Will we step back up?

Back in the day most of the social welfare in this country was handled by the church. I work with a lot of hospitals and it is amazing how many of them are affiliated with a church organization, whether Roman Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc. Before the modern welfare state the church was probably the single biggest source of social services. Over the last century, starting in the aftermath of the Great Depression, that role gradually has moved from the church to the government. First with the “New Deal” and later the “Great Society”, the American social contract changed from a private sector focus to a decidedly security based and government focused arrangement. As the social contract has changed, the church has quietly slid into the background and become more inward focused. Whether the church was pushed out or abdicated is a topic for another day but the end result is what I am concerned with.

The results of a century of social welfare spending are stark. The government is broke. There simply is no money and no political appetite for higher taxes. In Michigan the state has announced that cash welfare assistance will be capped at 48 months. For quite a few families this means that they have already exhausted their cash assistance and are being cut off immediately with more to follow each month. Michigan has been one of the hardest hit states and still finds itself in a pretty dire situation. This means that many families are going to be in trouble. Sure you can say they brought it on themselves and only have themselves to blame but will the church look the other way? The major Federal entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid, are eating up an ever larger portion of the Federal budget and are running toward financial ruin. As a result we find ourselves in a situation unique in my lifetime where there appears to be an appetite for real entitlement change and a potential dramatic reordering of the social contract in America. Political conservatives are giddy with the prospects of the 2012 election.

In 2011 we as the church find ourselves in an odd situation. The church, while still a source for social welfare services has largely been removed from the role of being a primary provider for the needy. Sure there are still lots of groups who have that as a primary mission (the Salvation Army for example) and a lot of organizations like Samaritans Purse focus on disaster relief, often overseas but for the most part mercy ministry is an add on or an afterthought or completely absent. Perhaps a church might sponsor a food pantry or a denomination may have a relief group like the Mennonite Central Committee but generally speaking among American churches the primary focus is not on social welfare but is on the internal operations of the church. More specifically on the Sunday morning service and all that goes with that and then also on the other programs of the church (Sunday school, VBS, small group/Bible studies, etc.). This has worked up until recently in our society because for all of the rancor and disdain directed at “the gubmint” the reality on the ground is that the social welfare system has made it much easier for the church to be inward focused and prioritize the sustaining of the local church instead of serving the needs of the poor. For example, in 2009 the Southern Baptist Convention reported total receipts of nearly $12,000,000,000 from its approximately 45,000 churches or about a quarter of a million per church on average (obviously a few really big churches skew that number!). The vast majority of that giving stays within the church. Christians bring their “tithe” to the “storehouse” and that is where the church “stores” those offerings, in salaries, in buildings and in bank accounts.

We have been comfortable with this set up for decades, even if we didn’t admit it. Much as we love to hate the government, we also love being able to spend money on ourselves. We comfort ourselves with verses like these:

For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. (Mark 14:17)

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

We provide ourselves theological cover and likewise view any sort of call to social justice as skirting the line between justification by faith alone and a “works righteousness”. We are told the church should be about the business of preaching (i.e. sermons to believers) and worship (i.e. singing songs on Sunday morning) and the occasional fellowship meal. Never mind that in the very earliest days of the church, when it faced the daunting combination of a brand new religion that was exploding in size and being persecuted, it was also taking the time to feed people in need (Acts 6:1-6) and ensure that Christians had their material needs met (Acts 2:44-45). Also never mind that Jesus placed an enormous emphasis on how we treat “the least of these’ (Matthew 25:40 and the converse Matthew 25:45). In spite of this the overwhelming majority of evangelical Christians are also the most energized and reliable conservative voting block. I am starting to wonder if we are prepared for the results of what many of us are working toward.

Defeat Obama in 2012! Cut Medicaid and Medicare! Overturn Roe v. Wade! Get rid of welfare! Victory for conservatives!

Um. Then what do we do?

Don’t misconstrue what I am saying. I think that the social welfare state in America is on its face an unconstitutional usurpation and a grotesque overstepping of the powers delegated to the Federal government. I likewise think that the secular social welfare system is dehumanizing, inefficient and has directly led to generational poverty especially among minorities. I have no tolerance for Christians who use the faith as cover for conservative economic policies, even though I support those self-same policies, but I have even less use for starry eyed utopian socialism dressed up in Christianese. I believe abortion to be legalized infanticide that should be outlawed just as we outlaw people shooting one another. My conservative credentials are above reproach. My question has to do with the aftermath. What happens if we “win” and we are faced with the question: “Now what?” Will the same conservative evangelical Christians who consistently vote Republican and rail against the Federal government be ready to step in if the social welfare state is dismantled? Will the poor needing assistance with heating bills, the hungry in need of food, the pregnant teen in need of support find it in the church? Or will the church be to busy playing church and putting on our religious theater to be bothered?

Will we be ready to step back up?

We better be.

Not one or the other

Russell Moore hit a grand slam with his post Gospel or Justice, Which? Dr. Moore looks at the odd way that the church tends to divide and separate issues of justice and personal evangelism, as if you can have one without the other. As he points out, it is not a matter of "either or" but rather it is "both and" (emphasis mine)...

So how does the church “balance” a concern for evangelism with a concern for justice? A church does so in the same way it “balances” the gospel with personal morality. Sure, there have been churches that have emphasized public justice without the call to personal conversion. Such churches have abandoned the gospel.

But there are also churches that have emphasized personal righteousness (sexual morality, for instance) without a clear emphasis on the gospel. And there are churches that have taught personal morality as a means of earning favor with God. Such also contradicts the gospel.

We do not, though, counteract legalism in the realm of personal morality with an antinomianism. And we do not react to the persistent “social gospels” (of both Left and Right) by pretending that Jesus does not call his churches to act on behalf of the poor, the sojourner, the fatherless, the vulnerable, the hungry, the sex-trafficked, the unborn. We act in the framework of the gospel, never apart from it, either in verbal proclamation or in active demonstration.

The short answer to how churches should “balance” such things is simple: follow Jesus. We are Christians. This means that as we grow in Christlikeness, we are concerned about the things that concern him. Jesus is the king of his kingdom, and he loves whole persons, bodies as well as souls.

That is really the whole problem. We spend so much time arguing about this nicety of doctrine or that point of theology that we forget that if we simply follow Jesus everything else will work itself out. If the church really followed Jesus we wouldn't have thousands of denominations and independent non-denominational churches competing with one another for resources. We wouldn't have people breaking fellowship over the color of the carpet. We wouldn' have budget battles because we wouldn't really have budgets. The Gospel would be preached and the poor would be cared for.

This conversation has been hijacked by Christians on both sides, by people like the late Jerry Falwell and like Jim Wallis, two men who are different sides of the same coin, i.e. using religious language and pliable Christian followers to achieve political goals. I appreciate a voice like Russ Moore who refuses to pick and choose between two priorities that are supposed to go hand in hand, not engage in hand to hand combat.

Surrendering social justice to the liberals

Pick an issue. Any issue (almost) and conservative Christians will go charging into battle against their liberal foes. Not only will conservatives rise up to defend their position against liberals, often we seek out fights if none are forthcoming. When Rob Bell tries to redefine the concept of hell, Christian conservatives came out of the woodwork to squash him (and probably helped double his book sales). Suggest that maybe gay marriage isn’t something the church needs to concern itself with and plan on getting jumped on with both feet. On virtually every issue there are defenders of the faith and apologists of all stripes willing to stand in the breach….

With one major exception…

When it comes to poverty, to caring for the poor, the widow, the orphan, the sex slave, the imprisoned? In that fight, an issue with far deeper Biblical basis than squabbling over U.S. politics or Ten Commandments monuments or prayer in secular schools? In that fight, the conservative often goes silent or mumbles angrily about liberalism or shrugs it off with "you will always have the poor with you". Guys who once looked like Richard the Lionhearted turn into Brave Sir Robin. Even in churches where there is some care and concern for the poor, it seems to be an "add on", something else we do when we aren't listening to sermons or having VBS or working on building improvements for "the church". In our quest for doctrinal precision and standing fast for the faith, making sure people understand the eternal nature of hell and justification by faith alone, it often at least appears that we cannot be bothered to worry about issues that fall under the umbrella of “social justice”.

We cannot claim to take the Bible seriously and ignore the places the Bible makes demands on us that make us uncomfortable. It is far more comfortable for me to argue the fine points of theology over coffee (or better yet safely behind my computer keyboard) than it is to get out in the unpredictable world of people, especially people with problems. Fleeing the field when human suffering in this life comes up but rising to the challenge when eternal suffering is the topic is inconsistent and disingenuous.

That isn’t to say that most of the “solutions” put forth by our liberal brothers are rock solid. Income redistribution, government subsidies, etc., the sort of stuff advocated by the Jim Wallis crowd, have done more to create a perpetual dependent class and incentivized behavior that leads to generational poverty than any evil Wall Street tycoons. So I am not advocating for liberal social engineering dressed up in religious language. I am saying that we need to not only win the war of ideas but put action to our words in the lives of real people with real needs. When Biblically orthodox, visible leaders like David Platt start to (very gently) question why we are so unconcerned with human suffering, they get shouted down as promoting a works righteousness. That is not even remotely true but it allows us to brush off calls to look up from our keyboards and books to see the real suffering of people in the world, people who need our love and our help more than we need a new building or more denominational bureaucrats.

Conservative, “Bible believing” Christians should be leading the way when it comes to matters of human suffering, not fleeing the field to hide behind our orthodox creeds and confessions.

When you fast….be sure to spread the news about it!

“And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites be as loudly self-righteous as possible, for they disfigure their faces that their so that your fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward you will receive accolades from the Huffington Post. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by others advertise the fact as much as possible to get favorable media coverage and thus get attention but by your Father who is in secret from elected officials, the media and most importantly your donors who read your blog. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you supporters and donors will reward you via Paypal. (Matthew 6:16-18, Social Justice Re-Mix)

I am not sure how I missed this but as always reading the religion pages of the Huffington Post has provided rich fodder of foolishness (and I haven't even read Al Shaprton's essay on Passover and Easter yet!) So apparently Jim Wallis, Ambassador Tony Hall and others have engaged in a fast that has "gone viral" to protest the Federal budget cuts that have no chance of actually passing. There were mutliple links to articles about Wallis and his left wing religious publicity stunt. I call it that because what else can you call it? It is interesting that the Gospels record that Jesus spoke of fasting in secret so as not to seek the approval of men and that His disciples were questioned because they didn't fast (at least not openly)and yet here we have a follower of Christ going out of his way to point out that he is fasting.

To get an idea of how blinded by his idealogy Jim Wallis is, you only need read this quote:

Wallis rejected the idea the U.S. is strapped for cash, and accused lawmakers of simply spending money in the wrong areas.

That is the same line of baloney you get from the New York Times. There is no debt, if there was a debt it isn't a big deal and anyway the only way to reduce the debt is to go into more debt. I will agree with what Wallis said in part. While we certainly are strapped for cash via a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit that we are told must be increased to avoid calamity, calamity I tell ya!, a crushing debt that will destroy economic opportunity for future generations of Americans, rich and poor alike, I would agree that we are spending money in all the wrong area. Namely almost every area of spending the Federal government engages in!

I appreciate the zeal of Jim Wallis and others for the poor, I just would desire that they would stop placing their faith in the worst possible vehicle for alleviating poverty (i.e. the confiscation of property from one class of people and transfering that property to another class of people by a secular state via coercion and under threat of imprisonment). The Federal government can never tax enough, spend enough, borrow enough to end poverty and in fact all of the spending/taxing/borrowing for the last four decades has actually made poverty worse and indebted the nation. I have no confidence that eliminating poverty is even a feasible goal but I also am sure that God's people can and must do far more to love our neighbor than we do presently. I think Jim Wallis, Sojourners, etc. would have far more impact by calling on the church to do more to help the poor rather than calling on the church to call their Congressman. As it stands their message is easily dismissed as political liberalism dressed up in religious language.

The call to proclaim the Gospel and care for the poor, the hungry, the widow and the orphan deserves more than cheap political grandstanding,

Can we all please stop using Jesus to advance our political positions?

This is a somewhat political post but in light of a few conversations on “What Would Jesus Cut” (i.e. in the U.S. Federal budget, as if Jesus spent a lot of time writing policy papers on the proper role and scope of government in a free republic), I think it is appropriate to step back from the emotionalism and take a hard look at the topic of government spending and faith. While I am typically far more critical of my fellow conservative believers, I was inspired this morning to look at some of the statements made by Christians on the political left and what better place to look than the leading voice of that group, Jim Wallis of Sojourners.

Please let me be clear. I have no reasonable doubt that Jim Wallis is a believer. Certainly a believer that gets a lot of stuff wrong (as I do) but also one who appears to love Jesus and who is often correct in his criticisms of the political right. Where he often stumbles is when he moves away from critiquing the “Religious Right” and advocates replacing it with the “Religious Left”. This is from his February essay, Budget Cuts and Bad Faith :

I believe that vaccines that save children’s lives; bed nets that protect them from malaria; and food that keeps their families from starving are more important to Jesus than tax cuts for the rich; bigger subsidies for corporations; and more weapons in a world already filled with conflict. I also believe that tested and effective domestic programs that clearly help to lift people out of poverty are more reflective of the compassion of Christ than tax and spending policies that make the super-rich even richer. And I don’t believe, as the Republicans keep saying, that the best way to help everybody is to keep helping the super-rich. That’s not smart economics and, as we say in the evangelical community, it’s not biblical. So many of us in the faith community are ready to make a moral argument against the proposed budget cuts to our members of Congress, especially to those who claim to be people of faith.

Very eloquent and impassioned to be sure. I would agree in part and have said so. There seems to be an odd disconnect between evangelicals who claim to follow the Lamb who was slain, the Prince of Peace, and at the same time support military spending and the death penalty without question. I also am a big fan of vaccines for children, bed nets and food for the poor. Whether that is something that is properly the responsibility of the Federal government is a separate issue. Where I am questioning the whole line of Jim’s thinking is the reliance on the Federal government to facilitate the execution of justice as a Kingdom priority. There is a line that is crossed when we start to see the secular government being assigned as proxy for the church.

There are two problems with this theory of government as proxy for the church. One is theological. The Bible spends a great deal of time speaking about the poor and the responsibility of Christians to aid those in need, especially among fellow believers (see Acts 4:35 as well as the multiple places where we see Paul taking up a collection for the church in Jerusalem). The Bible is clear that we are called to care, sacrificially, willingly and joyfully, for the least of these, to be concerned about the poor, to not have Christians in need in the Body, to visit the widow and orphan in their affliction. The Bible says nothing about taking money away from people, believers and unbelievers alike, by confiscating that money through taxes and under the threat of imprisonment and giving it to other people as a means to alleviate poverty. It seems that the Biblical message is that poverty is one of the signs of a sinful world, something that is never going to be “conquered” but something that requires sacrifice on the part of Christians to help one another. Advocating taxing the “super-rich” to support the poor is an abdication of our responsibility and without Biblical support.

The other problem is practical. It doesn’t work. At all. In fact, it is pretty apparent to all but the most dense that the “War on Poverty”, i.e. transferring wealth from one person to another after filtering it through a bureaucracy and doing so under the threat of imprisonment, has been not only a failure but in many ways has made things worse for the poor.

Those on the political Left certainly have emotion on their side so we on the Right have to rely on old fashioned facts and reason. For example, this is from a great article this morning from the conservative Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell: How Many Trillions Must We Waste on the War on Poverty?:

Which American politician said the following? “The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” Had to be a mean-spirited Tea Party conservative, right? Wrong. President Franklin Roosevelt included these words in his 1935 State of the Union Address.

Twenty-nine years later, the American welfare state was still relatively small, consuming only 1.2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). The American family was also still intact, with 93 percent of children born into stable families. But then President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty happened. Forty-five years and $16 trillion later, thanks to big government, poverty is winning. Thanks to over $900 billion a year (over 5 percent of GDP) of spending on over 70 means-tested welfare programs spread over 13 government agencies, more than 40 million Americans currently receive food stamps, poverty is higher today than it was in the 1970s, and 40 percent of all children are born outside of marriage.

One of the cruel ironies of pie-in-the-sky thinking about the Federal government fixing poverty is that not only does it not help the poor but it actually promotes generational poverty. I read somewhere else this morning, from the delightfully named Mortimer Zuckerman, that some 50,000,000 Americans are receiving some sort of tax-payer funded program (food stamps, unemployment, etc.). That is 1 of every 6 Americans and that is the fruit of 45 years of trillions of dollars in a misguided and failed “War On Poverty”. Not only is the church not called to care for the poor through political means, those very means tend to make things worse!

Christians should and must do more to be selfless and care for the least of these. We need to stop seeing one another as competitors but rather as co-laborers. We really need to question our support for, not mere acceptance of, military spending and capital punishment. We really, really need to stop confusing the church and the state.

A proto-socialist Jesus?

Once again reading the religion section of the Huffington Post so you don't have to!

So apparently Evangelical's hate Jesus. No really, that is what a writer asserts at the Huffington Post. Think I am engaging in hyperbole? Check out the article title: Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus. See, told ya so. So why does Mr. Phil Zuckerman, a sociology professor at Pitzer College (I had to look it up to see if it was a real college) think evangelicals hate Jesus? 'Cause they aren't lib'ral enuff! Read and wonder....

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

Is there some truth in this? Well yes although in a misguided, confused sort of way. What is glaringly obvious is that Mr. Zuckerman makes the mistake that is the other side of the "Jesus as Republican capitalist" coin, i.e. Jesus as a hippie who would embrace gay marriage and advocate for forcible income redistribution and centralized state control over the means of production. Not to mention a Jesus who would place a woman's "right to choose" as more important than the murder of an innocent child in the womb.

Neither side is giving an accurate view of who Jesus is revealed to be. Trying to co-opt Him for crass political gamesmanship, whether by Pat Robertson or Jim Wallis, is equally disingenuous. Jesus didn't come to serve as a political slogan or to bless your football team or to give one European country the ability to smite another. He came to seek and save that which was lost.

What is too bad is that Mr. Zuckerman raises some interesting questions that evangelicals need to face. Why do we seek for success and riches when those things have no place in the Kingdom? Why do we rightly fight for life for the unborn but turn around and beat the drums of war at the command of our country? Why do so many Evangelicals live lives of relative luxury while our brothers and sisters around the world suffer and starve? Important questions but questions that deserve more than political cheap shots. Quite disappointing.

Well when you are a professor at a college with this mission statement: Pitzer College produces engaged socially responsible citizens of the world through an academically rigorous, interdisciplinary liberal arts education emphasizing social justice, intercultural understanding and environmental sensitivity. and that has a "Cecil the sagehen" as a mascot, I guess you can't expect much. I just wish that people who are completely disinterested in Jesus as Lord and what He taught unambiguously about an eternal hell and the coming Judgment wouldn't try to co-opt Him as a posterboy for political liberalism. Jesus is a package deal, you take all of Him or none of Him.

An honest discussion on social justice

I have read quite a few blog posts dealing with the issue of “social justice” of late. I can certainly understand where they are coming from, as some proponents of “social justice” are mirror images of conservative pundits hiding a political agenda behind religious talk, in this case using the Biblical call for self-sacrifice and caring for the poor to push for government enforced wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, many of these posts strayed away from “why socialism is not Biblical” and into “why capitalism is Biblical”. Neither position is tenable from Scripture because Scripture doesn’t address secular economic issues but rather deals with the responsibility of Christians in light of their redemption to care for the poor, widows, orphans, etc.

I find it troubling that so many conversations starts with “Well of course we are supposed to care for the poor…” which is then followed by a whole bunch of reasons why that is not nearly as important as the Bible seems to clearly make it out to be. Unfortunately, in spite of the clear Biblical command to care for the poor and be self-sacrificial, we are often pretty darn selfish people. We trade the way of the cross for the American way of life and feel not the slightest qualm that we live in very self-centered lifestyles while fellow believers here and around the world suffer abject poverty. We can try to excuse it away by giving some money to foreign missions boards or claiming that our mandate only extends to members of our local church but that falls pretty short.

I find it odd that we spend so much time explaining why we are not really responsible to care for the poor and indeed that we are not called to be self-sacrificial beyond a meager offering on Sunday morning. While there certainly is no justification for using the state to seize money through taxes and under the threat of force to redistribute to people of a lower income, there is also no warrant for Christians to backpedal away from mercy ministries and constantly question ourselves regarding our commitment to being agents of mercy.

Perhaps “social justice” just carries to much baggage. When we mention the words “social justice”, it might just evoke such a negative response that we overreact to it. It certainly has been championed by people who take the Biblical doctrine of works of mercy to promote all manner of political social solutions. Or perhaps that is just a convenient excuse. While I do think that “social justice” has been compromised as a liberal religious slogan, I don’t that this is the core problem.

So what is the problem? One word: Money.

Every day Christians live out the exact behavior being condemned in James 2: 15-16:

If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (James 2: 15-16)

We are not called to outdo one another in our grandiose building programs or in bragging about our various ministries and how great they are. We are to be known for our love for one another, to boast about Christ (and that doesn’t come in the form of palatial buildings built “for the glory of God”) and to be marked by humility and self-sacrifice.

The reality when you strip away the political rhetoric and pragmatic backpedaling comes down to this:

- Scripture does not imply or directly call for the state to be either capitalistic or socialistic. Nor does the clear call to aid the poor envision a government mandated solution to that problem.
- Scripture likewise doesn’t excuse a consumerist, what’s mine is mine mentality. If you deny a brother in need, if you refuse to open your home to the downtrodden, if you think a small offering on Sunday makes your life of excessive consumption OK, you are completely misunderstanding what the Bible teaches about wealth, possessions and stewardship.

When we read about the day of judgment, one thing seems to stand out as being indicative of a faithful Christian. It is not “church membership” or even attending “church” on a regular basis. It is not being able to exposit a passage of Scripture or being on the right side of the debate over baptism or holding to the right confessional statement from the reformation. Nor is it that you chained yourself to a redwood or helped get “progressive” politicians elected or drove a Prius. The only thing that matters is that you rightly confess Christ as the risen Son of God who died for the sins of His people, a confession that is not merely lip-service but reflected in a transformed life.

Why are we so afraid of these words from our Savior? Perhaps because we find condemnation of our selfish lives in what He said and perhaps that is precisely why they were spoken.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25: 31-46)

Mohler on Beck, social justice and the limits of political discourse

Dr. Albert Mohler published a very sober and thoughtful essay in response to the comments by Glenn Beck calling on Christians to flee churches that focus on “social justice”, Glenn Beck, Social Justice, and the Limits of Public Discourse. I think Dr. Mohler strikes the right balance here, does so with a reasonable tone and also provides a very brief introduction to the background of the “social justice” or “social gospel” message. From his essay:

My concern is very different. As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ -- the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church's main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ's command and the example of the apostles.

There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.

Faithful Christians can debate the proper and most effective means of organizing the political structure and the economic markets. Bringing all these things into submission to Christ is no easy task, and Gospel must not be tied to any political system, regime, or platform. Justice is our concern because it is God's concern, but it is no easy task to know how best to seek justice in this fallen world.

And that brings us to the fact that the Bible is absolutely clear that injustice will not exist forever. There is a perfect social order coming, but it is not of this world. The coming of the Kingdom of Christ in its fullness spells the end of injustice and every cause and consequence of human sin. We have much work to do in this world, but true justice will be achieved only by the consummation of God's purposes and the perfection of God's own judgment.

Until then, the church must preach the Gospel, and Christians must live out its implications. We must resist and reject every false gospel and tell sinners of salvation in Christ. And, knowing that God's judgment is coming, we must strive to be on the right side of justice.

Ultimately the Gospel is not about politics and the church is not a political party, either on the Left or on the Right. The Kingdom was not advanced when Barack Obama was elected President nor when George W. Bush was elected as our President. Our charge is to submit to those in governmental authority and to seek to live out our lives quietly and peacefully under that authority. Our charge is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to serve one another in love. Under no circumstances are we called to seize the government or impose a theocracy on America. We are not called to win elections or form political action committees. We are certainly not called to stand shoulder to shoulder, unequally yoked, to unbelievers (like Glenn Beck) no matter how noble the cause.

Does that mean we shouldn’t vote? I don’t think our participation in elections is prohibited at all. Should we not be involved in social change movements? Again no but there is a danger when we spend so much time fighting gay marriage and abortion that we forget to preach the Gospel. I would say that we often place undue emphasis on the political process and ascribe overly optimistic motivations to politicians. We in the church too often have a naive and unseemly faith in politicians. Politicians are by and large politicians because they seek power. That means they will use any means available to gain an advantage, including appealing to religion. I am increasingly suspicious of any man who seeks prestige, titles, power, authority over others because I see the desire for power and the exaltation of self at the heart of those goals. It is dangerous in politics and infinitely more so in the church.

Preach the Gospel. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do good for others in your everyday life. Stand for what is right and proper based on the Word of God. Trust God that He will enact justice in every sense of the word.

Ed Stetzer on the Gospel and social justice

I watched Ed Stetzer at Together for Adoption speak on the idea of adoption in the greater context of the Gospel and "social justice". Very interesting talk.

This is an important conversation. “Social Justice” is a term that has lost much of its meaning, kind of like “evangelical”. We too often have a visceral reaction to the words "Social Justice" because in modern parlance those words are often code for "liberal social positions couched in religious terms". That is not a vague fear but one that has been borne out too many times. Regardless, that is not a reason for us to abandon the idea of social justice but instead it should serve as a clarion call to urge those who are theologically orthodox to greater concern for the poor, orphans and widows and to call our brothers who have embraced social justice at the expense of the Gospel to recognize that social justice without the Gospel is eternally unjust.

It is hard at times to balance the Gospel and social justice. The Gospel must come before social justice and social justice is not the Gospel. On the other hand, if you are preaching a Gospel that doesn’t lead to a heart painfully aware of the need for social justice, for caring for the poor and hungry and homeless and orphans and widows you aren’t preaching Christ’s Gospel. Period. Again, the Gospel is preeminent. Gospel preaching and teaching should lead to social justice. You may emphasize one more than the other, but you cannot have one without the other. I think Ed Stetzer is largely right, that in our zeal to undo the loss of Gospel proclamation we have forgotten social justice. We cannot be so laser focused on doctrinal precision that we trip over the homeless on our way to the next theology conference. We cannot engage in justice without telling people about Jesus but we also cannot tell people about Jesus without engaging in His work.

This short clip is of Ed before he spoke on this topic:

Can't find a job? Go to seminary!

This is just disturbing from Fox News...

Faced with a harsh job market and inspired to action by the recent spate of white-collar crimes, students nationwide are flocking to graduate programs in religious education, often in record numbers. Many of the nation's divinity schools, including top programs at Harvard and Yale, have posted increases of 10 percent and higher for applicants to their fall incoming classes — returns that would draw the envy of any bearish investor.

"The admission pool definitely spiked in this last year, and the economy probably is part of it," said Harold Attridge, dean of Yale Divinity School, where a 13 percent increase in applications has led to the largest applicant pool in the school's history.

A similar trend has been observed at Harvard Divinity School, where applications for the fall semester are up 11 percent, according to Jonathan Beasley, communications officer for HDS.

Even more disturbing. It sounds like a lot of people are responding that they are going to seminary not just because they can't find a job but also to fight some sort of injustice...

Though Attridge identified declining job prospects as a potential motivator for students to continue their education, he pointed to a crop of contemporary moral and religious issues as a key influence on students seeking study religion.

Among those relatively new issues are global climate change and "gross immorality in the financial sector," Attridge said, which may have inspired students to take a more spiritual approach toward community service.

"There are questions about whether the fundamental moral fiber of the country is corroded," Attridge said.

The explanation resonates strongly with Stephen Blackmer, who will begin studying for a master of divinity at YDS this fall. Blackmer, 53, had worked in conservation and sustainable development for nearly 30 years before answering a call to join the ministry.

Blackmer said his experience has taught him that the main obstacle to slowing climate change is not technological or economic, but spiritual.

"Climate change is in effect a spiritual problem, because we've developed the technologies to protect the world from climate change, but not the wisdom to use them," he said.

Blackmer, who said he hopes to join an "environmental ministry" after graduating, said the slumping economy made his decision to attend divinity school easier.

An "environmental ministry"? Taking the Gospel to oak trees and baby seals? While I like that they are against "gross immorality" in the financial sector, I wonder if these seminarians are equally outraged by "gross immorality" among the sectors in the culture that are more traditionally considered immoral? You don't need to go to Wall Street to find immorality!

Ah, remember the good old days when people went to seminary with a goal of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Take care who you render unto

There was some quiet news last week that escaped much attention. It had to do with Mr. Richard Cizik, who resigned as Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE hereafter) after 28 years with the organization. The impetus for his resignation came from an interview he gave with Terry Gross on the NPR show Fresh Air on December 2, 2008. Fresh Air is one of the most liberally slanted of all of the shows on NPR (which is saying a lot!). I downloaded the podcast because I wanted to hear it for myself. Was this an overreaction? Was it a tiny component of a larger conversation? Was Mr. Cizik wrongly tarred and feathered, ridden out on a rail? As I listened this morning on my way to work it became apparent immediately that this issue was not overblown.

As you would expect from an openly and unapologetically liberal talk show, the topics of conversation steered invariably toward why the evangelical movement, at least the conservative evangelical movement, is wrong on a litany of issues and why Barack Obama is right: gay marriage, the environment, the war in Iraq, nuclear disarmament, government funded contraception. On issue after issue, Mr. Cizik came down firmly in support of liberal social causes and a liberal view of Scripture. The interview details, when they gained steam in this online world as things like this invariably do, caused an uproar and that uproar finally led to the resignation of Mr. Cizik from the NAE.

Quite frankly it was embarrassing listening to someone who is supposed to be lobbying on behalf of Christian churches on NPR groveling before Terry Gross, looking for acceptance like a puppy by signing on to every liberal agenda she threw in front of him. You could hear Terry Gross egging him on by proposing things that clearly stand at odds with the rank and file of the churches in the NAE, and on every one of them he came down on side of a leftist agenda.

This man doesn’t even seem to get what the Gospel is, which begs the question of why he is even in an association called the “National Association of Evangelicals” If you don’t get the evangel, the good news how can you lead an organization of people who are supposed to be devoted to it? I make that statement not because of Mr. Cizik’s support for gay marriage, but instead because of his emphasis on the “social justice” aspect of the Bible at the expense of the saving work of Christ on the cross. At one point near the end of the interview, he spoke about the Gospel being the hope of people getting along together. Is that what Christ died for, so that people could get along together better with each other? See, I thought it was so we could get along with God…

The NAE issued a statement on Mr. Cizik’s resignation and very quickly reaffirmed their core commitment to Biblical values on these issues.

Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained in a letter to the members of the board of directors of NAE that “in a December 2, 2008 broadcast interview on National Public Radio, Richard responded to questions and made statements that did not appropriately represent the values and convictions of NAE and our constituents. Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized and affirmed our values there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents.”

What is disturbing is that he has held views like this, apparently for quite a long time. You don’t come to these conclusion overnight. It was only after the uproar following the Fresh Air interview that he was pressured to leave. In an organization like the NAE, you would assume that conversations about politics, beliefs, doctrines would come up occasionally. I would assume that others in top leadership in the NAE knew of Mr. Cizik’s beliefs and still sent this man to Washington to represent them and their constituent churches, churches that include the Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Free Church, the Baptist General Conference, among others. If he had not given this interview and therefore been forced out, how long would he have gone on like this? When Mr. Cizik goes to Washington, he was supposed to represent the constituent member churches of the NAE. Even though the list of churches and denominations in the NAE includes few theologically conservative groups, you can rest assured that the average Assemblies of God congregation wouldn’t be pleased to find that a man who is representing them in Washington, and doing so while portraying to those he was lobbying that he spoke on behalf of these Christians, was espousing positions that those he was paid to represent would undoubtedly by and large find to be abhorrent. The way he was fawning over Terry Gross, seeking her approval, is a warning to those who seek to mix Christ and Caesar too closely. I fear for those who stand too close to that flame, who get invited to all the right parties and luncheons, that the temptation is to forget their first love. It is not just liberals who have this subtle seduction happen. Many of the leaders of the “Religious Right” have fallen into this trap over the years. Getting invited to the White House does that to men.

The Gospel is not a social justice mandate, although caring for one another is a natural response as well as a commandment. The Gospel is not a political movement, although it should impact our beliefs in secular issues based on Christian convictions. The Gospel is the Good News that Jesus Christ dwelt among us, born of a virgin, lived a perfect sinless life, died as a substitute on a cross and took upon Himself the due punishment for the sins of His elect sheep, was buried, rose again on the third day, established His church, ascended to heaven and waits for that preordained day when He will come again, not as a servant but to rule as King over the new heavens and earth. When we overly entangle the affairs of sinful humanity with the Gospel, we always run the danger of emphasizing the sectarian too much and doing damage to the Gospel witness. The freedom of religion is not designed to protect the state from the church, but the church from the state. Men like Mr. Cizik are a living testimony of the dangers of forgetting that.