In the twentieth century the evangelical church neglected the area of social ministry. Because of a desire to avoid theological liberalism and the social gospel, because of the prevalent Premillenial eschatology, and because of the growing dominance of the government in this area, the church by and large abdicated its responsibilities toward the poor and the needy.
According to Robert Lewis, Pastor of Fellowship Bible Church of Little Rock, two evangelical church models sprang up during the time of the latter half of the twentieth century. The first type of church he calls a “need-meeting church.” This church is focused on meeting the needs of its members, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. The problem is that this focus of the church can lead to an unhealthy fixation on itself. It, the church is all the matters. In this situation a toxic self-absorption can easily develop where there church exists solely to meet the needs of its own members. There is no thought of having a spiritual impact “beyond the borders of the church property”. This type of church has a social club feel to it where all the programs and activities are designed to meet its own self-serving needs (Lewis & Wilkins, 2001, 57).
The second type of church Pastor Lewis describes is the “success mentality” church. He writes:
Seeking conformity to a culture dominated by commerce, the “success” mentality is simple: the bigger, the better, size matters. Numbers count. More is what is always needed: more people, more facilities, more staff, more money. It is a mostly polite game of Christian Darwinism: the survival of the fittest, or the church with the greatest attendance. The goal is to be in the elite class known as the “biggest church in the city” or “Top10 in the denomination” or “megachurch.” Such churches often spend increasing amounts of money and energy putting on elaborate events to draw more people in. While correctly pointing out that churches, when healthy, should be dynamically growing, pride often infuses the “success” church with a twisted irony: the church might be recognized nationally, but it often remains a stranger to its very own community (Lewis & Wilkins, 2001, 58-59).
How sad it is for a church, to be so focused on itself, that it has no time to focus on the community in which it lives.
Making a change. The problem is how we think about social responsibility in the church. In most churches social responsibility is far down the list of priorities, if it is on the list at all. What we need is a major change in the way we think. We also need to see that there is no contradiction between evangelism and social responsibility. John Stott writes:
It is exceedingly strange that any followers of Jesus Christ should ever have needed to ask whether social involvement was their concern, and that controversy should have blown up over the relationships between evangelism and social responsibility. For it is evident that in his public ministry, Jesus both “went about teaching…and preaching” (Matthew 4:23; 9:35 RSV) and “went about doing good and healing” (Acts 10:38 RSV). In consequence, evangelism and social concern have been intimately related to one another throughout the history of the church. (Stott, 1999, 17)
In order for us to recognize this connection between evangelism and social responsibility we need to change the popular consciousness that exists in most evangelical churches. Robert Kysar writes:
The pervasive consciousness of most contemporary American Christians is one that generally makes it difficult for them to comprehend and respond to a call for social justice. For instance, an absence of a consciousness of social solidarity renders impotent the call for action on poverty. Because we do not have a strong sense of the interdependence of human life in our society, it is difficult for us to understand the importance of affecting significant change in the social, political, and economic condition of others. A presupposition…is that one of the reasons our ministries to social needs are weakened is that we have not examined and altered the fundamental consciousness of our society and more specifically of our congregations. (Kysar, 1991, 100-101)
Kysar goes on to suggest a number of ways in which we can transform the cultural consciousness in the American church. The first and most important feature of this transformation is a move from only a spiritual emphasis to a holistic emphasis. By this he means that we are too “captivated by the spiritual, internal life if the individual to the point that the whole life [holistic] situation of people is deemphasized” (Kysar, 1991, 103). He expands on this idea when he discusses how the church has implied that a person’s private relationship to God is all that matters and that the salvation of the soul without regard for the condition of the rest of a person is most important.
The spiritualization of the biblical message in large part has allowed Christians to hold and sustain this view. The spiritual consciousness has altered the way in which the biblical message is heard and the way the gospel is experienced so as to authenticate the spiritualism. Christian spiritualism becomes therefore an incentive to ignore the social, political, economic conditions of people and to focus exclusively on their spiritual welfare. Seldom does one hear the church overtly endorse such a view as “let them starve but save their souls.” But in more subtle ways the idolizing of the spiritual diminishes our commitment to ministry to society (Kysar, 1991, 103).
Most evangelical pastors will read Kysar’s words and assume it is a call to revert back to the theological liberalism that their forefathers fought so hard against. They will assume that it is a call to renew the social gospel. However, this does not have to be the case. A holistic approach to church ministry and evangelism can and should coexist. Kenneth C. Haugk states that “holistic caring is always evangelistic” (Haugk, 1984, 136). He defines caring evangelism as living Jesus Christ in an imperfect world. He says that what we say and what we do should never be separated and that together they constitute a “dynamic whole the Holy Spirit can use to transform the attitudes and beliefs of people, helping them to be made whole themselves” (Haugk, 137). He makes the final point that “good evangelism and good caring are inseparable; each embodies the other. Evangelism shows forth a love for people, and a love for people shows forth the good news of Jesus Christ” (Haugk, 1984, 137).
What then is the responsibility of the local church? Dr Kenneth Scott once wrote that “an excellent way to size up a religion is to look at its response toward human suffering and need” (Beals, 1978, 195). Art Beals builds on Dr. Scott’s quote by comparing the different religion’s responses toward suffering and need. The Buddhist says about suffering and need, “Forget it. These problems exist only in your mind. Pay no attention to them”. The Muslim says about suffering and need, “It is Allah’s will. Suffering is inevitable. Don’t resist it.” The Hindu says, “You deserve it. It’s what’s coming to you. You should try harder in the next reincarnation.” The Christian’s response though should be much different. The Christian says, “God loves you and I do, too. Let me do what I can to help you.” And the Christian will do this with the words of Jesus in mind, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for me” (Matthew 25:40) (Beals, 195). Beals writes:
As caring Christian communities, we have a very special responsibility to serve others. Paul tells the Christians scattered throughout Galatia
So then, the church needs to change the way it thinks, it needs a change in its consciousness. The church needs to begin to look at its call to evangelize from a holistic or "wholistic" perspective. The church needs to see that evangelism involves caring for the whole person, soul and body.
Beyond the local church, what role should the corporate Christian community play in meeting the needs of the poor? We will look at that question next time.
Talk to you later,
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment