Who Defines The Ministry
The Epilog
A number of you have
responded to the recently ended series on Who Defines the Ministry? The
issue continues to occupy my thinking, particularly in light of current events.
If you will indulge me, I want to resurrect it again in this issue of the Dear
Co—Laborer letter and then in January return to the subject of Relativism.
In the
series on Who Defines the Ministry I sought to show that neither the
individual believer nor the institutional church has the right to establish the
agenda for ministry. Only our Lord Jesus can do that and has done it in the New
Testament. Furthermore, if we look to the Old Testament for leadership in what
constitutes ministry, we are apt to be led astray. God’s program for theocratic
Israel is different than that for the New Testament Church.
Today there is an appreciable amount of
confusion in the Body of Christ over exactly what constitutes the ministry. In
the name of Christ organizations and individuals have involved themselves in a
wide range of social issues from the confirmation of Judge Bark to the Supreme
Court to influencing legislation, protesting abortion and pornography, feeding
the poor, helping illegal aliens enter the United States, nuclear power, world
peace and prayer in the public schools. These causes that have captured the
imagination of conscientious believers can be broadly categorized into two
groups: those that are negative (e.g. against abortion, pornography and
nuclear power) and those that are positive (e.g. justice for the oppressed and
feeding the poor).
It seems to me that the believer is limited
to the definition of the ministry found in the New Testament in general and
the Great Commission more specifically. In short, the ministry is winning
the lost and edifying the saved. When Christians engage in activities in
the name of Christ Outside of this limited definition, mixed signals are sent
to the non-believing community, many of them counter—productive to the cause
of Christ. For example, marching before an abortion clinic with a placard
reading, God hates abortion,” may not be in the best interest of the Gospel.
It is this point I will seek to establish in this article.
ADDRESSING THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF SOCIETY
Philippians
4:6-9 the great apostle exhorts the people as follows:
Paul
encourages positive rather than negative thought. Not what is wrong in the
world, but what is right in the Lord is what should occupy the Christian’s
thinking. We are not called to police the world but to proclaim the Gospel.
Nowhere in the New Testament, that I know of, is the believer commissioned with
the task of righting the ills of society. The ministry is positive, not
negative. The church is not “against” slavery, injustice, inequality, etc., but
“for” the sinner’s repenting, trusting Christ as Saviour, and submitting to the
Holy Spirit’s leadership in his life. When the ministry takes on negative
overtones the following negative results generally occur:
1. When we dwell on the “dishonest,” “unjust,”
“impure,” and “ugly” (verse 8), we end up becoming “anxious” (verse 6). A great
deal of Christian dialogue concentrates on what is wrong with the United
States, people make comments like, “If God doesn’t judge the U.S., He will have
to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. Our
spirits are constantly churning over the decline of the country, and we
vacillate between retreating (e.g. home schooling) and lashing out (e.g.
marching against abortion clinics). Peace gives way to anxiety.
2.
Barriers are erected between the Christian and non-Christian that hinder the
proclamation of the Gospel. The non-Christian is made to feel that he must
accept the Christian agenda in order to become a Christian. Because, in the
name of Christ, we seek to stop homosexual activity, violence on TV, Playboy
magazines being sold in Seven-Eleven stores, etc., we create the impression
that to become a Christian he must be against these things as well. We expect
him to embrace a Christian value system without the benefit of conversion and
the presence of the Holy Spirit in his life.
3. Instead of “all have sinned and come short
of the glory of God,” it now becomes “you have sinned and must become like us
if you want to be accepted by God. We are pleasing God by the way we live, you
are not.” I believe this is one of the reasons the media pounced on Pat
Robertson, exposing the fact that their first child was conceived out of
wedlock. The attitude is, “We will prove that you ‘righteous’ Christians aren’t
living any better lives than we ‘sinners’ are.” In the matter of sin it is a
we-they problem, rather than our problem.
4. Thus the impression is created that we are
preaching “another gospel.” I know of no believer who is involved in these
social issues who will argue that he intends to preach another gospel, but this
is what the unbeliever hears. The path to Christ includes accepting the
evangelical social agenda.
5. When we become embroiled in the negative aspects
of society, our energies are dissipated. Social issues tend to be all consuming.
Involvement is frequently at the expense of the Great Commission. This doesn’t
mean that the believer should not become involved in negative social issues.
Rather, the involvement should be as a concerned citizen of the republic instead
of as an ambassador for Christ. Furthermore, it should be remembered that
such involvement is not the ministry per Se, it may lead to ministry, be an
excellent environment for ministry, etc., but it is not the ministry.
Historically
believers have always understood the asset they have at their disposal in
meeting the needs of people as a vehicle for fulfilling the Great Commission.
For example, Christianity brought to India hospitals, the care of orphans and
widows, a concern for the poor and much more. But thinking Christians
understood that, “What shall it profit a man if you fill his belly and send him
to hell?”
Ed
Erny, president of OMS, has an article in a recent periodical entitled “Keeping
the Shell and Discarding the Kernel” which, in a clear, concise manner, calls
attention to the inherent risks in taking this approach. I quote it in its
entirety.
Today there seems to be a
disconcerting tendency for missionary candidates to seek to serve Christ in
almost any capacity but direct evangelism. ‘My son loves mechanics,’ a mother
recently told me, ‘and he thinks maybe he would like to be a missionary. Is
there something he could do overseas?”
Another says, ‘I feel God calling me to be
involved in missions as a hydro—electric engineer.’ Others aspire to be
missionaries assigned to work in rural hygiene, reforestation, community development,
soil conservation, literacy, or the teaching of anthropology.
Dr. Donald McGavran, church growth pioneer,
recently wrote mission executives an impassioned letter. He said, ‘Careful
research into what is actually done by missionaries on mission fields has
revealed beyond the shadow of a doubt that most monies sent out from America by
mission executives go to carry on good works with little evangelistic effect.’
One study disclosed that nearly 801 of all North
American missionaries overseas are involved primarily in social work. Missions
expert, Peter Wagner, in his book, On the Crest of the Wave, says: ‘1
have before me a list of openings in a mission agency which will go unnamed. Of
50 different categories, only two relate to evangelism.
When mission agencies are confronted with these
startling facts, many explanations are offered--some of them comfortingly
plausible. Today, we are told, direct evangelism--the preaching of the
gospel--is properly the task of the indigenous church.
Others point out that social concern--love in
action--is the way to prepare hearts for the hearing of the gospel; so properly
this ministry must precede direct evangelism.
Indian
missionary evangelist, K.P. Yohannan, recalls. “1 first learned the horrible
truth about the ineffectiveness of humanitarian aid in the late 1970s during a
North India Survey Expedition…. My co-workers and I eagerly looked forward to
visiting some of the missionaries and seeing the local churches. We especially
wanted to fleet believers in villages near the famed mission stations.
To our amazement, we could hardly find a
living body of Christ anywhere. There were hardly any believers at all. The
surrounding villages were as deep in spiritual darkness as they had been 200
years ago before the missionary came. We were shocked to find, after 80-100
years of constant missionary work and after the investment of millions of
dollars in these areas, there were few if any real local churches in existence.
Yohannan goes on to state that in few Countries
is the failure of Christian humanism more apparent than in Thailand. There,
after 150 years of showing marvelous social compassion, the church still makes
up only one-tenth of one percent of the entire population. Thailand owes to
missionaries its widespread literacy, first printing press, first university,
first hospital, first doctor, and almost every other benefit of education and
science . . . but today virtually all that remains of this is a shell of good
works.”
The reason, I believe, that thousands of
missionaries have been content to devote a lifetime to humanitarian service, to
the neglect of evangelism, is simply that evangelism has been and always will
be very hard work. The plain preaching of Jesus is still, as the Scriptures
warn us, foolishness--an offense and a stumbling block. So, whereas all men
will laud us for our good works, they will take a dim view of our being so
bigoted and narrow-minded as to suggest that indeed there is but ‘one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus--even the One who said, “No man
cometh to the Father but by me.”
Former
President Zail Singh asked Christians in India to declare a “self-imposed
moratorium” on their efforts to convert Hindus. Ironically, at the same time,
President Singh praised Christians for their work in education and medical
care, and urged them to continue working in such ministries of “service to the
country’s poor and destitute.”
The scholarly and devout missionary
statesman, Bishop Stephen Neill, after a lifetime devoted to missions, came to
the conclusion that “personal conversion is at the heart of missions.” Viewing
with misgiving the growing emphasis of the World Council of Churches on social
justice, he declared, “Those who start at the social end never seem to get to
the gospel, whereas those who start with the gospel sometimes accomplish,
without knowing or intending it, the social revolution.”
Erny is not addressing the results of
missionary effort, but the goal. This is the goal that must be kept clearly in
mind as we do the ministry. The goal is
not to improve the temporal well-being of people, but to
“bring
them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so they
may receive forgiveness of sins, and
inheritance among them such are sanctified”
. . .
(Acts 26:18)
Yours because of His grace,
Who Defines The Ministry
Part
1
Dear Co-Laborer,
There is a
great deal of confusion among Christians as to what constitutes the ministry of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Churches support the entrance of illegal aliens
into the U.S. as part of the Sanctuary Movement while church leaders march in
front of the South African Embassy protesting apartheid. We are led to believe
we are less than God wants us to be if we are not part of the anti-abortion
movement, supporting nuclear freeze, feeding the starving Ethiopians, etc.
Who defines
what is ministry? Is it society? the church? the individual? or the Bible? If
the latter, then what part? The whole Bible or just the New Testament? Is our
task to establish a society ruled by God, as was Israel in the Old Testament?
Is the ministry individual, i.e. reaching the lost? Or is it both?
These are
questions that need an answer if the laity are going to effectively integrate
their faith and vocation. In the next several issues of the “Dear Co-Laborer”
letter I would like to address these issues. It goes without saying that there
won ‘t be unanimity of thought, and some will strongly disagree with my presentation.
I hope fully it will stimulate thinking and help you come to your own
resolution of these issues. As I have mentioned in the past, I eagerly welcome
feedback from you.
**********
*********
When we read the Old
Testament, we discover that God had a dual commitment, that is, He was
committed to individuals as well as to the nation of Israel. These were two
separate Commitments on the part of God. God established the institution of
Israel, gave it a set of laws, which included moral, civil, ceremonial and
dietary aspects of their lives, and established a priesthood which in effect
became the judiciary arm of the nation.
God was also committed to individuals in the
Old Testament. Being part of the nation of Israel did not guarantee an
individual’s salvation. Paul underscores this truth in Romans 9:6 when he says,
“Not all Israel is of Israel.” That is, because an individual is a member of
the institution blessed by God, it does not follow that he automatically is in
a right relationship with God.
God was committed to the nation of Israel, however,
irrespective of how many individuals were committed to Him. In the days of
Elijah the prophet, for example, Elijah felt that he was alone. Note God’s promise
to him:
Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the
knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed
him.
I Kings 19:18
This was meant to he a promise of encouragement to the
beleaguered prophet, but when you think of 7,000 in light of a nation of
several million, it is not all that impressive. Still God is committed to the
nation. He reminds His prophets again and again that even though a remnant of
faithful people remain, He is committed to His chosen institution, Israel. He
may scourge them, chastise them, send them into captivity, but His commitment
to them is inviolable.
In the New Testament God
does not have a dual but a singular commitment. He is committed to His people,
but there is no institutional commitment. Differing opinions regarding this
have caused no small amount of tension in ecclesiastical circles. Historically
the Roman Catholic Church has embraced the Augustinian notion that “there is no
salvation outside the church.” By this they mean the institutional
manifestation of the church called the Roman Catholic Church.
This
same thinking is seen in Protestant circles as well. The ecumenical movement
reflected in organizations such as the National Council of Churches argues for
organizational union because they, like the Roman church, believe there is an
institutional commitment on the part of God in the New Testament. Thus
they interpret Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17 as being a synonym for
union.
There
is no indication in the New Testament, however, that God has any such
commitment to an organization or institution. There is nothing in the New
Testament that would lead us to believe that the Roman Catholic Church, the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or the Southern Baptists as denominations or
institutions have received the same commitment from God, which He gave to the
nation of Israel. There is no call in the New Testament to redeem institutions,
only individuals.
In Old
Testament days, if you were dissatisfied with the immorality, idolatry and
general unfaithfulness found in the nation, you would be free to seek renewal
and reformation, but you would not be free to leave Israel and form a new
nation, expecting God to bless it as He had Israel. Israel was uniquely the
object of God’s affections. As believers in the Lord you would not be free to
leave that nation and start a new one.
Today
in the United States there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 denominations,
each claiming to be the clearest expression of Christ’s Body. This does not
include the plethora of mission agencies and “para—church” groups. If God has
an institutional commitment in the New Testament, to which of these groups is
He committed? Who decides? If we say that the Bible determined the difference
between those institutions to which God is committed and those to which He is
not, does this mean that any group of believers can unilaterally decide to
organize a denomination if it is Biblically based and expect God to be
committed to it?
The
local church as an organization in competition with other local churches is not
an entity found in the New Testament, that is, you cannot find it in the New
Testament as a positive model. You do find it present in Corinth, but
Paul rebukes it.
Now this I say, that
every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I
of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized
in the name of Paul.
I Corinthians 1:12—13
We are
not sure if this competitive spirit existed in a single local congregation or
in a fractured form, manifesting itself in several local congregations. In
either case the competitiveness that it produced was addressed negatively by
the apostle Paul.
Does
this mean that institutions are of no use or that it is wrong to have a
multiplicity of local churches? Quite the contrary. God uses them, and they
contribute to what He is doing in the world today. But to turn this around and
say that God is committed to them in the way He was committed to the nation of
Israel in the Old Testament is to come to the wrong conclusion.
To
conclude that God has no institutional commitment in the New Testament that
parallels His commitment to Old Testament Israel has far—reaching
implications. In the next issue we will begin to explore those implications.
By
His Grace
WHO DEFINES THE MINISTRY?
Grace is a common theme
running through both the Old and New Testaments. The glory of God is revealed
in the gracious way He deals with His people. Jesus said, “I am the way, the
truth and the light. No man comes unto the Father but by Me” (John 14:6). This
is true for people in both testaments. Thus Jesus Notes, “Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). Everyone who
enters heaven—— past, present and future——does so because of the grace of God
manifested in the vicarious death of Jesus Christ.
The theme of grace forms a
thread of continuity between the Old and New Testament. It is mentioned here as
balance for the subject of this article, for although there are differences
between the two testaments, there are also similarities.
In the Old Testament
Israel is a people gathered; in the New Testament the Church is a people
scattered. In the Old Testament God singled out Abraham as the object of His
affection (not necessarily to the exclusion of others) and through his
descendants demonstrated to a watching world what it meant for a people to be
ruled by God. The nations were invited to look upon the theocracy of Israel and
be instructed.
In the
New Testament the Gentiles are the object of His affection (again not to the
exclusion of the Jews). They are, as Peter points out, aliens, foreigners and
strangers in a hostile environment (I Peter 2:9—12). Jesus warned His disciples:
If ye were of
the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world,
but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
(John 15:19)
The
people of God are called to be salt and light in the midst of persecution and
rejection. They were not to gather themselves together to form a unique nation
under the rulership of God, but were to “go into the uttermost parts of the
earth,” preaching the good news of the Gospel. They were called upon, not
to change government, but to submit to it (Romans 13:1—5, I Peter 2:13-15.
In the Old Testament the
call was to compliance with the commandments of God rather than to individual
salvation. This is not to suggest that there was no individual salvation in the
Old Testament. Quite the contrary. The preoccupation of Moses and the prophets,
however, was with a society living in obedience to the laws of God. In the New
Testament the call is to individual salvation rather than to corporate change.
There are no references in the New Testament to the changing of society, only
the changing of individuals. The New Testament is disturbingly silent regarding
issues such as slavery.
In the Old Testament
most of the promises were temporal in focus. They dealt with such things as
secure borders, the absence of famine, pestilence and want, the promise of long
life, health and prosperity. In the New Testament the promises are
predominantly eternal in their focus. They deal with eternal life, the rewards
of heaven and the promise of God’s presence in the life of the believer. The
New Testament believer living in the world is promised tribulation, hardship,
persecution and rejection as the product of godliness (II Timothy 3:12).
Jeremiah received similar treatment for his faithfulness to God, but this was
abnormal and not what an obedient Jew was led to expect.
In the Old Testament Israel is an organization. In the New
Testament the Church is an organism. In the Old Testament mission is corporate;
in the New Testament it is individual. In the Old Testament the priesthood
belongs to a select few from the tribe of Levi; in the New Testament every
believer is a priest having the right to “come boldly to the Throne of Grace”
to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).
In the
Old Testament the perpetuity of a man’s offspring is important (Jeremiah 29:32).
In the New Testament not getting married is important (I Corinthians 7:7—9). In
the Old Testament wealth is a sign of God’s blessing. In the New Testament
wealth is neutral. It is not necessarily a sign of blessing nor of its
opposite. God sovereignly distributes it to accomplish His purposes.
These
are merely illustrative of the many ways the Old and New Testaments differ.
Because of these differences, the believer does not look to the Old Testament
for a proper definition of ministry. Ministry must be defined in terms of
participating with God in what He is doing. God’s gracious salvation through
Jesus Christ unites both testaments, but the program of God in the
demonstration of this grace is obviously different in the two testaments. To
look to the Old Testament for a proper model for ministry is to engage in
activities not found in the New Testament. For example, the bringing of society
corporately into compliance with the commandments of God is an Old Testament,
not a New Testament concept.
The
first of the year is when many do their planning, setting goals and objectives
for the next twelve months. Planning is profoundly affected by a person’s
perception of God’s program for this age.
As
noted above, the promises of God in the Old Testament, and consequently the
focus of Israel, were temporal. It dealt with the nation and God’s rulership
over that nation. If planning is done from an Old Testament perspective, it is
easy to conclude that the destiny of the world is in the hands of the believer.
The Christian is responsible to effect change in society and bring it into
compliance with God’s law.
When planning is done from a New Testament perspective,
the believer sees himself as an alien in a hostile world. As an alien he is in
the process of being prepared for an eternity with God. The focus of his hope
is eternal rather than temporal. He sees God not changing society but redeeming
individuals, and he participates in the program of God accordingly. The
ministry is defined in terms of this participation.
Those
with an Old Testament mind—set tend to be product rather than process oriented.
Results are what they are looking for. In their planning their thinking is in
terms of what they can build, contribute or produce. Thus they see themselves
as most productive in the years between their 30’s and 60’s when they are sharp
of mind and in good health. When these “productive” years have passed, they
retire, seeking to make the closing years as comfortable as possible.
Those with a New
Testament mind—set do not establish temporal goals. They see their vocation as
an environment (although not the only environment) in which to participate in
what God is doing. Wealth is not only neutral; it is also a gift of God.
Therefore, the accumulation of wealth is not a goal in their planning. Because
they see themselves as being in a process with God, they do not consider
themselves more productive in the “prime” of life than during other times. Each
day is as important and strategic as any other because they are not trying to
create or produce anything. They approach their resources, country and world as
a stewardship from God rather than as an opportunity to change or build
something. They serve their “generation by the will of God” (Acts 13:36) with
the mind—set of a sojourner participating with God as the Lord prepares them
for an eternity with Him.
These differing
approaches to planning are purposely contrasted in stark form to draw attention
to the direction a person’s thinking will drift depending on his perception of
God’s plan for this age. Embracing one or the other perception does not
‘guarantee the stated results, but the tendency will be to move in that
direction.
The nature of man is
such that he is attracted to an Old Testament concept of planning and ministry.
Therefore, you are more apt to find people who have never thought of the issue
before, or may have even embraced a New Testament mind—set, drifting toward the
Old Testament model. We will explore this phenomenon in a later issue.
Grateful for your co-laborship,
Who Defines the Ministry?
Part 3
Paul Johnson in his book,
A History of Christianity, points out that the apostle Paul never sought
to institutionalize the church. Convinced of the imminent return of the Lord
Jesus, he was motivated to spread the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the
world in obedience to Jesus’ command. To spend time building an institution
made about as much sense as a man knowing that he had two weeks to live spending
those two weeks building a new house.
The strategy for the
propagation of the Gospel is outlined by this apostle in Ephesians 4:11—12:
And his gifts were that
some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and
teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the
body of Christ.
The vocational Christian
workers reflected in the offices mentioned in verse 11 were commissioned with
the task of equipping the saints so that the saints might do the work of the
ministry. This in turn produced a multiplying effect as the Gospel rolled
across the world.
The time from the apostle
Paul in the First Century to the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century was
characterized by rapid growth accompanied by tremendous heresies. Not only did
the Gospel spread like a tidal wave, but in its wake were spawned numerous
aberrations such as the Gnostics, Donatists, Montanists, Pelagians, etc.
Thoughtful Christians were concerned with this “plague” that seemed to
accompany the vitality of an expanding church. Without the support of the
state, however, the church was powerless to do anything about it.
Constantine
was the first emperor in the Roman Empire to embrace Christianity, and in 313
with the “Edict of Milan” he legitimized Christianity in the Empire. When this
took place, the dynamics changed appreciably. First there was a large influx of
Gentile converts into the church, since Christianity was now in vogue. How was
the church to assimilate this vast hoard of people, most of who were Biblical
illiterates? The organization of the church began before this time, but fresh
thought was given on how to handle this growth.
Second,
as the church moved from being predominantly Jewish to predominantly Gentile,
it developed a new mind—set. At our Lord’s ascension the apostles asked:
Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again
the kingdom to Israel? And He said unto them, It is not for you to know the
times or the season, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall
receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto
the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts
1:6—8)
The
Jewish mind wanted to know when God was going to fulfill His Old Testament
promises to the nation of Israel. Jesus’ response was that they were not to
know the time. It was their task to preach the Gospel to the uttermost parts of
the world. Paul and other Jews were eagerly involved in the fulfilling of the
Great Commission in anticipation of the day when the Old Testament promises
would be fulfilled to Israel. With the church predominantly Gentile, this eager
anticipation of Christ’s return was replaced by a desire to change society
through the establishment of Christian institutions. The Gentile church was not
as eager for the Lord to return and establish a Jewish kingdom as it was to
establish its own Christian kingdom. Since Christ was not here to rule, He
would be represented by His “vicar.”
This
shift in thinking is seen in an article from the Encyclopedia Britannica
on “Millennium”:
The
spirit of philosophical and theological speculation and of ethical reflection,
which began to spread through the Churches, did not know what to make of the
old hopes of the future. To a new generation they seemed paltry, earthly and
fantastic, and far—seeing men had good reason to regard them as a source of
political danger. But more than this, these wild dreams about the glorious
kingdom of Christ began to disturb the organization which the Churches had
seen fit to introduce. In the interests of self—preservation against the world,
the State and the heretics, the Christian communities had formed themselves
into compact societies with a definite creed and constitution, and they felt
that their existence was threatened by the white heat of religious subjectivity.
Third, the emperor as head
of the state was most eager to be viewed as Christ’s vicar since it served his
purposes to have the dynamic power of a missionary—minded church under his
control.
Fourth,
the church was happy with this new arrangement, for it now had in its hand the
sword of the state, which gave it the power necessary to bring under control
the various heresies plaguing the church. Thus it was during the days of
Constantine that the first of the great ecumenical councils (since Acts 15)
convened to settled doctrinal issues. Granted, in this uneasy marriage with the
state, the church would have to grapple with the question, “Whose voice of
authority was absolute——the emperor’s or the pope’s?” but with the emperor now
under the authority of Christ, the church was certain that it would win.
From
the time of Constantine to the establishment of the United States of America
every culture that became Christian married the church and the state and had as
its primary objective the bringing of society into obedience under the
authority of Christ. It may be added as a parenthetical comment that Ralph
Winter in his lectures on “The Historical Development of the Christian
Movement” points out that for the next thousand years the church as a percent
of the population of the world experienced a net loss. The mission of the
church was viewed more as the changing of society than the changing of
individuals.
The
fathers of the U.S. Constitution deliberately separated the church and state.
No longer did the church have the sword of the state in its hand, allowing it
to enforce its will on the people. By and large the results paralleled what
happened in the early centuries of the church. Tremendous growth and vitality
has been accompanied by a plethora of aberrations and heresies. A larger
percentage of the population of the United States is Christian than any other
country in the world. The United States has spawned a multiplicity of vital,
ministries from the Bible school movement to the Wyclliffe Bible Translators.
It has distributed more money and sent more missionaries than any other country
in history.
Accompanying
this phenomenon, however, has been a multiplicitv of sects and cults such as
the Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Mormans, and Jehovah Witnesses.
Thoughtful Christians have been disturbed by their growth and influence.
Organizations such as the National Council of Churches call for the uniting of
a fragmented church partly in hopes of controlling this kaleidoscope. When the
church and state are married, it is possible to control the product of the
church. Without this sword, such
control is impossible. I believe
this is one of the reasons why so many Christian leaders are preaching that
salvation in Christ cannot be separated from the Lordship of Christ. It is an
endeavor to distinguish between the wheat and tares and bring some of kind of
control to this chaotic mess. Those unwilling to live with the ambiguity found
in a church freed from the authority of the state feel compelled to police the
body of Christ either through doctrine or rules and regulations.
It
seems as though the church and state have always been in conflict. After
Constantine, when the two were married, the conflict arose over whose voice of
authority was final. In the book of Acts the two were in conflict because the
church refused to meet the expectations of the state. When the government said
that the church could not preach the Gospel, the response was, “We ought to obey God
rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
In the United States today, however, the conflict
between church and state exists for the exact opposite reason. It is not that
the church is unwilling to meet the expectations of the State, but rather the
state is unwilling to meet the expectations of the church.
The church has
established an agenda different than the state, insisting that the state
conform to the church’s expectations. Thus there is conflict over issues like
apartheid, nuclear armament, women’s rights, and the Sanctuary Movement. In the
New Testament the church was not trying to change society, but individuals.
Christians did not carry placards before the governor’s palace protesting
slavery!
Today,
however, a large part of the church defines the ministry in terms of social
issues, arguing that a “holistic Gospel” includes not only the preaching of
salvation to the individual but also bringing the pressure upon the state in
such a way that it meets the expectations of the church. Many are so caught up
in social issues that little attention is given to the preaching of the Gospel.
This is a definition of ministry not found in the New Testament!
Amazed by His grace,
WHO DEFINES THE MINISTRY?
As noted in the last issue
(March), when the church became predominantly Gentile, it sought to disengage
itself from the Jewish hope of a Messianic kingdom whose seat of power was
Jerusalem. In its place was the hope of Christianizing the existing kingdom
whose seat of power was Rome.
Constantine, the first
Christian emperor who in the Edict of Milan made Christianity legitimate, moved
his seat of government from Rome to Constantinople on the Bosphorus. The
barbarian tribes of the north had been threatening Rome forcing the change, and
with the moving of the seat of government, there was a political vacuum in the
western part of the Empire. Christianity under the leadership of the Bishop of
Rome sought to fill that void, and the “Roman Catholic” church was born. The
name is all-important, as it perceived itself as being both the political and
spiritual leader of-an-empire regenerated by Christianity.
Augustine (350—430) sought
to give theological justification to this mind—set in his treatise, The City
of God. It was a reinterpretation of eschatology, arguing that the
millennium promised in Revelation 20 and perceived as the time when the Jewish
kingdom promised in the Old Testament would be established, was in fact the
period of time in which they were currently living. The millennium belonged to
the church, not to a future Jewish kingdom, and the Old Testament promises to
the nation of Israel were in fact meant for the church. The mission of the
church was to establish “The City of God” on earth through a revitalized Roman
empire in much the same way that Israel established a theocratic kingdom in the
Old Testament.
With
this marriage of church and state political and ecclesiastical goals
overlapped. Increasingly the goals of the church were perceived as temporal.
Christ was Lord of the institutions on earth, and it was the duty of both church
and state to insure that His rule was unquestioned. No longer were Christians
encouraged to view themselves as aliens and foreigners in a hostile
environment but rather as reformers, claiming the various institutions of
society for Christ. The Great Commission was perceived corporately with its
goal the changing of society.
Even
after the Reformation this “Augustinian” concept of the church was maintained,
so that in those countries of Europe in which the Reformation replaced Roman
Catholicism the church and state remained married. Thus the reformers did not
stress world evangelism as a central task of the church: Paul Avis in his The Church and the
Theology of the Reformers states:
It is
however, justified to speak in general terms of the strange silence of the
reformers on missions. When both Luther and Calvin comment on the Great
Commission (Matthew 28), they remain bafflingly silent on the duty of the
present day Christians to carry on the work of the apostles in bringing the
gospel to “every creature.” (Page
168)
Mission
was conceived as corporate with its goal the Christianization of society rather
than the personal salvation of individuals. The agency for accomplishing this
task was the church institutionally conceived. Both the corporate concept of
mission and the institutional concept of the church are borrowed from
Augustine’s and Calvin’s stress on the continuity of the covenants,
particularly the continuity between the Sinaitic and the New Covenant. Emil
Krailing in his The Old Testament since the Reformation writes:
A Christian state run according to Christian principles was to
(Calvin and the reformers) an objective worth striving for. The New Testament
did not provide a sufficient background for their ecclesiastical and political
practice, for the early Christians had been a minority group in a hostile
world. One has to go back to the Old Testament to find a community run on such
a basis as they envisioned, and hence reform leaders had to pay particular
interest in stressing the authority of the older portion of the canon. (Page 21)
In
other words, Calvin and the reformers modeled mission along Old Testament
lines. Since the focus of mission was institutional rather than individual, the
Great Commission was perceived as finding its fulfillment through the changing
of society according to Biblical expectations and then maintaining control so
as to insure continued compliance. It was temporal in focus and dealt with the
outward conditions of society rather than the inner condition of the heart.
History
tends to confirm the notion that cultures by and large are stable and
unchanging. Periodically, however, a culture will go through a radical change
where in a relatively short period of time a dominant force replaces the old.
The Renaissance and the Reformation are examples of such change in Western
civilization. Many believe that a similar change is taking place in Western
Europe today, as culture moves rapidly from Christian to post—Christian,
producing a secular mind—set.
In
many respects the secular mind is more difficult to reach than the pagan mind.
By way of contrast, when looking at the work of Christ in the Orient, one
senses a spirit of optimism, especially in countries like Korea, the
Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore and even China.
Christianity is claiming numerous converts. In Western Europe Christian
leaders are pessimistic and intimidated. Secular man is jaded, cynical, and
even hostile to the claims of Christ. He doesn’t even want to enter into
dialogue, much less entertain the claims of Christ.
The
church has defined ministry in terms of changing and controlling society with
goals not all that different from the state. Granted, there are promises of
personal salvation and the hope of eternity, but they are by and large vague,
of secondary importance, and relegated to the “pie in the sky” future. Thus,
secular man looks at the church, sees it as a duplication of what the state is
seeking to achieve, and considers it irrelevant.
It is
precisely for this reason that Christian leaders feel intimidated. In the
Orient the Gospel message is fresh and radically different than what the pagan
gods have to offer.
In“post-Christian” Europe the church has used the
language of the Gospel but has poured into it temporal goals and objectives in
accordance with the Augustinian model, producing a message similar to that of
the state.
In the
United States, to the degree that we define ministry in terms of temporal
goals, we will find ourselves facing the same problem. The claiming of
institutions for Christ is not a New Testament concept, and when the church
makes this its goal, it gives mission a temporal rather than an eternal focus.
This in turn leads to the perception that the goals of the church and state are
in essence the same, which in turn contributes to the secularization of man.
When
Christians are robbed of Biblical language due to prior misuse, their task in
evangelism becomes especially difficult. No longer can the Gospel be publicly
proclaimed with any hope of the kind of response seen in other parts of the
world. Fresh thinking has to be given to the question of how to reach this
secularized man.
The
unregenerate man and the state have in common a temporal focus. Man may chafe
under the authority of the state, but instinctively he understands the
important role that it plays in his life. He also learns that temporal goals
cannot satisfy. Their pursuit ultimately leads to despair. When the church
embraces temporal goals, it is perceived by the unregenerated man as being not
all that different than the state. Thus, when he moves into disillusionment
because these temporal goals are unattainable, or do not satisfy when they are
attained, he responds to the church with cynical indifference.
The church
was never called into existence for the purpose of accomplishing temporal
goals.
“My
kingdom is not of this world.” (John
18:36)
Rejoicing in His grace,
WHO DEFINES THE MINISTRY?
Each believer is endowed
by God with certain resources. They can be broadly categorized into two main
groups: those that are eternal and those that are temporal. Temporal resources
include such things as time, gifts and abilities, opportunities, one’s country,
money, and health. Eternal resources include such things as the Word of God,
people, and the Holy Spirit. The use of these resources, both temporal and
eternal, is a question of stewardship.
In stewarding temporal
resources, the believer lives in perpetual tension as he seeks to live life in
balance, avoiding extremes. For example, take the resource of money: how much
should he spend on himself and how much should he give away? Determining the
balance is no easy task.
Again
this tension can be seen in the stewarding of one’s health. The believer should
not live for the care of his body, nor should he neglect its care. Proper diet,
exercise and rest all come into play as he seeks balance.
The
apostle Paul reminds the believers in Corinth, “Moreover it is required in
stewards that a man be found faithful” (I Corinthians 4:2). In
the final analysis stewardship is an issue of faithfulness. In seeking to
discharge his responsibility the believer must remember two things:
1. He cannot
contribute to the work of God. The Psalmist says, “Except the Lord build the
house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:lh). It is the Lord,
not man, who does the building. Mordecai reminds Esther regarding the fiendish
plot of Haman,
“For
if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall deliverance rise
to the Jews from another place”
(Esther 4:14a).
The believer can participate in the work of God and is
invited to do so, but the success of God’s work is not dependent upon the
faithfulness of man.
2. All that
man produces, God will burn. This is God’s assurance spoken through his servant
Peter:
But
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall he burned up. (II Peter 3:10)
In light of these two verities, stewardship is not an
issue of fruitfulness but faithfulness. Jesus in John 15 promises fruit if the
believer is faithful in abiding in Christ. It comes from God and is the result
of the believer’s abiding in Christ.
As noted
in an earlier “Dear Co-Laborer” letter, apart from the family the only
institution to which God has a special commitment is the nation of Israel. He
brought Israel into existence at Mt. Sinai, and at that time gave her laws and
ordinances by which she was to be governed. Paul reminds the Romans that
government is ordained by God, but it is abundantly obvious in the Scriptures
that the commitment which God has to the nation of Israel is qualitatively
different than that which He had to Egypt, Babylon, the Roman Empire or
currently to countries such as China, England, the USSR, and the United States.
Without institutions there would he chaos and anarchy, and
yet their presence reveals that which is the vilest in men. For example, all of
the great civilizations of the world have been brought into existence by the
exploitation of man. Whether it is the pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of
China, or the Roman Empire, they came into existence through the incredible
inhumanity of man to man. Some argue that the United States is not exempt with
the abolition of slavery only a little more than one hundred years old. God
uses institutions to maintain order, but they also serve as a vivid
illustration of man’s dependence upon God.
History is merely an illustration of man’s inability to govern his own
affairs.
Institutions are one of the resources given to the
believer by God. They are temporal in nature and are to be related to from a
perspective of stewardship. Each Christian approaches them with the same
tension that is present in the stewarding of any other temporal resource. For
example, most people reading this are citizens of the United States. We were
born into a democracy with considerable affluence, the apostle Paul was born
under the tyranny of Rome, and still others are born in deep poverty. The difference is Providence. As we seek to
discharge our responsibility in caring for this resource, how much time and
energy should be given to the preservation of our country? On one hand, we cannot neglect it; on the
other hand, we cannot make its preservation the focus our life anymore than we
can make the preservation or our health the focus of our life. It is a temporal resource, which will pass
with the consummation of our age. Each,
then, wrestles with the level of involvement. Do we vote, get involved in
politics, campaign for our favorite candidate, write to our elected officials
expressing our views, get involved in issues such as pro-life, prayer in the
public schools and nuclear freeze? There are no easy answers to the question of
the Christian’s involvement as he stewards this resource.
The same is true for the
believer’s involvement in the visible church, which as an institution is as
temporal as state or national governments. We cannot ignore institutional
Christianity, but how do we discharge our responsibility toward it. What should he our level of involvement?
God is at work in the
world. His work is eternal rather than temporal. We cannot contribute to it
(e.g. Ecclesiastes 3:14), but we are invited to participate. In Matthew 6, Jesus
warns not to seek temporal commodities but rather to invest our resources in
the eternal. In John 6:27, He cautions,
“Labor not for the things that perish but for those things which
endure unto everlasting life.”
Our God-given resources,
both temporal and eternal, are properly stewarded when invested in the work of
God with an eternal rather than a temporal focus. Simply stated, the ministry
is participating in the work of God. It is not a question of vocation but
rather a question of focus. The man working on the lathe in the machine shop,
the doctor operating in the hospital, the evangelist preaching to the masses,
all are or can he equally in the ministry.
It is not an issue of that which each produces, for that which is
eternal God must produce. Rather, it is a question of being faithful stewards
with the resources God has given as we maintain an eternal focus. The secular is spiritual when the focus of
one’s life is the eternal. Conversely,
the spiritual is secular when the focus of one’s life is the temporal.
In the New Testament,
God is not in the business of redeeming institutions, but individuals.
Institutions are temporal individuals are eternal. The ministry is how believers become involved with God in what He
is doing. Thus the ministry can be
summarized by the Great Commission which includes preaching the Gospel to the
lost, discipling and teaching people to
“observe all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
If as the Christian
stewards his resources with the eternal focus of participating with God
in the Great Commission, then he is in the ministry. A temporal activity can be the ministry as long as it has an
eternal Focus. A temporal goal, however, irrespective of how noble it may be is
not the ministry.
For example, seeking
legislation that brings the government into compliance with Biblical
expectations, being involved in the pro-life movement, drilling wells to
alleviate the drought in Africa, or rebuilding those parts of Mexico City
devastated by recent earthquakes as goals in and of themselves is not the ministry.
They are ministry only to the degree that through these activities the
individual is seeking eternal ends with the objective of participating with God
in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Rejoicing in Christ,
When evangelical Christians align themselves politically
with either concerned groups on a particular issue such as, say, abortion,
they run the risk of winning the battle but losing the war. In all probability
it is merely a matter of time before those who were “allies” on a particular
issue become “enemies” on another.
Forming a coalition with those who philosophically approach an issue
from an entirely different set of presuppositions is dangerous at best.
A cursory reading of the patriarchs of our country reveals
that most of them were deists. Rather than operating from the premise that the
Bible is the inerrant word of God, they believed in natural law as
“self-evident” truth. Can unregenerate man discover natural law? Can the
majority through a democratic process agree upon a system of law that is in
basic agreement with God’s law revealed in the Scriptures? The apostle Paul
states:
For when the Gentiles,
which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these,
having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their
thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
(Romans
2:14-15)
Does the
sinfulness of man distort this general revelation of right and wrong? It is
precisely here that we face our problem.
If, on the one hand, we conclude that the general revelation of God to
all mankind is sufficiently accurate and undistorted so that in a free and
democratic society the majority will always align themselves with God’s law,
then we would not be currently faced with problems such as abortion. If, on the
other hand, we conclude that man’s depravity has distorted general revelation
and that natural law is not quite as self evident as we had hoped, then what is
our responsibility as people exposed to God’s special revelation through the
Scriptures towards leveraging the populace and insisting on their abiding by
God’s law without at the same time shaking the delicate foundation upon which
our free society has been built?
All rational people
crave peace and prosperity but find instead war and poverty. To work for the
former is noble; to pray for it is commanded. But when working in concert with
people who are not living in accordance with God’s revelation, the task becomes
complicated, complicated from several perspectives.
First, it is complicated by the fact that when special interest
groups seek to impose their will on the majority, no matter how noble their
cause may appear, they are merely flirting with the possibility of a new
coalition being formed that ultimately is not in the best interest of
Christianity. For example, the unbeliever may side with the Christian against
abortion today and with the humanist against charitable deductions on income
taxes tomorrow. Any time the minority succeed in imposing their will on the
majority, no matter how “right” the cause may he, it weakens the foundation
upon which a democracy rests.
Second,
it is complicated by the fact that if God gives to us the peace and prosperity
we long for, we run the risk of moving into a posture of no longer needing
Him. As Christians our purpose for
being here on earth is to prepare us for an eternity with God. From an eternal
perspective there is no intrinsic worth in peace and prosperity. We are best
prepared for an eternity with the Lord by living in a posture of perpetual
dependence upon God. Often times peace and prosperity are counterproductive in
that aim.
Third, is
is complicated by the fact that communities which move closer to the theocratic
model of the Old Testament tend to become lulled into a spiritual stupor. The
more closely aligned to the Biblical expectations a society becomes, the more
it tends to lull people into believing that their nature is not in need of
change. Desperation and dependence give way to comfort and compromise.
Christians become complacent and lose their edge. There is no longer a sharp
contrast between the people of God and the world, and personal evangelism seems
to he less important. I know that in various “Christian” communities that I
have visited across the country, this phenomenon is almost always present.
Fourth, it is
complicated by the fact that Christians who expend emotional energy in the
direction of bringing society into conformity with the commandments of God tend
to view this as “the ministry.” As already noted, how we relate to our country
is an issue of stewardship just as how we care for our bodies is, but it is
temporal in nature and should not become the focus of our lives.
One of the
reasons a theocratic society is so appealing is the security it affords a
person and his family. The fight with sin and the struggle with the world is
minimized. Thus the compulsion to work for a society “under God” is almost
irresistible for the conscientious Christian. To yield to this urge may be, for
that person, the will of God; to call it the ministry is to miss the mark with
God.
Rejoicing,
Part 7
This is
the next to the last article in the series “Who Defines the Ministry?” In this
issue I want to draw attention to the role of institutions in defining the
ministry.
The
dictionary defines an institution as an “organization with established
relationships of personnel through lines of authority and responsibility with
delegated and assigned duties. - The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Christian
institutions as “compact societies with a definite creed and constitution.” In
this series of articles on “Who Defines the Ministry?” I have used the word
institution as “a group of people united for sane purpose with a membership,
set of regulations and body of officers.”
Throughout
history man has looked to institutions as a key ingredient in the ordering of
his affairs. He has always been enamored with them, for he perceives then as a
solution to his problem that he can bring into existence and control. Thus when
he writes history, it is in terms of institutions, and men are considered great
based on their relationship to them. He is great because he started it, another
because he led it, and still another because he conquered it.
W. F.
Albright in his book, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra - An
Historical Survey, notes in his first chapter entitled “Hebrew Beginnings”
that when man writes history, it is from the perspective of the grandiose civilization
his culture was able to create. When God writes history, it is from the
perspective of humble men and women responding to the acts of God in their
life.
Hebrew
national tradition excels all others in its clear picture of tribal and family
origins. In Egypt and Babylonia, in Assyria and Phoenicia, in Greece and Rome,
we look in vain for anything comparable. There is nothing like it in the
tradition of the Germanic peoples. Neither India nor China can produce anything
similar, since their earliest historical memories are literary deposits of
distorted dynastic tradition, with no trace of the herdsman or peasant behind
the demigod or king with whom their records begin. Neither in the oldest Indic
historical writings (the Puranas) nor in the earliest Greek historians is there
a hint of the fact that both Indo-Aryans and Hellenes were once nomads who
immigrated into their later abodes from the north. The Assyrians, to be sure,
remembered vaguely that they are just rulers, whose names they recalled without
any details about their deeds, were tent dwellers, but whence they came had
long been forgotten.
In contrast with these other peoples the Israelites preserved an unusually clear picture of simple beginnings, of complex migrations, and of extreme vicissitudes, which plunged them from their favored status wider Joseph to bitter oppression after his death.
Only
God writes a history that includes the likes of Tamer and Rahab. Only God, when
asked who He is, would respond, “I am the God of Isaac. It is incredible that
the God of the universe chose to be known by what the Biblical record reveals
is a “nobody.” Isaac never built a city, wrote a book, made a major discovery,
or did anything that the world calls significant. He didn’t even have a
successful marriage.
Such
people are missing in the histories of the “great civilizations” of the world.
You simply do not find a humble sheepherder like Abraham holding center stage
in the histories written about Greece, Egypt, Rome, India, etc.
The
historian argues that nations are great to the degree that they significantly
influence other nations and thus have a bearing on the direction of history. In
the Old Testament these nations are significant only to the degree that they
are involved in the program of God. When man writes history, he does it in
terms of institutions. It is man-centered and always in terms of man’s
progress. When God writes history, it is in terms of the individual with the
objective of showing God’s purposes being enacted on the stage of history.
Dr.
Ronald Goetz, Professor of Theology at Amherst College and Editor-at-Large for
the Christian Century, in the April 16, 1986, issue of that periodical
notes in an article entitled “The Suffering God: the Rise of a New Orthodoxy.”
that St. Augustine’s theocratic hope is that the church as the earthly city of
God will gradually cane to rule the world. Those Christians that embrace the
Augustinian model are united in their conviction that God’s eternal rule is
confirmed by world events and that the eventual triumph of God’s earthly
purpose is discernible in the facts and trends of history. The lack of
progress, however, in producing this “City of God” on earth has produced
pessimism in modern society.
The great
majority of Christians continue to affirm the reality, but God so rarely seems
to accomplish His will in the world. So often God’s purpose, if it can be
discerned, seems to be defeated. The actual, redemptive presence of God in the
world is discerned less in God’s taking the sovereign lead in events and more
in God’s picking up the pieces after history has misfired. In any case, without
being able to point to clear evidence of the progress of God’s holy purpose in
history, the notion that God rules the world through His mighty acts becomes
somewhat vacuous.
In the
Bible, however, there is no talk of the uniform progress of world history
toward God’s kingdom. The God of the Bible does indeed, from time to time, act
with free will and surprising power, but the direct hand of God in events, if
there at all, is often simply lost on people. One can speak of the acts of God,
then, only if one faces the fact that God’s acts are found only in the seams
and cracks of an otherwise meaningless history. They can and often do slip
through the cracks and go unnoticed, or they are seen and misread and even held
up to high ridicule. In any case, God’s acts by their very fragility are signs
not of an impassable, immutable resolve but of a reign over history characterized
by misunderstandings and defeats, suffering and crossbearing.
Goetz
points out that if you look for the works of God in history as He brings the
kingdoms of the world into compliance with his expectations, you conclude that
God’s purposes are defeated. God’s acts are found “only in the seams and cracks
of an otherwise meaningless history.”
Or
to put it another way, if the Program of God is interpreted in institutional
terms, then it, must be concluded that God has failed in the executing of His program.
The Augustinian model has simply been unable to produce anything approximating
the “City of God” on earth.
Dr.
Nikolaus Labkowicz, President of the University of Eichstaett, in his article,
“Marxism as the Ideology of air Age,” draws attention to the fact that Marxism
as an ideology has gained wide acceptance in Western thought. In addressing why
its acceptance is so widespread, Labkowicz suggests that it offers a doctrine
of salvation that is simpler and more attractive than any other produced by the
occidental world. Like the Augustinian model it places its emphasis on a
corporate rather than individual solution. Unlike the Augustinian model it
offers an entirely different solution.
From
the Seventeenth Century to the present “the idea of progress does not ask each
of us individually to try to be a better person but, rather, claims to make us
better persons by improving our life conditions . . . For Marxism the only
truly important force in history is the need of man to satisfy his material
needs.” Man is not only the center of all things but the measure of all things.
Man knows
that if he is to succeed in building a system in which there is no need of God,
it must be egalitarian. The common good must be equally distributed among the
common man. Otherwise there will be comparison, envy and war. The inequalities
of life must be explained in terms of Providence, or they will become the focus
of man’s concern. Remove Providence, and Maxism becomes the logical solution to
his concern.
Marxism
is the penultimate expression of corporate rebellion. It is the establishment
of a system in which there is no need of God. Genesis 11:1-9 records the
building of the Tower of Babel. In verses 6-7 the Lord gives his rationale for
scattering the people with a variety of languages:
“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have
all one language; and this they begin to do:
and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined
to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may
not understand one another’s speech.”
Marxism
is the Tower of Babel all over again. It is man’s endeavor to build a systems
in which there is no need for God. In His grace, God will never allow man to
build a system in which there is no need for Him.
Donald
Grey Barnhouse in his book, The Invisible War, suggests that Satan’s
objective in the world is to create a society that has no need of God. War and
chaos are not objectives in Satan’ s agenda but rather the product of man’s
inability to govern his own affairs. When President Reagan called Russia “an
evil empire,” from this perspective of Labkowicz and Barnhouse, he was right.
It is evil because it calls upon man to view himself as the center of history, and
truth is defined as whatever will aid man in his quest to master his own fate.
“Whether a claim, a theory, or a philosophy contributes to man’s mastery over
the universe and to his emancipation from his dire past, it is true; if it does
not contribute to it, it is false no matter how empirical, scientific or lofty
it may be” (Labkowicz).
A
recent issue of Time magazine, acknowledging the contribution of St. Augustine
in celebration of his 1600th birthday, takes notice of the fact that he probably
more profoundly influenced the church than any other person since the Apostle
Paul. When Augustine set forth the thesis that the program of God is to be
defined in institutional terms and accomplished through institutional means, he
shifted the direction the church had gone for the first 450 years of its
existence. Not only did the church embrace his notion of the program of God, it
defined the mission of the church in terms of institutional goals and allowed
institutional Christianity to set the agenda for the people of God.
For
example, in 1095 Pope Urban II launched the “People’s Crusade” against the
“enemies of Christianity,” recruiting Christians to do the “work of God.” Each
generation since Augustine has seen institutional Christianity define the
ministry in terms of institutional goals.
The
Augustinian model is an institutional model. Institutions are perceived by man
as the way to order and regulate society. The Apostle Paul reminds us that the
institutions of government are brought into existence for the purpose of
maintaining law and order. “There is no power but of God: the powers that be
are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1). Man’s desire to create institutions,
control them and evaluate his sense of worth on the basis of his success, however,
is merely a microcosm of the problem that Lobkowicz calls to our attention with
Marxism. It is the Tower of Babel repeated in that it is man’s endeavor to
build a system in which there is no need for God. Even with Christian
institutions, more often than not, man wants to create them, have God bless
them and then assure man that His work would be incomplete without them.
The
tendency of man is to seek solutions to the problems of society through
institutional means. For example, a prominent evangelical leader was quoted in Christianity
Today (December 13, 1985). - linked political activity to revival,
asserting that the only way to have a genuine spiritual revival is to have
legislative reform. He explained that permissive laws allowing the widespread
distribution of pornographic materials are among the reasons revival is
impossible. ‘I think we have been legislated out of the possibility of a
spiritual revival,’ he said.”
Institutions defined as “a
group of people united for some purpose with a mastership, set of regulations
and body of officers” are temporal and will eventually disappear. The ministry,
on the other hand, is eternal. It is participating with God in what He is
doing. Jesus cautioned,
“Labor not for the things that perish” (John 6:27) and
again said, “My kingdom is not of this world”
(John 13:36).
An
institution can establish eternal goals, but goals that are designed to build,
improve or alter the institution are temporal and therefore not the ministry. A
person may feel led to participate in then, but only to the degree that they
have as their aim the Great Commission as the ministry.
By
way of review, then, the ministry is leading people to Christ and helping them
to mature in the faith (Matthew 28:18—20). Building houses, practicing
medicine, or any vocation is ministry only to the degree that it has as its
focus Matthew 28:18—20.
Rejoicing,
This is the final issue in the series: Who Defines the Ministry?
There are two opposing views regarding
the mission of the church; what may be called the majority opinion and the
minority. It has to do with the command in Genesis 1:28 to ‘subdue it (the
earth): and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Most of the church considers this
command, given before the Fall, to still be in force. It is argued that it has
never been repealed and forms the basis for what the church is about. Labeled
as the “Cultural Mandate” or the “Dominion Covenant,” the task of the church is
to restore a fallen world to a pre—fallen state.
Thus, this
becomes the basis for defining the ministry. Those who embrace this view argue
that all the created order is to be brought under the Lordship of Christ. The product
of our work has value in that it contributes to gaining dominion over the earth
to the glory of God. The conscientious believer is to be actively involved in a
wide range of social issues simply because it is part of the mission of the
church.
The issues
on the “liberal” agenda include such things as economic restitution (note the
recent U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops Pastoral letter), one world government,
world peace through nuclear disarmament, and management of the environment. The
“conservative” agenda includes anti-abortion, pornography, school prayer and
born-again politicians. Note, however, that both have embraced as the mission
of the church the restoring of a fallen world to a pre-fallen state.
The
minority view, of which I am a part, believes that the Cultural Mandate of
Genesis 1:28 was never repeated in the Bible and is not in effect today. God
will establish His kingdom and restore this broken world at His Second Coming.
Meanwhile, the church is commissioned with the task of preaching the Gospel to
every creature, discipling the nations, teaching them to do all Jesus commanded
(Matthew 28:18-20).
This
minority view does not argue for the exclusion of the believers from social
concerns. Rather, it argues that such concerns are not the mission of the
church.
I believe
the reason the ‘majority” perception of the ‘church’s mission is so attractive
is:
1. It provides a short cut to the preaching of
the Gospel. Prior to the time of the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century,
Christianity was a minority religion struggling for its existence. Ministry was
viewed as changing the individual rather than institutions. With the Edict of
Milan in 320 A.D. Constantine embraced Christianity as the religion of the
empire. One hundred years later Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, saw the
Christianizing of society as the path to individual salvation. He argued that
if we could produce the “city of God” on earth, it would be far easier to
convert the individual citizens of that city. This was the appeal of Calvin’s
Geneva and the marriage of church and state.
2.
It gives man and his work significance. Because we are building Christ’s
kingdom, all we do has value. The bolt produced in the factory is an important
contribution, as is the vocation of every person. Man feels that what he is
doing here and now on earth is truly important, and he is significant because
of the part he plays.
3.
It adds to man’s feeling of security. Man is rarely less secure than
when he cannot measure and control . If the task of the church is eternal
without the temporal dimension of changing society, the believer is forced to
trust God for the outcome. The eternal cannot be measured and controlled.
4.
It promises a trouble-free environment. All of us long for a community
where it is safe to walk the streets at night and we can leave our homes
unlocked without fear of being robbed; where morality reigns and people live in
peace. It is the picture of a mid-American town at the turn of the century
depicted in a Walt Disney movie.
By any man’s standard of evaluation,
the human situation is bleak. Homo sapiens have simply been unable to put their
act together. History is an illustration of man’s inability to solve his own
problems and, if anything, things are getting worse. Man’s inhumanity to man is
staggering even to the most calloused conscience.
Hitler exterminated six million Jews
and Stalin and Mao 20 million more people each. Americans abort 1.5 million
babies a year, arguing with one breath that a wiggling, little fetus isn’t
really alive unless the mother gives birth while denying the existence of any
kind of life but physical with the other breath.
The only hope for this depraved
human race is the blood of Christ. Only His return will make things right.
Some argue that it isn’t either-or.
Rather, it should be both the Gospel and social issues. The problem is, it
doesn’t work that way. As noted in an earlier issue, even those historians who
hold to the “majority” view concede that when the church embraces as its
mission the city of God on earth, it does so at the expense of the Great
Commission.
To
develop a society at peace, free from hunger and injustice, would not be at
odds with the objectives of Satan. As Donald Gray Barnhouse so eloquently
argued, such a goal is consistent with the goals of Satan. Even those
communities that have been able to model themselves in a theocratic fashion
lose their spiritual edge. Show me a city in which the church has been able to
super-impose its will on the citizens, and I will show you a city whose church
members have lost their spiritual vitality and their sense of urgency in
fulfilling the Great Commission. The horror of hell is dulled. It is the blackness
of the human situation that sharpens the eternal focus and gives urgency to the
Gospel message.
It is
not uncommon to hear people say, “If the church were doing its job, there would
he no need for the “para-church agencies.’ There is a measure of truth in this.
It is when the main line denominations perceive their mission as restoring a
fallen world to a pre-fallen state that conscientious believers begin looking
elsewhere for ministry. The strength of organizations such as Wycliffe, Young
Life, the Navigators and Campus Crusade is in the fact that they came into
existence embracing the “minority” view of the believer’s task.
Still
the Cultural Mandate remains attractive. With evil spreading like a prairie
fire unchecked, legislating a solution looks appealing. For the believer to
become involved in social issues is well and good. To embrace these issues as
the mission of the church is a ploy of the devil. As we move into a new year,
let us resolve to give ourselves to the task of world evangelism, understanding
that until our Lord’s return the ills of mankind will never be corrected.
Maranatha— -