or not I think its wrong to use birth control – first of all let me tell you what can happen sometimes in other countries. A western woman can come in introducing birth control so the “poor native women” with “all those children” can have some “free time.” Is that biblical, or is it western values? Many times “those children” are like gold to those “poor native women.” Suddenly, they’re being enlightened that there is a better way . . .
During my married life I have gone back and forth on the issue of birth control. I have quite a number of children, close in age. I don’t really want to get into more specifics than this, but I will say this:
I think that birth control can become just another way we live out our selfishness. I’m not about to tell anyone to stop using birth control, but I do want to get my own children to consider whether or not God ever intended us to control what “new lives” he entrusts us with.
Our society has placed a high value on women looking good, having time for themselves, using their “gifts,” being fulfilled. But God really created women to thrive in motherhood. I think that women should do all they can to encourage each other; women who need special encouragement and friendships are women who find themselves at home with several young children. In a village society, women like this weren’t isolated. In our society they often are. Part of what a church cando to glorify God is to focus on encouraging families to feel blessed, not cursed, when they have many children – and to truly welcome the children into the body of Christ.
I go to a church where children are greatly valued – on any given service you can hear some baby snoring, some small child speaking out. Children are often included in the sermon, in the prayer time, and so forth. Ministries are family-based.
People will sometimes encourage women not to have children so they can be more involved in “ministry.” Yet often the most effective ministry is the testimony of a godly family. For myself after a time I chose not to use my years of education in the way that I had planned, so that I could be the mother and teacher that I needed to be. I have found that my “ministry,” though of a different type than I planned, is multiplied through my children.
By the way I didn’t mean to imply that “looking good” and “motherhood” can’t go hand in hand!
Amy,
I have three kids under 4 and I myself have gone back and forth on the issue.
Yeah, so I’m willing to be called “that guy.” If you’d like to see a video of my kids follow the link below.
http://www.joemartino.name/metamorphic/2007/04/newport_aquariu.html
Amy,
I have worked in african villaged with kids who are going to die of AIDS, so the issue is a bit more personal to me. The fact of the matter is, Jesus met people’s personal needs first and then shared the gospel… he healed and then said follow me. Does that make the former more important than the latter? Certianly not. I would argue that the latter is far more important than the healing. But, Jesus realized the power of compassion and service when reaching a person’s heart.
As fas as working with the non-beleiver… I have a hard time accepting your logic. If I am working with someone to cure AIDS and they happen to be pro-aboriton, I am in no way supporting abortion. We happen to be working together for the common good of mankind. Can you explain to me how Warren working with Obama on AIDS and world hunger supports abortion? The logic there seems to be flawed.
Christians go to a job everyday to work towards some casue… insurance, food service, marketing. By working with non-beleivers (some of which probably are pro-choice) towards a common goal, are these Christians supporting abortion, homosexuality, etc.? Should every Christian quit their job to go work with people who hold the exact same values to work towards the same cause? Because if we follow what you are saying… Christians shouldn’t work towards the common good with people who have different values, then this is exactly what every Chrisitian needs to do.
Amy, I didn’t mean for you to get the impression that I thought your were against good works. I wanted to know why you do them.
For me, the gospel, the good news of Jesus, is what Jesus has done for me, how he has changed me and what I do now as a response to him. I am unable to separate what He has done from what I do now. Any good works I do come from God and are part of the gospel. If there is something good that I can do, then to not do it would be a sin. My goal isn’t to change to world, only to do what I should. After that, what happens is in the Lord’s hands.
I’ve read your comments about Warren and Obama, and I am willing to conceed that you have a concern that shouldn’t be brushed off easily. At the same time I am concerned that a separatist mindset could easily be carried over to a number of other areas – from the very specific example you use to the simple act of Christians shopping at a non-Christian store.
Your comments regarding birth control were well phrased. It seems (to me) that right now you don’t view birth control in a favorable light for yourself. Someone who is looking at birth control should give much consideration to why they would use it. Yet it doesn’t seem to be something you have universally condemned.
I look at the Warren/Obama thing the same way. I myself would not have choosen to partner that way in that situation. I pray that Warren considered all this and feels confident about the answer he will give to God. At the same time, Warren could look at my life and decisions I’ve made and disagree with them for similar reasons and could pray the same for me. There are things that are black and white, your example is just over the grey line. I would try to give Warren the benefit of the doubt.
deborah
Joe,
Re birth control, I could simply say I regret ever using any ever. That didn’t come from the way I was raised, or from what I learned at some church somewhere. It’s just been something I can’t shake, and I’ve taken it as coming from God rather than my own thinking.
I have also seen women who have many small children who seem to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The conviction to practice birth control is best accompanied by a lot of other convictions, such as a husband really taking in all the practical implications of what loving a wife means – actually being an integral part of the family in having personal relationships with the kids, contributing to housework, somehow making sure the wife does have some sanity time.
I did watch your video before and thought it was really touching. Children are precious; we would all be better off if we retained some of our childlike sense of wonder and love.
Also, I used to do a lot of snorkeling so the video made me miss that, again . . .
A couple of weeks ago a woman who has 5 children told me something that happened to her that ended her questions of “Am I doing anything for God?” Her family took in some foster kids and one was an 11 year old girl, who had had such a rough life that she wanted to sit in the woman’s lap constantly, and suck a bottle. The woman said that at that point she realized that what she was doing for her own children was indeed significant – that without her constant love and nurture her own children could be as emotionally deprived as that foster child was.
Amy,
Brennan Manning talks about that (the Godliness of being a mother) in Ragamuffin Gospel. It’s a great point.
Amy,
thank you for you comments…
The thing is that I think most miss about “social justice” is that it is not about ourselves making things “level” but about bring Christ to those doing injustice that their hearts will change and stop doing it… and in that also help relieve the suffering cause by others until Christ permeates their hearts.
We see to think of the “gospel” as compartmentalized… and really it is not… it is not “me” + the “gospel”… but rather Christ in me living out the Gospel… I hope you catch the nuance there. We are to die to self… and live for Christ having His very own Life giving Spirit living in and through us…
I am not saying you do not know that… but that is the idea of Jesus as King of all Kings and Lord of all Lords.
Blessings,
iggy
The bottom line is this…
If Jesus saw a woman being beaten by her wife, he would have stopped it
If Jesus saw an orphan begging for food he would have fed him.
If Jesus saw a man dying from a disease, he would have healed him, or looked for the cure.
If we are going to be like Jesus then we have to have the same compassion.
Iggy,
Some of my favorite verses over the last few years are from Zechariah – “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord.” I came to the point where I came to the end of my strength, physically, which limited the “good works” I had planned – yet I found that the things that I was able to do, through His strength, had a quality I couldn’t have mustered through my own efforts. Most importantly, He taught me how to pray.
Nathan,
“A woman being beaten by her wife”…my, my, I didn’t think you were that progressive.
Amy, you didn’t answer my question:
Suppose a neighbor’s house was burning. You and another neighbor, who is an atheist, saw that your common neighbor was trapped in the house. Would you work with your atheist neighbor to rescue your trapped neighbor? Or would you wait till your Christian friends showed up?
Nathan,
I said this was from your personal testimony, and you apparently took it as such:
From your personal testimony:â€When I gave my life to Christ it was not to go to heaven or avoid hell or even to have my sins forgiven; it was for one reason above all the others – Jesus could change me to become like him in his character and in him my life would not be wasted. For me the gospel was a call to live a heroic life marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice.â€
But now I realize that the article you posted this in was actually Mcmanus testimony. So I apologize for falsely attributing this to you. But I am confused. Did you not recognize that this was actually Mcmanus’ testimony and not yours when you commented on it? Were you in a hurry and didn’t read it, as I was in a hurry when I read the testimony and didn’t note that it belonged to Mcmanus? Or are you actually Mcmanus?