May
15
Displaying and Declaring the Gospel—Social Action and Evangelism in the Mission of God
Posted by Champ Thornton at 1:01 amFiled Under book reviews, church, culture, theology
In Jon’s excellent post yesterday on “mission(s)”, he described how John Stott outlines three ways to relate evangelistic proclamation and social action. (1) Social action as a means to evangelization. (2) Social action as a manifestation of evangelism. And (3) social action as an equal, yet independent partner with evangelism.
And as Jon mentioned yesterday, Stott takes exception to the first two options since they place the beneficiary of the social action in a position of indebtedness to the benefactor. In other words, the social good done has strings attached (at least, in the expectation of the believer). It’s not done freely, for love’s sake solely. In options one and two, the evangelizer still expects some kind of return from his social activity. The good done can engender a sense or expectation of obligation.
Stott’s third options sets evangelism and social action side by side as partners. While this seems to keep humanitarian involvement free from ulterior “gospel” motives, it also keeps evangelism from taking second-place behind social action. But the question remains, If evangelism and social involvement are related as equal partners, what is the nature of their partnership?
One major component in Stott’s case for “equal partnership” is his interpretation of the passages in John’s gospel where Christ commissions His followers, just as He had been sent by His Father (“Just as . . . so I send you,” John 17:18; 20:21). As Jon articulated in his “comments” yesterday, this is a disputed passage. So, is there other biblical evidence for Stott’s case which would relate evangelism and social involvement as equal partners in our mission to the world?
Without invoking an “incarnational” model, let’s look at the nature of Christ’s mission set in its place in the biblical story line. When Christ came to accomplish this saving work, He didn’t simply preach the Gospel for three years, die for sins, and rise again. He fully accomplished, as the “Servant of the LORD” (Matt 12:18-21), what God’s old covenant people had not and could not do (cf. unfruitful v. genuine vine terminology, Is. 5:2; John 15:1). At the beginning of their national history, God had appointed Israel to represent Him before the other peoples of the world (“kingdom of priests,” Ex 19:5-6). But sadly, they failed miserably (see OT).
But where Israel failed, their Messiah succeeded. As part of His mission from the LORD, the Servant (Christ, see Matt 12:18-21) was to “bring forth justice for the peoples” (Is 42:1), “to open the eyes of the blind” (Is 42:7), “to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon” (Is 42:7), to take away our infirmities and carry away our diseases (Is. 53:4; Mt. 8:14-17), and, of course, to be a Gospel “light for the peoples” (Is. 42:6, 49:6). In other words, this Servant would fulfill the promise (given to Abraham) that through His offspring all the peoples of the earth would be blessed (Gen 12:3).
So, although no one disputes that Christ Himself both proclaimed the Good News and also performed good works, is this pattern prescriptive in the Scriptures for His followers? Paul thought so. In his sermon at Pisidian Antioch, Paul states that the Lord had commissioned him as “a light for the peoples” (Acts 13:47). Paul viewed his ministry as in the same lineage as Israel (Gen. 12:3; Ex 19:5-6) and Christ, the Servant of the Lord (Is. 49:6; Acts 8:32-33). He, too, was a light to the peoples of the earth—which included both preaching the Gospel and caring for the poor (Gal. 2:7-10).
But does this “priestly kingdom”/“servant”/“light to the peoples” terminology apply only to the apostles or is there application to Christians today? Jesus said that we are the “light of the world” (Mt. 5:14-16; Is 49:6), and Peter said that Christians were a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:9; cf. Ex 19:3). And what does this role as “light”/“God’s priestly representatives” entail?
Doing good works (Mt. 5:14-16) and proclaiming the glories of God (1 Pet 2:9).
So, back to our question—what is the relationship between these two aspects of our mission? Paul gives us a good answer in Titus 2:9-10. He commands slaves to work with integrity (i.e., good works) in order to adorn or make attractive the teaching/doctrine about God (i.e., proclamation). Contra Stott’s preference for option three, here is a relationship of means. But it is not a means which engenders obligation. These good works don’t place masters into the debt of listening to the Gospel from their slaves. This is art! And aesthetics doesn’t obligate. It attracts . . . freely. It’s beauty, not a means of compelling, forcing, gaining a hearing, or earning a right. Therefore, in some ways (as with all beauty), these good works are for God alone.
Just as Jesus’ humanitarian works pointed people to the truth of His Person and message (John 10:25, 38), so also our good deeds (social involvement) should point people to our magnificent and merciful God (Mt. 5:14-16; Titus 2:10). Our social action is ultimately, then, for God’s pleasure, but it’s also for others as we point them to the Source of all beauty, the Source and end of all Good News—God!
(Perhaps [and this is an argument from silence], one reason that the New Testament emphasizes evangelism and doesn’t seem to emphasize humanitarian activity is because first century believers understood that these good deeds had already been commanded in the Old Testament. What they hadn’t yet seen in inspired Scripture was missional proclamation (“Go . . . make disciples,” Mt 28:19). This was the new element. Israel had been called to “be” before the nations, not “go” to the nations [centripetal v. centrifugal]. So, the New Testament authors emphasize this new element—evangelistic proclamation going out to all peoples. Doing good along the way was practically a given. There are a few other reasons why the New Testament emphasizes evangelism. Hopefully, more on that tomorrow.)
By taking in the sweep of the Scriptures, it seems hard to deny that social action is part of our mission. Social action is a beautiful frame to the masterpiece of the Gospel.
To help me understand your point better, why use the phrase “social action” for doing good deeds?
Doesn’t the former entail a much broader concept than helping the needy person you meet along the road (ala the Good Samaritan)? Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seems that the normal use of social action takes the social part of that as referring to the society, i.e., we pursue systematic actions and changes (vs. individual benevolence). That’s why the focus in a lot of the modern advocates is on changing the culture, correcting social inequities and/or injustices.
Do you believe that the Church is called by God to address these societal issues as a part of its mission?
I agree, Dave. I think the terms “social action” and “social gospel” have too much baggage. Especially since Columbus, OH is so closely tied to the origins of the social gospel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Gladden)! I like the phrase “adorning the gospel.”
I’ll just speak for myself at this point and let Champ chime in as he pleases, but I think these things are best done in the course of individuals pursuing their vocational callings versus the church as an institution becoming more programmic in her effort to adorn the gospel. The church is called to address these issues in so much as people are called to go into the world each day and be salt and light and to do good to all men.
No doubt there are some activities we can do better together. For example, one of our small groups prepared a meal for 50-60 people at the Ronald McDonald House at our local Children’s Hospital. That would be a difficult task for one family unit. However, I would be very hesitant to say to our congregation, “We’re going to provide monthly meals for the RM House, everybody please sign up. This is one way we’re going to adorn the gospel in our community” (and then we get bogged down with all the machinations of running that beast).
I think the church’s priority is worship, edification, equipping, etc, as stated yesterday. There may be times when we can join together and work to accomplish something that cannot be done alone, but for the most part, our attention is given to what is primary. I trust we can challenge ourselves to guard the deposit and love our neighbors sacrificially.
In response to both Dave and Jon, I’d say first thanks for the time and sharpening.
Second, I’d say that while we would want to avoid being misunderstood (e.g., social action does not mean social gospel), there is no real distinction between mowing my elderly neighbor’s lawn and donating time to an organization working to free people from the effects (showing mercy) and causes (doing justice) of poverty.
In agreement with Jon, I’d say that the church qua church is really only called to do a few things (and social action and even, dare I say it, evangelism are not on the list).
I’m inclined to say that most Christian functions/activities (ones prescribed in Scripture) were intended to be private or at least not organized from the top down by the church as a church (officially). It seems that the church (think “assemblyâ€) was intended to be/do a very limited number of things (e.g., you can’t feed orphans during a church service). So, the church “organized†(i.e., “top-down,†church qua church, as an official corporate entity, collectively, jointly, etc.) should do things like hearing the Word, singing the Word, exercising spiritual gifts, etc.
But the church “organic†(i.e., the individual members, the ‘bricks’ unassembled, severally, “bottom-up,†etc.) should do many things not required in the assembly (e.g., help the poor, give the Gospel, start Bible studies, etc.). This rides (in part) on the concept of “church†primarily as assembly and on the theology of the temple through the Scriptures.
The only place I can think of where the Bible encourages a corporate view of something like evangelism is 1 Peter 2:9, but even then, I’m not sure if the corporate aspect is intended to be a factual statement about who we are (â€a royal priesthoodâ€) or as an explanation about how we are supposed to proclaim God’s excellencies (corporately, as “a royal priesthoodâ€).
Summary: avoid any misunderstanding of the Gospel; don’t ipso facto avoid all organized good deeds (a.k.a. social action), but also don’t look to the church qua church to be the primary implementor/initiator in that ministry.
I hope to learn and study more about the whole issue. Your thoughts and input are welcome.
What a fascinating discussion!
rubber meets road: if it’s required of the believer, then at some point it will become a concern of the church: (1) because the individual believer will have to adjust priorities regarding other elements of the Body life; (2) because some concerned brother or sister will seek to restore and reconcile some other who is failing or refusing–or becoming overzealous or meddling–in these areas.
Greek and Jewish widows. Property divestiture. Special collections. Runaway slaves. The New Testament is full of incidents and situations that called upon the church to judge, as a matter of the conscience of the believer and the discipline of the church, exactly such issues.
But the “social action” rubric is, I think, dangerous becaus it obscures a vital line. “Social action” (aside from having definite Marxist odor) does not permit the distinction between within/without to operate properly. It also does not focus on the church’s disciple-making role very clearly, as the measurable results of “social action” are change in conditions measured sociologically; such changes may or may not reflect any making of disciples, any disciple-in-ing of the church. In such case, they do not in fact “adorn the Gospel.”
So there does come to be a tethering effect of church discipline on our efforts to “adorn the Gospel,” and there will be teaching and leadership involved in choosing how those efforts will be directed. And the leash on “social action” will be so short, I think, as to suggest that “adorning the Gospel” be not just a description, but a replacement, for that concept.
In the which case, I return to congratulating you all on a wonderful discussion and a most stimulating, refreshing take. I needed that, and I shall be meditating on “adorning the Gospel” as I go on my way, this week.
Thanks!
PGE
Peter,
Thanks for your comments. Good food for thought! I’d like to chew on them further and reply more fully later.
Champ
I strongly endorse Jon’s desire not to have the local church’s focus become programmatic. But I also am thoroughly convinced of the value of doing “ministry together” including the multitudinous (infinite?) varieties of outreach. So I’ve been wondering what the local church’s role is in encouraging and facilitating ministry to the surrounding community. The range seems to be:
o Local church sponsored ministries / programs (either point in time or ongoing)
o Small group/home group sponsored ministries (isn’t this just an “in the small” variant on the first?)
o Serving as a “clearing house” for ministries that people want to pursue without providing direct oversight (the Bear Valley Baptist model for non-core ministries).
o Discipleship / training of believers for outreach ministry but no direct sponsorship
o Putting people together who share a common passion for ministry and giving them a kick in the butt to get going.
o ??
I only know that I need models — people that I can observe and learn from both in terms of their creativity in ministry approaches and also people that can mentor me (and help me avoid at least some of the pitfalls they’ve encountered) in various forms of ministry.
???
-Ken
A good list, Ken. I like the “kick in the butt” one. We all need that from time to time (daily?), don’t we?
I think there has to be some work done in combination, but with an emphasis on vocational calling….life in the trenches…the spheres of influence where we spend most of our time. Too much of the church driven stuff is done with the church’s “success” (read numeric growth) in mind.
We certainly need to help one another here. Tim Keller’s list was good in this regard.
Ken,
For what it’s worth, I’ll chime in too.
Nice list of options! I probably live at the “??” one most.
From what I’ve observed, it seems that different people are at different places in life and in the kind of structure they need. Some only need theological information/motivation; some need a kind of methodological “training wheels;” others need to just go along and watch over an extended period of time; etc.
The trick is helping each individual person at the level of their individual need.
Required: the wisdom of Solomon and the time of Methuselah. Thanks for your helpful comment!
Pete,
Thanks for your helpful contribution and your patience (not that you’ve been waiting for my reply though).
I appreciate your connecting the role of the church (corporate/organized) to even the responsibilities of individual believers.
And, who knows, perhaps “gospel adornment” will replace “social action” as the appropriate label for our helping meet the physical needs of those made in God’s image.
Thought-provoking discussion! Thanks, Pete.