E-Talkin' About Social Restoration
Jonathan and I have been having an email conversation about something that’s become a hot topic these days—the church and its mission of social restoration (and the question of whether there is such a mission in the first place). Looking back over the string of emails, we thought it might be something that could spur conversation on a wider scale.
Actually, I think the following emails raise questions more than they answer any, but maybe it will be helpful to you in your thinking, anyway. Without further adieu, here is (more or less) what we wrote:
Jonathan: Let me also suggest reading j.d. greear's post at resurgence. jd is a popular pastor among conservative missional types. we've had him contribute to a forum a couple of times. it’s helpful.
Greg: Interesting.
Do you agree with him? It sounds pretty good, but where would you find NT
support for the whole idea of community ministry?
Jonathan: i think i agree with him most of the way. i like his point that we’re not
building the kingdom here on earth (blind eyes will go blind again, he says),
but we are presenting a “sign of it.” i think that’s very good.
i think we’re trying to emphasize the same thing at 9marks, except we use the
word “display” instead of the more missional sounding word “sign.” plus, we
tend to emphasize the internal attributes of the church like holiness and the
love members show for each other (e.g. John 13:34-35). but i like the missional
emphasis on being a “sign” through service. when i look at the "when
pagans see your good deeds and give praise to God" in Matt 5 and 1 Peter
2, i assume that it's talking about love and care for the outsider as well,
right?
i would want to be careful about greear’s emphases, however. where he says,
"we don't serve to convert, we serve because we are converted" i'd
want to say "we serve to convert AND we serve because we're converted."
if some of these guys downplay the first half and up play the second half, i
wonder if us more traditionals do just the opposite (wrongly downplay the
second half). i think we have to nail both, but do so while stating more
clearly than some missional writers do that the biggest problem people have is God’s wrath—not any form of
brokenness in this world. it seems the Bible calls our attn to the brokenness of this world not just so that we would set our minds on fixing it, but to say "yes, there is an inescapable futility to this world (eccles)" and to warn us of death and wrath. i know greear agrees with all that,
i’d just want to make sure it gets emphasized.
finally, i’d take slight issue with
the single word “need” in his penultimate sentence, “we know that in order to
preach the Gospel effectively to them we need to give them signs of the Kingdom
we preach.” the bible doesn’t say we need
signs—though they are certainly helpful. it says we need the word (rom. 10:14-17). this may seem like a small point,
but as soon as guys start saying we need signs, they’ll be tempted to put more
emphasis here than on their preaching.
Greg: I
agree with all that.
But on the other question---It seems to me there’s a good deal about
social restoration in the OT and Jesus. But does anything come to mind from the Epistles that shows a concern
for social work by the church? Or even by believers as individuals?
(On your point
aobut Peter, even that seems really “defensive” to me, rather than “offensive,”
especially when you compare it to Jesus’ words. It’s just “keep your actions honorable among them,” not “go out and
restore them.” Not exactly a stirring “city
on a hill” theme there.)
Anyway, is community minisry even on the apostles' minds . . . I mean, at all?
one place where it does show up is the theme of hospitality (love for
stranger). see my article on 9marks site on the subject. hospitality is
considered a prerequisite for Christians leaders (male and female; 1 tim 3 and
4), a basic of the Christian life (Rom 12), and an activity we're all to engage
in as the end approaches (1 Pet 4). and when you consider the theology behind
this, you see why it's so important. again, i try to trace this in my biblical
theology of hosp on the 9marks website.
you got any other ideas?
Greg: I
haven't seen your article on hospitality. Do you not think that's
hospitality for other, perhaps traveling, believers?
And no, not much else comes to mind. There’s Gal 6.10 saying “do
good to all men” but that’s sort of an afterthought it seems to me---“especially
to those in the faith,” it adds. At the
very least, there’s no big theology of the kingdom there. Beyond that……..
That's fascinating, because I think there are a lot more candidates for that sort of thing in Jesus' words, and certainly in the OT. Why didn't that emphasis carry over after Pentecost?
Jonathan: I don't know why you would limit
hospitality to traveling believers. Certainly, that's the emphasis of John's
epistles; but if you look at the context (both the sentence before and after)
of the command to "Practice hospitality" in Romans 12:13, I think
there's probably a "both/and." Same with Heb. 10:34, which may not
be referring to the confiscation of property received at the hands of
non-Christians to whom they were showing hospitality, but could be. I've always
assumed it was.
Admittedly, the evidence isn't strong, and I wouldn't push any of these very
hard. I'm simply saying they're worth noticing.
Bottom line (did I already say this?): I believe a Holy Spirit indwellt heart can't
help but care for the poor, broken, and down-trodden (Christian or not)
because that's what God is like. Why did Jesus heal? To give us a picture of
salvation? Sure, but I'm also of the opinion that when the all-compassionate
God-man walked around his creation he couldn't help but care for the
downtrodden, as a function of his character. It was an outworking of who he is.
This is what I think we Reformed guys can miss because we're so adamant about
getting the doctrine right; we fail to recognize that our hearts are not yet
reflecting the compassion of our savior's heart. That's me, at least.
Greg: Yea, I agree with you about Romans.
I don't see hospitality in Heb 10:34 (??—it’s just breaking and entering isn’t
it?) but it's in 13:2, and could certainly be talking about people who aren't
Christians.
I also agree with you, I think, about Jesus. Though feeding the poor,
etc. doesn't seem, as I think back on the Gospels, as much an emphasis of his
ministry as I even might have expected. He just doesn't go around doing
unmiraculous things to help the poor and downtrodden, does he? It's all
miraculous, and it's all about his own identity. Do we ever see Jesus'
emotions engaged by physical poverty? But even so, I'm not disagreeing
with you.
What I find more than passing strange is that apart from three or four
references to "xenophilia," which (you have to admit) allow some
doubt as to what exactly is being talked about, and two or three other
references to “doing good to everyone” there's just no emphasis in the epistles
on social restoration. Even if you grant
them all----you’ve still got only about seven or eight really isolated verses that even hint at a social restoration
ministry. (For that matter, the only
time in the Bible where someone asks for alms, Peter tells him no!)
What a strange omission! And telling? If so, telling of what?
(Hey, maybe we should cut and paste this series of emails onto the blog, one after the other.)
Jonathan: You're right to emphasize the principal
point of Jesus' miracles, i.e. establishing his identity. I think we're
entirely on the same page. Shocking.
Do you think we should post this? I guess I would start by posting Greear's
post, to which you respond? I don't know. What do you think?
Greg: I think it's an interesting
conversation---I'd like to hear the comments on it.
How 'bout - Acts 2:45,47, 4:35, Romans 12:7-8 (serving, contributing, acts of mercy), giving to the relief of the saints (1 Cor.16:1, 2 Cor.8:4), 2 Cor.9:9, alms to the poor in Gal.2:10, giving to anyone in need in Eph.4:28, exhortations to the rich in 1 Tim.6:18-19, exhortations to good works in Tit.2:14, 3:8 and especially 3:14, the call to share with others in Heb.13:16, the call to the work of faith in James 2:15-16 and 1 John 3:17.
Is this a case where the need for mercy ministry was so assumed as to be implicit in all the epistles?
Posted by: Matt Foreman | Feb 28, 2008 12:02:38 PM
Man, their are alot of speeling mistaks with in you're e-mailling converstation.
Posted by: TW | Feb 28, 2008 12:53:51 PM
It seems to me that most, if not all, of the verses listed above by Matt are addressed to contributing to the needs of the saints, not to social restoration.
Just to add my questions to the topic: What is the duty of individual Christians as opposed to the duty of the church? Are they different?
Jonathan, thank you for your transparency when you say: "I believe a Holy Spirit indwelt heart can't help but care for the poor, broken, and down-trodden (Christian or not) because that's what God is like. Why did Jesus heal? To give us a picture of salvation? Sure, but I'm also of the opinion that when the all-compassionate God-man walked around his creation he couldn't help but care for the downtrodden, as a function of his character. It was an outworking of who he is. This is what I think we Reformed guys can miss because we're so adamant about getting the doctrine right; we fail to recognize that our hearts are not yet reflecting the compassion of our savior's heart. That's me, at least."
That's me too! My heart is so very deceitful!
Thank you guys for posting your thoughts! Jonathan, do you need a keyboard with a shift key?
Posted by: Blake | Feb 28, 2008 1:30:28 PM
While "most" address the needs of the saints, they don't "all." Furthermore, in several, the object of the mercy is "in general."
I wouldn't go so far as to say social restoration is in the NT purview. However, compassion and ministry to the poor seems to me to be implicit everywhere.
Posted by: Matt Foreman | Feb 28, 2008 1:55:13 PM
It's problematic to make community ministry connections between the first century church and the twenty-first century church. In the former, being a Christian was a death sentence - whether the leaders were Jewish or Roman (Caesar is lord). There weren't many "community" things that could be done except one-on-one or marketplace evangelism. I don't believe that a first century believer would do anything community-oriented while hiding his Christian faith (in contrast to "some" 21st century believers).
In the latter, Christianity is legal; therefore different opportunities present themselves. Community restoration is a laudable goal but secondary to a biblically faithful gospel. But let's not forget that one can lead to the other.
Posted by: Brian | Feb 28, 2008 5:08:38 PM
Brothers,
Very interesting discussion, so thanks for letting us in on it! I have two thoughts:
1) In one sense, it does make sense that social restoration wasn't explicity discussed or commanded in the NT because 1st Century Christians were either a) too small in number to forsee the whole society changing or b) just trying to not be persecuted / killed by the powers that were. Now that Christians exert significant influence in communities, cities and nations, loving all the people by seeking the good of a society as a whole is a real possiblity.
2) I think, although I'm not really sure, that folks who make this "social restoration" argument make it from big biblical themes, not necessarily explicit verses: a) Adam is given dominion over the earth in Eden and since we have been united with the faithful Second Adam we are love, till, and improve the earth (and thus society) according to this mandate, b) the present Kingdom, in the church, is to "display" (as Jonathan says) the to-be-innagurated Kingdom of the New Heavens and New Earth now and show society what Christ's influence can do to a people, and c) similar to b - amillinial eschatology suggests that we may experience current realities and blessings in the final state so our efforts in art, technology, and other forms of societal restoration may in fact be aspects of life under Christ's immediate reign.
that's my understanding of it, but this could be quite off-base.
Posted by: Ben Woodward | Feb 28, 2008 5:21:27 PM
What's wrong with a believer in Christ who is socially active and displaying the love of God in every realm of their life? Nothing.
What's wrong with a believer in Christ who is not socially active and not displaying the mercies of God in every realm of their life? Everything.
Posted by: -9 Marks | Feb 29, 2008 8:34:03 AM
I don't disagree with anyone who says that caring for the poor or downtrodden is something Christians should do through the ordinary course of their life (does anyone disagree with that?).
Here's where I'm trying to work through the idea of community ministry:
Some want to emphasize community ministry by the local church.
Community ministry by the local church is not emphasized in the Bible (though it may be allowed).
So, why make the case that it needs to be emphasized?
Moreover, some of the arguments trouble me a little, like the argument from 1st century context. Doesn't that undermine the sufficiency of Scripture? (That's not an accusation; just a question, and one that would like an answer.)
The biggest problem with the argument is that it attempts to guilt trip church leaders into doing community ministry (of course, not everyone does that, but maybe you do if you're miffed that I said that), and it's an argument-ender since not many people want to come out and say, "We (our local church) don't emphasize ministry to the poor because we have to prioritize other things (and no, I don't mean our building program)."
Why can't we simply give advice to those churches who think it is wise for them to do community ministry and allow churches that don't think it's wise to do community ministry to be different (I think some people call that contextualization)?
Andy Chance
Posted by: Andy Wayne | Feb 29, 2008 10:22:36 AM
I believe that there is more than a mere implication from the statements in Acts that the church in Jerusalem had favor with all people (Acts 2:47) and was held in high esteem (5:13). Luke's purpose in including those summary statements was to demonstrate the commendable community of believers. Why did the community of believers have a good reputation? Within the context of the summary statements, it would have to be a reflection of their involvement with people in the city and surrounding regions (i. e., community ministry).
If the command to love God and love neighbor is for believers and for the church (Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:25), and if neighbor is stranger in the community (Luke 10:25-37), then the command to love neighbor involves community ministry for the church and indvidual.
Just some thoughts.
Eric
Posted by: eric thomas | Feb 29, 2008 10:53:57 AM
Some observations-
Community development is typically a concern of urban churches, as they are forced to deal with it everyday.
In suburban areas, it's much more difficult to implement the same type of ministry.
Most of this comes down to churches and their ability or inability to work with other churches in this area, and churches in suburban areas providing opportunities to for people to see this type of ministry in an urban context.
There are multiple problems in this issue, but most stem from people's background being pushed into their theology. You can have theology, and be a great student of the Bible, but you need experience to apply it. Only Theology + Experience is a true application of the Christian life in the world. Most young people simply have the theology, and literally no experience... this is observed all over the United States, and heavily in reformed settings...
Posted by: Claude | Feb 29, 2008 12:01:11 PM
Not to state the obvious, but might it be that some things that the OT and Jesus clearly taught are not heavily repeated in the epistles because they would be assumed by the early churches.
Did Paul not say in Galatians 2:10 that the apostles asked him to "remember the poor" - something he was eager to do. Now I know that some may see this as a duty only to Christians...but I find it hard to see as in Galatians one of those verses being minimized above is Gal 6:10.
Tim Keller's book "Ministries of Mercy" or his talk "Doing Justice" (also available on The Resurgence) are helpful.
I am a bit baffled that this is even a debate. I find it crystal clear that we are to love our neighbors...and it is clear that this would include non believers from Jesus own parable. Why would we not want to minister holistically to our neighbors? The church needs both hands - that of works (Matt 5:16) and proclamation of the good news. What God has joined, let us not separate.
Posted by: Reid | Mar 3, 2008 12:40:40 AM
A very interesting discussion!
Jonathan . . . I read your "A meal says ..." article recently because our church is seeking to renew our focus on how we welcome guests who visit our church. The "marketing" approach encouraged in some of the church growth materials overlook the foundational importance of obedience to the Lord in our attitude/approach to visitors, instead of a pragmatic (dare I say selfish?) desire to grow the church numerically or financially as we assimilate people into our congregations. That all by itself is an interesting aspect of the hospitality issue, from my perspective.
This may be an odd way to approach this, but . . . I have an idea for our church that might include an "outside expert" coming in to teach on the Biblical foundations of hospitality. I hope there is no offense in approaching the issue with you like this, but if you are willing to discuss this possibility, could you contact me at ppastorppaul@hotmail.com?
Thanks!
Paul VanGulick
Blue Ridge Bible Church
Kansas City, Missouri
Posted by: Paul VanGulick | Mar 24, 2008 12:44:16 PM