Who's responsible?
I wasn't really invited to this post, and I haven't even read all the entries, but I was struck by Mike's question, "So, what's the responsibility of the church?"
As far as I can tell, the church, as church, is never given the responsibility to engage in direct social action. Rather, the church is responsible to preach the gospel and disciple it's members, teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded.
But of course, part of the "everything" is to "love your neighbor as yourself." So our preaching and discpling should make clear the real implications of the gospel on the lives of individual Christians, including implications for how we should engage the society in which we live, as an expression of Christian love. But that's a far cry from saying the church is responsible to reform culture.
It seems to me that two theological concepts are crucial here. One is "sphere sovereignty" and the other is the "kingdom of God."
I was reminded of "sphere sovereignty" recently by the pastor of a large paedobaptist church in a city roughly four hours north of here. I'd first run across it reading Kuyper, and this pastor used it to explain his church's approach to issues of social action/ social justice. He understood that it was not the church's responsibilty to run schools or orphanages or art galleries. Indeed, he went so far as to say it would be wrong of the church to do so, an encroachment on the responsibility given to others and an abandonment of her own responsibility. Rather the church should be discipling her members so that they would go out and do such things to the glory of God and the good of their communities.
On the other hand, as George Eldon Ladd reminded us all some time ago, the "kingdom of God" is not a "realm" but a "reign." The church, as church, gives witness to the kingdom by proclaiming the King and teaching the citizens of that kingdom to obey the words of the King. As a community, the church displays the eschatological reality that the New Age has dawned and heaven has broken in on earthly reality. She is literally so many colonies of heaven. But the church isn't the kingdom! And this side of glory, society at large will never be a colony of heaven. The kingdom of God is bigger than the church, but never co-extensive with society. Rather, it is seen wherever God's saving reign is displayed in and through the lives of believers.
It seems to me, anyway, that Reformed evangelicals' talk about social engagment is largely motivated by the correct sense that the Kingdom of God should be felt and seen wherever Christians are: in the workplace, at school, in the neighborhood, etc. But being creatures of modernity, we immediately think in terms of programs and strucutres, which leads us to the church, and wondering why the "organization" we're a part of isn't more engaged. The initial impulse is correct, but where it leads us is confused. It's not the church's responsibility to address the problem of homelessness in society at large (though it better make sure that it's own members aren't homeless!) It's Christians' responsibility, as servants of the King, individually and together, to address that issue, as we seek to display the saving reign of God in every sphere of life.
A related theological concept that I just realized I was assuming, but should make explicit: Responsibility isn't (necessarily) transitive. This is really just an extension of sphere sovereignty. We all understand this when it comes to our families. I'm a member of my family. I'm also a member of the CHBC pastoral staff. Most days I come home from work not having accomplished everything I should have. My wife is grateful that the church doesn't think the family is somehow repsonsible for making up my incomplete work. It's the same with the church. My discipleship as a Christian is given shape by the church, but it's not exhausted by it. I bear responsbilities as a Christian that the local church does not. And equally important, just because I'm resonsible for something doesn't make the church responsible too.



TML,
I was wondering what it was going to take to bait you onto the blog. My next post was going to be called "Thomas Goodwin Loved Social Action". I didn't read your post, but I assume you agreed with everything I said.
Posted by: Mike McKinley | Mar 4, 2008 5:21:29 PM
This was clear and helpful; it answers the question that hasn't been answered yet: what is the church as a collective body supposed to do when it comes to social action.
Thanks.
Andy Chance
Posted by: Andy Wayne | Mar 4, 2008 5:53:39 PM
And this is just the beginning. When do we get to talk about baseball? How about those World Champions?
Posted by: TML | Mar 4, 2008 9:52:21 PM
I don't have any answers here, but would be eager to have some interaction on this. I'm not convinced by the individual responsibility vs. church responsibility delineation. It seems to leave us with these options for, say, working with the homeless:
1. Involvement purely as an individual, no partnership whatsoever beyond one's own household
2. Involvement as a Christian individual within a secular organization
3. Involvement as a Christian with other Christians, though outside a church (i.e., parachurch)
Why not have Christians working together on these issues, and if they are from the same congregation, why wouldn't they welcome the oversight of the elders?
Furthermore, I don't understand how you conclude that evangelism is a responsibility of the church and that caring for the needs of others is not. What about the Great Commission makes it corporate? Should we only evangelize corporately? Is it not also an individual responsibility?
Also, when we say that the church has a responsibility in a particular area, but that I have individual responsibility for something else, then it seems that we are separating the identity of the church from the believer. In other words, the church is the leadership (ministry professionals) and programs, and this entity does things for believers, rather than the church as the community of believers.
I don't have a problem saying that mercy ministry should not be a focus of the pastors/elders, but I can't say it should not be at least a part of the spectrum of ministy of the church (local body of believers).
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | Mar 4, 2008 11:09:18 PM
This is a statement that called my attention:
“And equally important, just because I'm responsible for something doesn't make the church responsible too.”
I agree, but it seems that the other way around also seems to be true: "Just because I am responsible for something that doesn't exclude the responsibility of the Church."
I understand that I am responsible to use my gifts and abilities in a unique way that is not the same corporately. However, some other responsibilities have both individual and corporate realms.
So, maybe we could include in the discussion the issue of what we should include in this “both” category and what we should not include.
It also seems that the practice could be the same, but the motivation totally different. I like the idea of Christians getting together for "social work" because they are finding an effective way to exercise their individual responsibility (like a body). Externally, this could look like any social work, but it is not. It is God's people manifesting some characteristics of the Kingdom, which is not a realm, but actually kingdom... but it is "already, but not yet!:
Posted by: Alexandre Mendes | Mar 12, 2008 10:57:51 AM